MANOJ YADAVversusPUSHPA @ KIRAN YADAV & ORS.

A
                         [2011) 1 S.C.R. 644


                            MANOJ YADAV
                                                                        -
                                   V.
                 PUSHPA @ KIRAN YADAV & ORS.
                 (Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 2001)
                          JANUARY 11, 2011
B
     [MARKANDEY KATJU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]

         Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

c       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
0 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
E 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 PELLATE 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       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

H                                 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
                          ..
              Heard learned c;ounsel for the parties.
                                                                            B


            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
        us.
                                                                            c
             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    to Section 125 CrF.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 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.