MANOJ YADAVversusPUSHPA @ KIRAN YADAV

                       [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 894


A                               MANOJ YADAV
                                         v.
                         PUSHPA @ KIRAN YADAV
                        (SLP(Crl.) No. 6568 of 2009)
                           NOVEMBER 22, 2010 1
B
     [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
    to challenge constitutional validity of the State amendment -
0
    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 CentralI Government
    - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 21.

        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (CRL.)
    Appeal No. 6568 of 2009.
F
        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.
G
        Nikilesh Ramachandran, Alok Pandey, Shantanu Singh for
    he Respondent.

    1.   Order subsequently modified as reported in [2010) 13 (Addi.) SCR 897.

H                                      894
    MANOJ YADAV v. PUSHPA@ KIRAN YADAV                      895

    The following order of the Court was delivered                 A
                             ORDER

    The petitioner is the husband who is challenging an order
under Section 125 Cr. P.C awarding maintenance of Rs. 4000/
- 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.
                                                                   D
     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.
                                                                   E
     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.
                                                                   F
      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.

    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
    896    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   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
B   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
c   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                             A
                              v.
                 PUSHPA @ KIRAN YADAV
(Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).6568 of
                            2009)
                                                               B
                  NOVEMBER 23, 2010
[MARKANDEY KATJU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]

    Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
                                                               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
    passed yesterday.
0
      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.

          In the Statement of Objects to the Act of 2001 it was stated:
F         "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
G         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
H         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."
                                                                        B
     Prior to the 2001 amendment of the Code Criminal Procedure
     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
     felt by-those State Legislatures that Rs. 500/- per month is not   c
     sufficient. Hence these State Amendments were made for the
     benefit of the women because at that time the 2001
-1   Amendment had not been enacted by Parliament, and there
     was a maximum limit of Rs. 500/- per month in Section 125
     (1) for grant as maintenance.                                      D

          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
     Pradesh.

          We are prima facie of the opinion that in view of the 2001
     Amendment to the Code Criminal Procedure by Parliament,
     the maximum maintenance prescribed by the above mentioned
     State Legislatures are no longer valid in view of Article 254(1)   F
     of the Constitution, apart from being unconstitutional now as
     being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as we
     have indicated in our order passed yesterday. However, this
     is only our prima facie opinion and subject to the final order
     passed in this case.                                               G

         Issue Notice to the State Governments of Madhya
     Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Tripura and Uttar Pradesh,
     who may file counter affidavit within four weeks from today. The
                                                                        H
    900    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   case has been listed for final disposal on 11.01.2011 and we
    reiterate that date.

        However, since the counsels for the above mentioned
   State Governments are not present in Court today, list this case
B again tomorrow before us showing the names of counsels for
   the Stae Governments of Madhya Pradesh, Maharasthra,
 · Rajasthan, Tripura and Uttar Pradesh.

    R.P.                                        Matter adjourned.




                                                                      r·