LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
⚖️ Ask the AI about your situation:🚗 Car Accident💼 Work / Job🏠 Housing / Eviction👪 Family / Divorce📋 Contract Dispute💰 Money Owed

MANOJ YADAV versus PUSHPA @ KIRAN YADAV

Citation: [2010] 13 S.C.R. 897 · Decided: 23-11-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU, GYAN SUDHA MISRA

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

[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 Parliament and there was a 
maximum limit of Rs.5001- per month in s.125 (1) for grant 
as maintenance - Order dated 22.11.2010 modified - The 
States which had made the amendments prior to the 2001 
E 
Amendment enhancing the maintenance from Rs. 5001- per 
month to a higher figure are States of Madhya Pradesh, 
Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Tripura and Uttar Pradesh - Notice 
to issue to these States - The Court is of the prima facie view 
that in view of the 2001 Amendment to the Code by F 
Parliament, the maximum maintenance prescribed by the 
State Legislatures concerned is no longer valid in view of 
Article 254(1) of the Constitution, apart from being 
unconstitutional as being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the 
Constitution - Order dated 22. 11. 2010 accordingly modified 
G 
- Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 21 and 254(1). 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (CRL.) 
Appeal No. 6568 of 2009. 
' 
' \ 
897 
H 
898 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
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. 
Kamini Jaiswal (AC), Jai Prakash Pandey, Nikilesh 
8 
Ramachandran for the appearing parties. 
The following order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
C 
Yesterday (22-11-2010) we had passed an order in this 
case, but subsequently Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, whom we had 
requested to be Amicus Curiae in this case, informed us that 
the above order requires some modification. We agree with this 
submission, and accordingly we are modifying the order 
0 
passed yesterday. 
It appears that in the original code Criminal Procedure of 
1973 the maximum maintenance which could be granted by the 
Magistrate under Section 125 (1) Cr.PC was Rs. 500/- per 
month. Subsequently by the Code Criminal Procedure 
E (Amendment) Act of 2001 enacted by Parliament the words "not 
exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole" in Section 125(1) 
were deleted w.e.f. 24.9.2001. 
F 
G 
H 
In the Statement of Objects to the Act of 2001 it was stated: 
"The ceiling of rupees five hundred per month for 
maintenance allowance was prescribed in the year 1955 
in Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. 
A ceiling of rupees five hundred was prescribed in Section 
125 of the Code Criminal procedure, 1973 on the lines of 
Section 488 of the Code Criminal Procedure, 1898 which 
has since been repealed. In view of the cost of living index 
continually rising, retention of a maximum ceiling is not 
justified. If a ceiling is prescribed and retained, it would 
require periodic revision taking into account the inflation 
and rise in the cost of living as well as amendment of 
~ 
MANOJ YADAV v. PUSHPA@ KIRAN YADAV 
899 
provisions of the Act from time to time. This would 
A 
necessarily be time consuming. Accordingly, it is also 
proposed to amend Section 125 and make consequential 
changes in Section 127 of the Code Criminal Procedure 
to remove the ceiling of maintenance allowance." 
Prior to the 2001 amendment of the Code Criminal Procedure 
B 
by Parliament many State Legislature had passed State 
Amendments of Section 125( 1) Code Criminal Procedure 
enhancing the maximum maintenance which could be grantea 
from Rs. 500/- per month to a higher figure. Obviously it was c 
felt by-those State Legislatures that Rs. 500/- per month is not 
sufficient. Hence these State Amendments were made for the 
-1 
benefit of the women because at that time the 2001 
Amendment had not been enacted by Parliament, and there 
was a maximum limit of Rs. 500/- per month in Section 125 
D 
(1) for grant as maintenance. 
The States which had made these State Amendments 
prior to the 2001 Amendment enhancing the maintenance from 
Rs. 500/- per month to a higher firgure are the States of 
Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Tripura and Uttar 
E 
Prad

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.