Back
2011 (1) Supreme 318
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ.
Manoj Yadav — Appellant(s)
versus
Pushpa @ Kiran Yadav & Ors. — Respondent(s)
Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 2011
(arising out of S.L.P. (Crl) No(s).6568 of 2009)
Decided on : 11-1-2011
(b) Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 125 – After 2001 amendment deleting the words “not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole”, all State amendments to the section fixing a ceiling to the amount of maintenance have become invalid. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
This case related to maintenance u/s 125, Cr. P.C.
Finding of the Court:
Ceiling on the amount of maintenance has been removed.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. 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.
3. Leave granted.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. For the reasons given above, there is no merit in the Appeal and it is dismissed accordingly.
***********
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
