The independence of proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 125 Cr.P.C., and the adjustability of maintenance allowance granted under Section 24 towards the amount granted under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

Sunil Kumar Garg, J.-This revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner husband on 210.2003 against the order dated 31.07.2003 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 28/2003(Smt. Manju vs. Harish Kumar) WHEREBY THE learned

C.J.M. allowed the application filed by the respondent wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and granted interim maintenance to the respondent wife to the tune of Rs. 75 0/-p.m. from the date of the application i.e. from 2.2003 without there being any order regarding adjustment of maintenance having been granted to the respondent wife to the tune of Rs. 75 0/-p.m. under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1955) which was passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Didwana vide order dated 24.2001,

2. It arises in the following circumstances:

i) That the marriage between the petitioner husband and respondent wife took place on 10.12.1993 and on 27.09.1999 petitioner husband filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Act, 1955 in the ground of desertion and cruelty in the Court of Additional District Judge, Didwana against the respondent wife. In that petition, the respondent wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Act, 1955 on 06.01.2001 for grant of interim maintenance and litigation expenses. The learned Additional District Judge, Didwana through order dated 21.04.2001 granted Rs.750/-per month as interim maintenance to the respondent wife and also granted Rs. 450/-for each and every date of hearing as litigation expenses.

ii) That further case of the petitioner husband is that the respondent wife filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner or 05.02.2003 and in that application the respondent wife also sought interim maintenance. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate through order dated 31.07.2003 granted interim maintenance of Rs. 750/-to the respondent wife w.e.f 05.02.2003 i.e. from the date of application.

iii) That the further case of the petitioner husband in that since both the Courts i.e. Additional District Judge, Didwana and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner have passed order granting interim maintenance to the respondent wife separately, therefore, the respondent wife cannot be allowed to draw both amounts, as it is settled law that the maintenance allowance in both the proceedings under Section 24 of the Act, 1955 and under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is adjustable and whichever is higher is to be paid, therefore, the subsequent order of interim maintenance dated 31.07.2003 passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner should be quashed.

3. Thelearned counsel for the respondent wife has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by Andhra Pradesh High Court in T. Rajender Singh vs. Smt. Maya Devi (1), and has submitted that the respondent wife is entitled to both interim maintenance one granted under Section 24 of the Act, 1955, and other granted under Section 125 Cr.P.C. since proceedings are different in nature.

4. I have heard both an perused the case file.

5. ThisCourt had got the occasion earlier to speak on the similar issue in a case Shanti Devi (Smt.) vs. Mathura Lal (2), wherein this Court give following observations:

“That the amount of ad-interim maintenance granted in favour of the petitioner by the learned District Judge, Tonk under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act shall be adjusted in the maintenance amount granted, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is true that proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and under Section 125 Cr.P.c. are independent and separate proceedings. But the quantum of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has to be determined keeping in view the various sources of income of the party. A party should not get double maintenance amount from the husband passed in separate proceedings. The learned Additional Sessions J