1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application (APPR) No. 288 of 2010 in Criminal Revision Application No. 32 of 2010 Pravinsingh Shivprasad Singh ..VERSUS.. Mrs. Nikita Pravin Singh and another Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Ms. S. H. Bhatia, Advocate h/f Mr. R. R. Shrivastava, Advocate for the applicant Mr. M. B. Naidu, Advocate for respondent no.1 Mrs. A. R. Taywade, A.P.P. For respondent no.2/State. CORAM : Prasanna B. Varale, J. DATED : 06 th April , 2011 . Heard. This is an application filed by the non-applicant no.1 for grant of early hearing by fixed date. Mr. Naidu, learned Advocate for the applicant (non-applicant in the revision) has invited my attention to the order passed by this Court, dated 21/12/2010, in which it was observed that in view of the order of the Apex Court dated 23rd November, 2010 in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No. 6568/2009, stand over to 24/1/2011. A copy of the Apex Court order dated 23/11/2010 is placed on record. The Apex Court while considering the issue was pleased to observe thus - “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.P.C. was Rs.500/- per month. Subsequently, by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act of 2001 enacted by Parliament the words “not 2 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 : “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 -2- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1972 on the lines of Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which has since been repealed.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 provisions of the Act from time to time. This would necessarily be time consuming. Accordingly, it is also proposed to amend Section 125 and make consequential changes in Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to remove the ceiling of maintenance allowance.” Prior to the 2001 amendment of the Code Criminal Procedure by Parliament many State Legislatures had passed State Amendments of Section 125(1) Code Criminal Procedure enhancing the maximum maintenance which could be granted from Rs.500/- per month to a higher figure. Obviously it was felt by those State Legislatures that Rs.500/- per month is not sufficient. Hence these State Amendments were made for the 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.500/0 per month in Section 125(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 figure are the States of Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Tripura and Uttar Pradesh.” By the said order, the appeal was subsequently placed on 11/1/2011, on which date the appeal was disposed of by the Apex Court. The said judgment and order, which is reported in A.I.R. 2011 Supreme Court 847 (Manoj Yadav .vs. Pushpa), is placed on record, in 3 which the Apex Court has observed that - “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.” Mr. Naidu, learned Advocate for respondent no.2 submits that in view of the aforesaid judgment in Manoj Yadav's case, the issue is now settled. Ms. Bhatia, learned Advocate holding for Mr. R.R.Shrivastava, learned Advocate for the applicant seeks time. It is not in dispute that that this Court by order dated 02/3/2010, had directed thus - “Heard. Rule. Interim relief in terms of prayer clause (ii) accepting the statement made by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant would continue to pay monthly maintenance @ Rs.5,000/0 (Rupees Five thousand only) per month till disposal of this criminal revision application.” In view of these facts, the revision application can be placed 4 for final hearing after summer vacation. Hence, office to fix the revision application for final hearing after summer vacation. Criminal Application (APPR) No. 288/2010 is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Diwale