Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

MANOJ YADAV versus PUSHPA @ KIRAN YADAV & ORS.

Decided
11 January 2011
Judges listed
MARKANDEY KATJU, GYAN SUDHA MISRA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2011] 1 S.C.R. 644 · 2011 INSC 31

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Paragraph numbering in our copy is uncertain (unnumbered_in_numbered_era). Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

.. Heard learned c;ounsel for the parties.

p. 645, margin A

We also wish to express our appreciation of Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned t:ounsel, whom we had appointed as Amicus Curiae in the case, and she has been of great ::issistance to us.

p. 645, margin B

Leave granted.

p. 645, margin C

This Appeal· has been filed against the impugned judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior, dated 23.01.2009 passed in Criminal Revision No. 12/2008. That judgment was given in a criminal revision filed against the order dated 04.10.2007 of the learned Additional Family Court, Gwalior granting maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month under Section 125 Cr.P .C. to respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 by means of her criminal revision applied for enhancement of the maintenance.

p. 645, margin C

By the impugned judgment the High Court has granted a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month as maintenance with effect from 01.01 :2009 to the wife-respondent No.1 in this case. That order has been challenged before us.

p. 645, margin E

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 counesl for the appellant.

pp. 645–646, margin F

Moreover, We are of the opinion that after the amendment to Section 125 CrF.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 be~n fixed to the amount of maintenance to be awarded to the wife have become invalid.

p. 646

For the reasons given above, there is no merit· in the Appeal and it is dismissed acc0rdingly. R.P. Appeal dismissed.

p. 646, margin C