Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Roshni B.. (For justice and dignity)     03 February 2011

SC trashes Rs 500 divorce maintenance

Court trashes Rs 500 divorce maintenance

 

 

New Delhi, Jan. 29: All state laws that fix Rs 500 as the upper limit for maintenance of deserted or divorced wives are invalid, the Supreme Court has said, citing a 2001 amendment to a central act.

In a ruling earlier this month, the top court said the amendment to Section 125 CrPC, “which is a central act, by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2001”, had deleted the words “not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole”.

Since CrPC was a central law, the central amendment would override all state amendments, a bench of Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Mishra said.

So, “all state amendments” to Section 125 CrPC, by which a ceiling has been fixed for the “amount of maintenance to be awarded to the wife”, have become “invalid”, the bench said in its January 11, 2011, judgment.

The ruling came on an appeal by Manoj Yadav who had contested a Madhya Pradesh High Court directive to pay Rs 4,000 every month as maintenance to his wife Pushpa alias Kiran Yadav.

A Gwalior family court had on October 4, 2007, granted maintenance of Rs 1,500 every month under CrPC Section 125 to Pushpa, who applied to the high court for enhancement of the amount.

On January 23, 2009, the high court had increased the amount to Rs 4,000 a month with effect from January 1, 2009. Manoj then challenged the amount in the top court.

His lawyer argued that under the state’s 1998 amendment to CrPC Section 125, Pushpa was entitled to a maximum of Rs 3,000.

The Supreme Court rejected this claim, citing a 2004 state amendment that did not fix any upper limit for maintenance. The bench said Parliament had by an amendment removed the Rs 500 clause from the CrPC.

https://www.telegraphindia.com/1110130/jsp/nation/story_13510449.jsp



Learning

 10 Replies

Ambika (NA)     03 February 2011

Roshni ji, you are doing great service by posting such judgments. Keep it up. 

1 Like

Roshni B.. (For justice and dignity)     03 February 2011

Thanks Ambika..


(Guest)

Its not proper amount according to current standard,living of life.

Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     03 February 2011

 

03 February 2011, 09:26  

Kushan Vyas

Its not proper amount according to current standard,living of life.

Originally posted by :Ambika
"
Roshni ji, you are doing great service by posting such judgments. Keep it up. 
"

It may 'surprise' both of you that many a husbands who live in absolute poverty line are behind prison due to inability to pay even Rs. 500 IM awarded to their still unfortunate wives due to they being casual roadside labors and or rikshawalas and or ragpickers and or enggged into taharbazari kinda mean work. These are the emigrant folks who pile up urban India infrastructure. The same Law was meant to help their other half’s thus at one time the ceiling of Rs. 500 was proposed but now more and more urban wifes are filing the IM U/s 125 CrPC and on the go actual relief people (spouse) will still remain affected. I know you may not believe me sitting in cozy confines of armchair internet environs. But, take permission of your respective areas Prison Warden and meet these unfortunate folks whose bail is also rejected due to no person coming forward as their surety and indirectly / unnecessary they are burden to STATE exchequers as their prison diet money comes from your and mine taxes just because these folks can't even earn meager Rs. 500 so there are always a stark naked "flip side" to such social cause central statutes too.


I am not pointing finger upon Lord/Ladyships by neutralizing such 'social cause' awards but any social cause intent and object Rule is always meant for giving relief to 'larger subjects' of the STATE not urbanites is what I actually mean here.

Both of you may take above as you may please. But ‘larger societal facts’ will remain so.

2 Like

Roshni B.. (For justice and dignity)     03 February 2011

@ taj jee,

 

i fully agree wid u & i nvr. favour a wife getting more than wot her husband earns,wheteher he's a labourer or an industrialist.

i posted this news in reponse to so many cases i read,wherein the wronged wife of a rich man doesnt get even 1/6th of his income.

Ambika (NA)     03 February 2011

Tajjobindia sir, I am of the same view as Roshani ji.

Thank you so much for this posting of yours. 


(Guest)

@tajobsindia

My statement is for general view.NOT applicable to 100 %.

It depend upon the cases ,person, income,circumstances,qualification etc.

 

Tajobindia ,you said,

"A husbands who live in absolute poverty line are behind prison due to inability to pay even Rs. 500 IM awarded to their still unfortunate wives due to they being casual roadside labors and or rikshawalas and or ragpickers and or enggged into taharbazari kinda mean work. "                             -------ABSOLUTELY CORRECT 100%

 

so, Dont misunderstand me TAJOBINDIA,I have given my statement as general view but for calculating maintenance ,person income,circumstances,qualification,status etc. to be noted for deciding it.

Since i have given this as ROSHNI posted this news,"In a ruling earlier this month, the top court said the amendment to Section 125 CrPC, “which is a central act, by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2001”, had deleted the words “not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole”.   BECAUSE TODAYS INFLATION.

When deciding for maintenance, court will see whether the person is business tycoon.,Job,roadside labors and or rikshawalas and or ragpickers and or enggged into taharbazari kinda mean work.


(Guest)

@tajobsindia

As earlier i said,"Its not proper amount according to current standard,living of life."

 

My statement is for general view.NOT applicable to 100 %.It depend upon the cases ,person, income,circumstances,qualification etc.for deciding maintenance.

 

 

Here the judgment extract what it says:

 

Unfortunately, in India, parties do not truthfully reveal their income. For self employed persons or persons employed in the unorganized sector, truthful  income never   surfaces.   Tax   avoidance   is   the   norm.   Tax compliance is the exception in this country. Therefore, in determining the interim maintenance, there cannot be mathematical exactitude. The court has to take a general view.  From  the  various  judicial  precedents,  the  under noted 11 factors can be culled out, which are to be taken into  consideration  while  deciding  an  application  under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The same are:

 

(1)     Status of the parties.

 

(2)     Reasonable wants of the claimant.

 

(3)     The independent  income  and  property  of  the

claimant.

 

(4)     The number of persons, the non applicant has to

maintain.

 

(5)     The amount should aid the applicant to live in a similar   life   style   as   he/she   enjoyed   in   the matrimonial home.

 

(6)     Non-applicant’s liabilities, if any.

 

(7)     Provisions  for  food,  clothing,  shelter,  education, medical  attendance  and  treatment  etc.  of  the applicant.

 

(8)     Payment capacity of the non-applicant.

(9)     Some   guess   work   is   not   ruled   out   while estimating the income of the non-applicant when all   the   sources   or   correct   sources   are   not disclosed.

 

(10)   The non-applicant to defray the cost of litigation.

 

(11)   The amount awarded under Section 125, Cr.P.C. is adjustable against the amount awarded under Section 24 of the Act.all   the   sources   or   correct sources   are   not disclosed.

 

(10)   The non-applicant to defray the cost of litigation.

 

(11)   The amount awarded under Section 125, Cr.P.C.is adjustable against the amount awarded under Section 24 of the Act.

 


Attached File : 32 32 56 56 mr sistani s judgment.pdf downloaded: 187 times

Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     03 February 2011

@ Kushan

Have better grip on (further) belated justifications. Your opening sentence itself contradict you. I am not here to teach a advocate the chameleon's act.

All the best.


(Guest)

@tajobsindia

A professional person

Better to lesson up

Unfortunately, in India, parties do not truthfully reveal their income. For self employed persons or persons employed in the unorganized sector, truthful  income never   surfaces.   Tax   avoidance   is   the   norm.   Tax compliance is the exception in this country. Therefore, in determining the interim maintenance, there cannot be mathematical exactitude.

The court has to take a general view.

I have given as general view,from your side you are right and from my side i am also right.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


Related Threads


Loading