Manoj Yadav vs Pushpa @ Kiran Yadav

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: