( 1 ) THE present C. R. P. is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders of II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in I. A. No. 723/91 in I. A. No. 199/90 in O. P. No. 254/89 dated : 6-7-1992.

( 2 ) THE facts which give rise to the present Petition are that the Petitioner (husband) filed O. P. No. 254/89 for dissolution of marriage. The respondent No. 1 (wife) filed application in I. A. No. 199/90 under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act for legal expenses and interim maintenance. The matrimonial Court on 21-9-90 passed orders granting Rs. 500. 00 towards legal expenses and Rs. 500. 00 towards maintenance to wife and child.

( 3 ) WHILE so, the respondent No. 1 wife filed M. C. No. 12/90 under Section 125 of Cr. P. C. claiming maintenance for herself and her son before the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The said application was allowed for Rs. 550. 00 on 6-2-1991. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 171/92 before the IV Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and the same is pending.

( 4 ) THE petitioner consequent on the orders of Criminal Court in M. C. No. 12/90 dated 6-2-1991 filed application before the matrimonial Court to modify the orders dated 21-9-1990 passed in I. A. No. 199/90. The said application was dismissed holding that the application under Section 151 C. P. C. is not maintainable and it is open for the petitioner to seek orders from the appropriate Court. The said order is assailed in this Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

( 5 ) THE advocate for the respondents was not present. Keeping in view the general importance of the matter, this Court requested Sri S. Satyanarayana Prasad, Advocate to assist this Court as amicus curaie. He was gracious enough to accept the request and made detailed submissions.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Respondents were granted interim maintenance by the matrimonial Court on 21-9-90. They were also granted maintenance by the Criminal Court by orders dated 6-2-1991 in M. C. No. 12/90. Thus, from the date of Criminal Court order the petitioner is being made to pay maintenance twice - one under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act and another under Section 125 of Cr. P. C. He thus submits that he is liable to pay only one set of maintenance and not both. Hence the matrimonial Court erred in not modifying the interim maintenance order.

( 7 ) ON the other hand, Sri Prasad, submits that the order of matrimonial Court and Criminal Court are quite different and they are passed to achieve different purposes. He further submits that there is no bar for claiming and receiving the maintenance apart from the interim maintenance granted by the matrimonial Court pendente lite. The orders do not overlap each other and that they are required to be executed in accordance with respective provisions of law.

( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Mamata Rani v. Raj Kumar 1985 (1) HLR 496 to support his contention that the wife is not entitled for the maintenance twice. I have perused the said decision and I find that there is no discussion on the subject. Mr. Prasad relies on Danda Chanchaiah v. Danda Mangamma 1968 (2) Andh WR 98 : (1969 Cri LJ 684 ). In the said case the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate Darsi, under Section 488 Cr. P. C. awarding maintenance of Rs. 40. 00 was challenged on the ground that the husband filed application for restitution of conjugal rights and the date is pending in the Civil Court under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act. Rejecting the contention raised on behalf of petitioner, the Court observed thus,"the object of Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code is the prevention of vagrancy and to provide neglected wives and children a cheap and speedy remedy. This remedy is irrespective of other remedies such neglected wives and children may have under their personal law or unde