PARVEZ SAGHIR AHMED ANSARI Vs. SANA PARVEZ ANSARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were heard on the last date. By this Revision Application the applicant-husband has taken an exception to the judgment and order dated 3Qth June 2008 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court on a petition under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Hereinafter referred to as the said Code, of 1973) filed by the 1st to 3rd respondents. The marriage between the applicant and the 1st respondent was solemnised on 14th November 1997. It appears that they resided together till 28th December 2004. The 2nd and the 3rd respondent are daughters born from the wedlock. By the impugned order, the learned Judge of the Family Court directed the applicant to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5000/- to the 1st respondent-wife and maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month each to the 2nd and 3rd respondents. Thus, the applicant was directed to pay total monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 25,000/- to the 1st respondent, 2nd and 3rd respondents with effect from 13th June 2006 which is the date of the filing of the said application under section 125 of the said Code.

(2.) Various contentions have been raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant. The first contention raised by the learned Counsel is based on the Maharashtra Amendment to section 125 which was brought on the statute book by Maharashtra Act No. 21 of 1999. The said amendment came into force with effect from 20th April 1999. Prior to the said amendment, in the sub-section (1) of section 125 of the said Code of 1973, there was a upper ceiling of Rs. 500/ - per month on maintanence amount. By the Maharashtra Act No. 21 of 1999, the ceiling of Rs. 500/- was enhanced to Rs. 1500/- per month. Thereafter, by the Central Act being Act No. 50 of 2001, section 125 was amended and the upper ceiling of was altogether removed. The said Central act was brought into force with effect from 30th September 2001. The effect of the Central Act, is that there is no ceiling on the amount which could be granted in terms of sub-section (1) of section 125 of the said Code of 1973. The submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant was that the said Code of 1973 is an enactment on the concurrent list. He submitted that the Maharashtra Amendment was not repugnant to Central Act No. 50 of 2001 and in any event, the Maharashtra Amendment of 1999 has not been repealed by the Central Amendment and therefore courts in Maharashtra will be governed by the Maharashtra Amendment made by the Maharashtra Act No. 21 of 1999 and not by the Central Amendment.

(3.) It must be stated here that in (Criminal Revision Application No. 400 of 2008) the same issue arose before this Court and it has been held by this Court by order dated 2nd July 2009 that with effect from 24th September 2001 the Central Amendment made by Act No. 50 of 2001 will prevail. For reasons recorded in the said judgment and order, the aforesaid first contention cannot be accepted.