CourtKutchehry.com
Supreme CourtDivision Bench

Manoj Yadav vs Pushpa @ Kiran Yadav and Others

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 11 January 2011 · Citation: (2011) 2 ACR 1681 : AIR 2011 SC 847 : (2011) AIRSCW 304 : (2011) 1 CG.L.R.W. 402 : (2011) 1 CTC 511 : (2011) 1 DMC 209 : (2011) 1 JCC 471 : (2011) 1 JT 164 : (2011) 1 KLJ 30 : (2011) 1 RCR(Civil) 803 : (2011) 1 RCR(Criminal) 513 : (2011) 1 SCALE 287 : (20

HON’BLE JUDGES
Markandey Katju, J · Gyan Sudha Mishra, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 125
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 6568 of 2009)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 379 words
1.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2.

We also wish to express our appreciation of Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned Counsel, whom we had appointed as Amicus Curiae in the case, and she has been of great assistance to us.

3.

Leave granted.

4.

This Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior, dated 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 u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure to Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 by means of her criminal revision applied for enhancement of the maintenance.

5.

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 has been challenged before us.

6.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the amount which could be granted as maintenance u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure in the State of Madhya Pradesh could at most be Rs. 3,000/- in view of the amendment to Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure by Madhya Pradesh Act 10 of 1998. It appears that Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure 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 be granted u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure and it is left to the discretion of the magistrate. Hence, there is no substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant.

7.

Moreover, we are of the opinion that after the amendment to Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure, which is a Central Act, 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 Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure by which a ceiling has been fixed to the amount of maintenance to be awarded to the wife have become invalid.

8.

For the reasons given above, there is no merit in the Appeal and it is dismissed accordingly.