There is no provision under the Code of Criminal Procedure that empowers a court to allow an amendment to the quantum of maintenance amount originally claimed in a proceeding under Section 125.

JUDGMENT :

GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

1. Heard Shri Mohd. Afzal, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed against the order dated 08.12.2025 passed on the amendment application No. 21- Aa filed by the opposite party no. 2 in pending maintenance case, bearing Criminal Misc. Case No. 950 of 2024 ( Smt. Akansha Vs. Swaraj Singh Patil ), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No. 02, Firozabad, whereby while rejecting the objections filed by the applicant the said amendment application has been allowed and the opposite party No. 2 has been permitted to amend the amount of interim maintenance as claimed in the said amendment application filed behalf of the opposite party No. 2 and directed the necessary amendments to be carried out within three days.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the private opposite party No. 2 had filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- per month on 19.06.2024, upon which the applicant filed his written statement to the said application. It is further contended that on 08.05.2025 the opposite party No. 2 filed an amendment application for amending the amount of monthly maintenance claimed from Rs. 1,00,000/- as mentioned in the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to Rs. 1,50,000/- per month, further, praying for amendment to the extent that the salary of the applicant shall be amended as Rs. 1,20,00,000/-, which has been allowed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Firozabad by the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that there is no provisions provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure for amendment to be allowed in the proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C., therefore, the order impugned is without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed.

5. Learned A.G.A. for the State could not dispute the above submissions made on behalf of applicant, but he submits that the Judge, Family Court/Magistrate has ample power under the provisions of Section 125, Cr.P.C. to grant monthly maintenance allowance to the wife, children, father or mother on such monthly rate as the Magistrate/court deems fit, therefore, nomenclature of the application filed would not matter as the application for amendment of the amount of maintenance claimed was filed on account of changed circumstances of increase in price structure and on the basis of which it was urged that maintenance of Rs. 1,00,000/- was highly inadequate to meet needs of opposite parties No. 2. It is further argued that nomenclature of the application would not be of much relevance and the Magistrate has only directed that the amount so claimed, i.e., Rs. 1,00,000/- may be amended to Rs. 1,50,000/- per month but no direction for its payment has yet been issued, therefore, it is contended that filing of present application on behalf of the application has no merit and is deserved to be dismissed.

6. I have heard rival submissions advanced by both the parties.

7. Provisions of sections 125, 126, 127, 128 of Cr.P.C. are beneficiary in nature in order to ensure that wives, children and parent, who are unable to maintain themselves, may be maintained properly and they are not neglected by such person against whom maintenance is being claimed and who are otherwise legally liable to maintain them. Thus, the aforesaid provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure are beneficial legislation intended to secure the interest of the persons mentioned therein so as to prevent th