JUDGMENT :

M.G. Giratkar, J.

1. None appears for the applicant.

2. On 12-9-2018, none appeared for the parties. Case was fixed for dismissal on 17-9-2018. On 17-9-2018, Ms. Priyanka Gaikwad, Advocate holding for Advocate Kshirsagar for the applicant appeared and requested for time and it was granted as last chance. Today also, none appears for the applicant. Advocate Shri Badar is present for the respondent. He has submitted that present revision is against the order of maintenance granted by Family Court in E Petition No. 1/2016. There is no bar under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to grant maintenance, even the order for maintenance is passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Learned counsel has pointed out decision of this Court in the case of Alka w/o Vardhaman Bamb Vs. Vardhaman @ Pushkaraj @ Narendra S/o. Nemichand Bamb reported in 2000 (3) Mh.L.J. 512 : [2000 (1) ALL MR 371].

3. In the present revision, respondent - wife filed application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. During pendency of this application, husband moved before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Bhusawal and filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Respondent wife appeared and applied for maintenance and litigation expenses as per the provisions of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Application, Exhibit 13 in the said petition came to be decided on 13-7-2016. Husband was directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to his wife Pallavi towards financial assistance from the date of filing of application till the conclusion of the matter. H.M.P. No. 295/2015 finally decided on 9-3-2017. The appeal filed by wife came to be dismissed on 24-8-2017. From the order below Exhibit 13 in H.M.P. No. 295/2015, it is clear that "husband was directed to pay financial assistance to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- to the respondent - wife per month from the date of filing of application till conclusion of this matter." Therefore, plain reading of the order dated 13-7-2016 below Exhibit 13 in H.M.P. No. 295/2015 clearly shows that the order of granting financial assistance was till the conclusion of that matter. Certified copy of judgment in H.M.P. No. 295/2015 shows that it is finally decided on 9-3-2017. Therefore, there is no doubt that order of financial assistance of Rs. 3,000/- per month passed under the provisions of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act came to an end on 9-3-2017.

4. Impugned judgment granting maintenance to the respondent-wife is dated 26-10-2017 in E Petition No. 1/2016. It is clear that on the day of judgment dated 26-10-2017, there was no order of any maintenance in favour of the respondent-wife. This Court in the case of Alka w/o Vardhaman Bamb Vs. Vardhaman @ Pushkaraj @ Narendra S/o. Nemichand Bamb [2000(1) ALL MR 371] (supra) has held as under:-

The object and purpose of section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 are very different. The proceedings under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code provide immediate and speedy remedy to the wife and children so as to avoid vagrancy of the wife and the children. As against that section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act tries to bring to equal level both the parties in litigation by providing maintenance and cost of litigation so that there should be fair play while deciding the matrimonial rights of the parties. Thus, the scope of section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in a matrimonial litigation is quite different than the case under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. An order passed under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has no relevance with the order under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

5. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Leena w/o Chandrakant @ Balasaheb Chavan Vs. Chandrakant @ Balasaheb Arjunrao Chavan reported in 2000(2) Mh.L.J. 1 : [2000(3) ALL MR 216] has held that "despite there being order under Section 125 of the Criminal Proce