MANOJ YADAV versus PUSHPA @ KIRAN YADAV

Citation: [2010] 13 S.C.R. 894 · Decided: 22-11-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU, GYAN SUDHA MISRA · Disposal: Hearing Adjourned
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 894 
MANOJ YADAV 
v. 
PUSHPA @ KIRAN YADAV 
(SLP(Crl.) No. 6568 of 2009) 
NOVEMBER 22, 20101 
[MARKANOEY KAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
c 
s. 125 - Maintenance to wife - Order of High Court 
awarding maintenance of Rs.4,0001- per month - Challenged 
by the husband contending that by a State amendment in 
State of Madhya Pradesh to s.125, the maximum amount as 
maintenance is Rs. 30001- HELD: Respondent granted time 
0 
to challenge constitutional validity of the State amendment -
States of Maharashtra, Tripura and West Bengal are stated 
to have, by State laws, fixed a maximum limit of Rs. 15001-
as maintenance uls 125 - In prima facie opinion of the Court, 
such laws are unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 
and 21 of the Constitution - Notice to issue to the State 
E Governments concerned as also to the Central Government 
F 
G 
H 
I 
- Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 21. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (CRL.) 
Appeal No. 6568 of 2009. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 23.01.2009 of the High 
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, bench at Gwalior in 
Criminal Revision No. 12 of 2008. 
Jai Prakash Pandey for the Petitioner. 
Nikilesh Ramachandran, Alok Pandey, Shantanu Singh for 
he Respondent. 
1. 
Order subsequently modified as reported in [2010) 13 (Addi.) SCR 897. 
894 
MANOJ YADAV v. PUSHPA@ KIRAN YADAV 
895 
The following order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
The petitioner is the husband who is challenging an order 
under Section 125 Cr. P.C awarding maintenance of Rs. 4000/ 
A 
- per month to the wife. Learned counsel for the petitioner B 
submitted that by a State amendment in Madhya Pradesh to 
Section 125 Cr.P.C. the maximum amount which can be 
awarded in Madhya Pradesh as Maintenance is Rs. 3,000/-. 
Learned counsel for the respondent is granted two weeks C 
time for filing an application challenging the Constitutional 
validity of Madhya Pradesh Act 50 of 2004. by which the 
maximum limit of Rs. 3000/- per month has been fixed for 
granting maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. Issue notice 
to the State of Madhya Pradesh returnable in four weeks. 
We have been informed that the States of west Bengal, 
Tripura and Maharshtra have also fixed a maxium limit of Rs. 
1500/- as maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, by State 
Laws. 
In our prima facie opinion such laws are unconstitutional 
being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. 
Issue notice also to these three State Goverments. The 
Central Government who also may file reply within four weeks. 
Issue notice fo the Central Government and Union of India. 
These Governments and above mentioned State Goverments 
will be impleaded as respondents in this Case. 
D 
E 
F 
We request Ms. Kamini Jaiswal to assist this Court as G 
amaicus curiea in this case. 
We are issuing notices to these governments in this case 
because in our prima facie opinion the above mentioned 
amendments are unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 
H 
A 
B 
c 
896 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
and 21 of the Constitution because the husband may be earning 
a huge money and to award a petty amount to the wife is wholly 
arbitrary and unconscionable in these days of inflation. 
No doubt the object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to orevent 
vagrancy, but vagrancy is relative word. For many women 
awarding them Rupees 1500/- per month, or even Rs. 3,000/-
per month may amount to keeping them in a condition of 
vagrancy. 
List this case again on 11th January 2011. Copies of this 
Petition will be supplied by counsel for the parties to the State 
Goverments mentioned in this order and also to the Central 
Government. Office will supply copy of this petition and this order 
free of charges to Ms. Kamini Jaiswal forthwith. 
RP. 
Special Leave petition adjourned. 
[2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 897 
MANOJ YADAV 
v. 
PUSHPA @ KIRAN YADAV 
(Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).6568 of 
2009) 
NOVEMBER 23, 2010 
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
A 
B 
c 
s. 125 - Maintenance to wife - Order dated 23. 11. 2010 
passed by Supreme Court issuing notice to certain States 
which by amendments limited maximum amount of 
maintenance to Rs. 15001- per month - HELD: The State 
amendments were made for the benefit of the women because o 
at that time the 2001 amendment deleting the maximum limit 
had not been enacted by
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.