Manoj Yadav Vs Pushpa
@ Kiran Yadav & Ors
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. :
By the impugned judgment
the High Court has granted a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month as maintenance with effect
from01.01.2009 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 Section125
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 15of 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. 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.
Back
