REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.    107        OF 2011 (arising out of S.L.P. (Crl) No(s).6568  of 2009)

MANOJ YADAV                                    Appellant(s)

                VERSUS

PUSHPA @ KIRAN YADAV & ORS.                    Respondent(s)

O  R  D  E  R

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

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.

Leave granted.

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  under  Section  125  Cr.P.C.   to  

respondent No. 1.  Respondent No. 1 by means of her criminal  

revision applied for enhancement of the maintenance.

:1:

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.

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 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 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 counsel for  

the appellant.

Moreover, we are of the opinion that after the  

amendment to Section 125 Cr.P.C., 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 Cr.P.C. by which  

a ceiling has been fixed to the amount of maintenance to be  

awarded to the wife have become invalid.

:2:

For the reasons given above, there is no merit in  

the Appeal and it is dismissed accordingly.

.......................J.  (MARKANDEY KATJU)

.......................J.          (GYAN SUDHA MISRA) NEW DELHI; JANUARY 11, 2011.

:3: