Supreme Court of India
MANOJ YADAV versus PUSHPA @ KIRAN YADAV & ORS. on 11 January 2011
A
B
c
E
F
G
[2011) 1 S.C.R. 644
MANOJ YADAV V. PUSHPA @ KIRAN YADAV & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 2001) JANUARY 11, 2011
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
--s.125 Maintenance to wife Enhanced by High Court --to Rs. 40001- per month ·Challenged Plea that State .amendment allowed maintenance upto Rs.30001- per month only - HELD: Section 125 has been further amended in Madhya Pradesh by a subsequent amendment of 2004 which does not contain any upper limit in the maintenance to be granted u/s 125 and it is left to the discretion of the Magistrate - Moreover, after the amendment to s. 125, by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2001 which deleted the words "not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole", all State amendments to s. 125 by which a ceiling has been fixed to the amount of maintenance to be awarded to the wife have become invalid.
CRIMINAL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 2011.
From the Judgment & Order dated 23.1.2009 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judicature at Jabalpur, bench at Gwalior in Criminal Revision No. 12 of 2008.
S.K. Dubey, Shail Kr. Dwivedi, AAG, Kamini Jaiswal, Jai Prakash Pandey, Shantanu Singh, Nikilesh Ramachandran, Alok Pandey, Gopal Singh, Rituraj Biswas, Sanjay V. Kharde, Asha Gopalan Nair, Kusumanjali Sharma, C.D. Milind Kumar, Manoj Kr. Dwivedi, Ashutosh Kr. Sharma, Gunnam ~
MANOJ YADAV v. PUSHPA @ KIRAN YADAV & ORS. 645
A
Venkateswara Rao, Aviral Shukla, Upendra Mishra for the appearing parties.
The following Order of the Court was delivered
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
..
B
Heard learned c;ounsel for the parties.
We also wish to express our appreciation of Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned t:ounsel, whom we had appointed as Amicus Curiae in the case, and she has been of great ::issistance to c us.
Leave granted.
This Appeal· has been filed against the impugned judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior, dated D 23.01.2009 passed in Criminal Revision No. 12/2008. That judgment was given in a criminal revision filed against the order dated 04.10.2007 of the learned Additional Family Court, Gwalior granting maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month under Section 125 Cr.P .C. to respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 by E means of her criminal revision applied for enhancement of the maintenance.
By the impugned judgment the High Court has granted a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month as maintenance with effect from 01.01 :2009 to the wife-respondent No.1 in this case. That order [F ]has been challenged before us.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the amount which could be granted as maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the State of Madhya Pradesh could at most be G ·Rs. 3,000/- in view of the amendment to Section 125 Cr.P.C. by Madhya Pradesh Act 10 of 1998. It appears that Section 125 Cr.P.c. has been further amended in Madhya Pradesh by a subsequent amendment by Madhya Pradesh Act 15 of 2004 which does not contain any upper limit in the maintenance to H
646 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011) 1 S.C.R.
, . be granted under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and it is left to the discretion of the magistrate. Hence, there is no substance in the submission of the learned counesl for the appellant.
Moreover, We are of the opinion that after the amendment B Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, to Section 125 CrF.C., which is a Central Act, by the Code 2001 . which deleted the of words "not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole", all State amendments to Section 125 Cr.P.C. by which a ceiling has be~n fixed to the amount of maintenance to be awarded to the wife have become invalid. c For the reasons given above, there is no merit· in the Appeal and it is dismissed acc0rdingly.
Appeal dismissed.
R.P.
~