Manoj Yadav vs Pushpa @ Kiran Yadav
- SCC(2010) 15 SCC 289
- Neutral2010 INSC 802
- SCR[2010] 13 SCR 894
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A state legislation imposing a fixed ceiling on the quantum of maintenance awardable under Section 125 Cr.P.C., without regard to the financial capacity of the husband and the reasonable needs of the wife, is prima facie unconstitutional as it violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, being arbitrary and unconscionable. The object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. — to prevent vagrancy — requires that the amount awarded be meaningful in relation to the cost of living and the actual circumstances of the parties; a fixed statutory ceiling that may leave a spouse in conditions of practical vagrancy, despite the husband's substantial means, does not serve this purpose.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
The petitioner is the husband who is challenging an order under Section 125 Cr. P.C
awarding maintenance of Rs. 4000/- per month to the wife. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that by a State amendment in Madhya Pradesh to Section 125 Cr.P.C. the
maximum amount which can be awarded in Madhya Pradesh as Maintenance is Rs. 3,000/-.
Learned counsel for the respondent is granted two weeks time for filing an application
challenging the Constitutional validity of Madhya Pradesh Act 50 of 2004. by which the
maximum limit of Rs. 3000/- per month has been fixed for granting maintenance under Section
125 CrPC. Issue notice to the State of Madhya Pradesh returnable in four weeks.
We have been informed that the States of west Bengal, Tripura and Maharshtra have also
fixed a maxium limit of Rs. 1500/- as maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, by State Laws.
In our prima facie opinion such laws are unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and
21 of the Constitution.
Issue notice also to these three State Goverments. The Central Government who also
may file reply within four weeks.
Issue notice to the Central Government and Union of India. These Governments and
above mentioned State Goverments will be impleaded as respondents in this Case.
We request Ms. Kamini Jaiswal to assist this Court as amaicus curiea in this case.
We are issuing notices to these governments in this case because in our prima facie
opinion the above mentioned amendments are unconstitutional being violative of Article 14
and 21 of the Constitution because the husband may be earning a huge money and to award a
petty amount to the wife is wholly arbitrary and unconscionable in these days of inflation.
No doubt the object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to orevent vagrancy, but vagrancy is relative
word. For many women awarding them Rupees 1500/- per month, or even Rs. 3,000/- per
month may amount to keeping them in a condition of vagrancy.
List this case again on 11th January 2011. Copies of this Petition will be supplied by counsel
for the parties to the State Goverments mentioned in this order and also to the Central Government.
Office will supply copy of this petition and this order free of charges to Ms. Kamini Jaiswal
forthwith.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free