Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High CourtDivision BenchAppeal dismissed.

MANOJ YADAV v. PUSHPA @ KIRAN YADAV & ORS.

Case / Petition Number:Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 2011
Neutral Citation:(2011) 1 S.C.R. 644

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court
Hon'ble Judges
  • Markandey Katju
  • Gyan Sudha Misra
Judgment Date
2011-01-11
Court Decision / Holding
Appeal dismissed. The High Court’s order granting maintenance of Rs. 4,000 per month with effect from 01-01-2009 is sustained.
Final Disposition
Appeal dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • MANOJ YADAV

Respondents

  • Pushpa @ KIRAN YADAV

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • S.K. Dubey
  • • Shail Kr. Dwivedi
  • • AAG
  • • Kamini Jaiswal
  • • Jai Prakash Pandey
  • • Shantanu Singh
  • • Nikilesh Ramachandran
  • • Alok Pandey
  • • Gopal Singh
  • • Rituraj Biswas
  • • Sanjay V. Kharde
  • • Asha Gopalan Nair
  • • Kusumanjali Sharma
  • • C.D. Milind Kumar
  • • Manoj Kr. Dwivedi
  • • Ashutosh Kr. Sharma
  • • Gunnam Venkateswara Rao
  • • Aviral Shukla
  • • Upendra Mishra

Case Synopsis & Summary

This appeal challenges a Madhya Pradesh High Court maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC. Respondent No.1 was granted Rs. 4,000 per month, effective 01 January 2009, by a 23 January 2009 order in Criminal Revision No. 12/2008, after a revision of an order granting Rs. 1,500 per month. The appellant contends that in Madhya Pradesh, Section 125 CrPC was amended by MP Act 10 of 1998 to fix a ceiling (Rs. 3,000 per month) and that subsequent amendments to s.125, including the 2001 Central CrPC Amendment Act, removed any upper limit or fixed ceiling. The High Court’s enhancement of maintenance is attacked on grounds that a ceiling exists under MP amendments and that the court should follow fixed amounts permissible by those state provisions. The Supreme Court, however, notes that the Central amendment to Section 125 CrPC (2001) deleted the words "not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole," thereby invalidating state ceilings imposed by earlier amendments. It also points to MP Act 15 of 2004, which does not impose any upper limit. Accordingly, there is no state-imposed upper limit and the magistrate has discretion to determine reasonable maintenance. The appeal is dismissed and the High Court’s order maintaining Rs. 4,000 per month from 01 January 2009 is upheld.

Provisions of Law Cited

CrPC, 1973, Section 125CrPC (Amendment) Act, 2001Madhya Pradesh Act 10 of 1998Madhya Pradesh Act 15 of 2004

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that under Section 125 CrPC as amended, there is no upper limit fixed by central or state law; MP Act 10 of 1998 had fixed a ceiling of Rs. 3,000. The 2001 Central CrPC Amendment Act deleted the words 'not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole', thereby invalidating state ceilings. With MP Act 15 of 2004 not imposing any upper limit, the discretion to determine maintenance should reside with the Magistrate, not a fixed ceiling.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued for adherence to the state amendments that fixed a ceiling on maintenance, and that any central amendment should be interpreted in light of the state framework. They rely on the pre-2001 framework that permitted ceilings. However, the central amendment of 2001 removes such ceilings, and MP Act 15 of 2004 does not impose an upper limit, supporting the High Court’s enhancement on the basis of discretion.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against MANOJ YADAV v. PUSHPA @ KIRAN YADAV & ORS. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2011) 1 S.C.R. 644 A B c 0 ## MANOJ YADAV _V._ PUSHPA @ KIRAN YADAV & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 2001) JANUARY 11, 2011 [MARKANDEY KAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] _Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:_ E - - _s.125 Maintenance to wife Enhanced by High Court_ - - _to_ Rs. _40001- per month ·Challenged Plea that State .amendment allowed maintenance upto Rs.30001- per month only_ - _HELD: Section 125_ has _been further amended in Madhya Pradesh by a subsequent amendment of 2004 which does not contain any upper limit in the maintenance to be granted u/s 125 and it is left to the discretion of the Magistrate_ - _Moreover, after the amendment to s. 125, 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_ s. _125 by which a ceiling has been fixed to the amount of maintenance to be awarded to the wife have become invalid._ CRIMINAL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 2011. F From the Judgment & Order dated 23.1.2009 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judicature at Jabalpur, bench at Gwalior in Criminal Revision No. 12 of 2008. G H S.K. Dubey, Shail Kr. Dwivedi, AAG, Kamini Jaiswal, Jai Prakash Pandey, Shantanu Singh, Nikilesh Ramachandran, Alok Pandey, Gopal Singh, Rituraj Biswas, Sanjay V. Kharde, Asha Gopalan Nair, Kusumanjali Sharma, C.D. Milind Kumar, Manoj Kr. Dwivedi, Ashutosh Kr. Sharma, Gunnam 644 MANOJ YADAV _v._ PUSHPA @ KIRAN YADAV & ORS. 645 ~ Venkateswara Rao, Aviral Shukla, Upendra Mishra for the A appearing parties. The following Order of the Court was delivered ## **ORDER** B .. Heard learned c;ounsel for the parties. We also wish to express our appreciation of Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned t:ounsel, whom we had appointed as Amicus Curiae in the case, and she has been of great ::issistance to c us. Leave granted. This Appeal· has been filed against the impugned judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior, dated D 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 E means of her criminal revision applied for enhancement of the maintenance. ~· 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[F ] 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 G ·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 H ## 646 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 1 S.C.R. , . 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 counesl for the appellant. Moreover, We are of the opinion that after the amendment B Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, to Section 125 CrF.C., which is a Central Act, by the Code 2001 . which deleted the of words "not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole", all State amendments to Section 125 Cr.P.C. by which a ceiling has be~n fixed to the amount of maintenance to be awarded to the wife have become invalid. c ~ For the reasons given above, there is no merit· in the Appeal and it is dismissed acc0rdingly. R.P. Appeal dismissed.