Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2001 – Landmark Cases
| Case Name | Section | Rules(s) | Case Brief |
|---|---|---|---|
| Savitri v. Govind Singh Rawat, (1985) 4 SCC 337 | Section 125 CrPC; relevant to Section 2 of the 2001 Amendment Act | A Magistrate may grant interim maintenance while a maintenance case is pending, even though the earlier law did not expressly provide for it. | The wife applied for maintenance from her husband under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The issue was whether the Magistrate could grant maintenance before deciding the final application. The Supreme Court held that the power to grant interim maintenance could be treated as part of the Magistrate’s powers under Section 125. Without interim maintenance, a person seeking support might suffer hardship while waiting for the case to conclude. The Court explained that the procedure should help achieve the purpose of the law. Parliament later expressly provided for interim maintenance through the 2001 Amendment Act. |
| Shail Kumari Devi v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak, (2008) 9 SCC 632 | Section 125(1) and Section 125(2) CrPC | Maintenance may be awarded from the date of the application or from the date of the order. The court should consider the circumstances when choosing the starting date. | The case concerned a claim for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code. One issue was the date from which the maintenance amount should be paid. The Supreme Court considered Section 125(2), which permits payment from the date of the order or, if the court directs, from the date of the application. The Court recognised that maintenance can be awarded from the application date. This can protect a person who has had to wait for the case to be decided. The decision highlights the importance of considering the circumstances when deciding when payment should begin. |
| Jaiminiben Hirenbhai Vyas v. Hirenbhai Rameshchandra Vyas, (2015) 2 SCC 385 | Section 125(2) CrPC | A court may direct maintenance to be paid from the date of the application. The choice of date should be based on the facts and reasons relevant to the case. | The wife sought maintenance under Section 125 of the Code. The dispute included whether maintenance should begin from the date she applied or from the date the court made its order. The Supreme Court explained that Section 125(2) allows the court to choose either date. Payment from the application date is not automatic in every case. The court must exercise its judgment fairly and consider the circumstances. The decision is important because maintenance proceedings may take considerable time. It supports reasoned decisions on when the payment obligation begins. |
| Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353 | Section 125(2) CrPC | Maintenance proceedings must be decided without unnecessary delay. Courts should not allow procedural delays to deprive a wife and child of financial support. | The wife and child applied for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code. The Family Court took about nine years to decide the application and ordered maintenance from the date of its decision. The High Court directed that maintenance should instead be paid from the date of the application. The husband challenged that decision before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision. It stressed that Section 125 aims to prevent poverty and hardship by providing financial support. Courts should control unnecessary adjournments and decide maintenance cases promptly. |
| Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 | Section 125(1) and Section 125(2) CrPC; interim-maintenance provisions under Section 125 | Maintenance should generally be awarded from the date the application is filed. Parties must disclose their income, assets and financial responsibilities. Courts should consider maintenance claims under different laws together to avoid unfair duplication. | The wife and her minor son sought interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code. The case reached the Supreme Court and raised wider issues concerning maintenance proceedings. The Court issued guidelines to help courts decide maintenance claims consistently and fairly. It directed parties to disclose their income, assets and financial responsibilities through affidavits. It also explained how courts should deal with maintenance claims under different laws and account for amounts already awarded. The Court directed that maintenance should generally be paid from the date the application is filed. The judgment is a leading authority on interim maintenance, financial disclosure and the date from which maintenance is payable. |
Case Name
Savitri v. Govind Singh Rawat, (1985) 4 SCC 337
Section
Section 125 CrPC; relevant to Section 2 of the 2001 Amendment Act
Rules(s)
A Magistrate may grant interim maintenance while a maintenance case is pending, even though the earlier law did not expressly provide for it.
Case Brief
The wife applied for maintenance from her husband under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The issue was whether the Magistrate could grant maintenance before deciding the final application. The Supreme Court held that the power to grant interim maintenance could be treated as part of the Magistrate’s powers under Section 125. Without interim maintenance, a person seeking support might suffer hardship while waiting for the case to conclude. The Court explained that the procedure should help achieve the purpose of the law. Parliament later expressly provided for interim maintenance through the 2001 Amendment Act.
Case Name
Shail Kumari Devi v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak, (2008) 9 SCC 632
Section
Section 125(1) and Section 125(2) CrPC
Rules(s)
Maintenance may be awarded from the date of the application or from the date of the order. The court should consider the circumstances when choosing the starting date.
Case Brief
The case concerned a claim for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code. One issue was the date from which the maintenance amount should be paid. The Supreme Court considered Section 125(2), which permits payment from the date of the order or, if the court directs, from the date of the application. The Court recognised that maintenance can be awarded from the application date. This can protect a person who has had to wait for the case to be decided. The decision highlights the importance of considering the circumstances when deciding when payment should begin.
Case Name
Jaiminiben Hirenbhai Vyas v. Hirenbhai Rameshchandra Vyas, (2015) 2 SCC 385
Section
Section 125(2) CrPC
Rules(s)
A court may direct maintenance to be paid from the date of the application. The choice of date should be based on the facts and reasons relevant to the case.
Case Brief
The wife sought maintenance under Section 125 of the Code. The dispute included whether maintenance should begin from the date she applied or from the date the court made its order. The Supreme Court explained that Section 125(2) allows the court to choose either date. Payment from the application date is not automatic in every case. The court must exercise its judgment fairly and consider the circumstances. The decision is important because maintenance proceedings may take considerable time. It supports reasoned decisions on when the payment obligation begins.
Case Name
Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353
Section
Section 125(2) CrPC
Rules(s)
Maintenance proceedings must be decided without unnecessary delay. Courts should not allow procedural delays to deprive a wife and child of financial support.
Case Brief
The wife and child applied for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code. The Family Court took about nine years to decide the application and ordered maintenance from the date of its decision. The High Court directed that maintenance should instead be paid from the date of the application. The husband challenged that decision before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision. It stressed that Section 125 aims to prevent poverty and hardship by providing financial support. Courts should control unnecessary adjournments and decide maintenance cases promptly.
Case Name
Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324
Section
Section 125(1) and Section 125(2) CrPC; interim-maintenance provisions under Section 125
Rules(s)
Maintenance should generally be awarded from the date the application is filed. Parties must disclose their income, assets and financial responsibilities. Courts should consider maintenance claims under different laws together to avoid unfair duplication.
Case Brief
The wife and her minor son sought interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code. The case reached the Supreme Court and raised wider issues concerning maintenance proceedings. The Court issued guidelines to help courts decide maintenance claims consistently and fairly. It directed parties to disclose their income, assets and financial responsibilities through affidavits. It also explained how courts should deal with maintenance claims under different laws and account for amounts already awarded. The Court directed that maintenance should generally be paid from the date the application is filed. The judgment is a leading authority on interim maintenance, financial disclosure and the date from which maintenance is payable.