MANOJ YADAV Vs PUSHPA @ KIRAN YADAV
Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU,GYAN SUDHA MISRA, , ,
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000107-000107 / 2011
Diary number: 21439 / 2009
Advocates: Vs
NIKILESH RAMACHANDRAN
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: