I.S. Tiwana, J. - The petitioner, who has initiated proceedings against his wife-respondent No. 1 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in a Court at Patiala, wants the stay of the proceedings launched by her under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at Khanna, for herself and on behalf of her minor child Amit Kumar-respondent No. 2. In support of his stand the learned Counsel places reliance on a judgment of this Court reported as Om Parkash v. Smt. Jai Devi, 1977 P.L.J. Cr. 54. I, however, find that not only that there is a chain of authorities, such as : Dr. Rameshcahndra Shambhubhai Yadav v. Dhirajgavri w/o Dr. Rameshchandra Shambhubhai, 1982 H.L.K. 465; Vadapalli Sathyavathi v. V.V.S.N. Raju, 1979 Crl. L.J. NOC 144; Velukutty v. Prasanna Kumari, 1986(1) HLR 109; and Prem Nath Sarvan v. Prem Lata Sarvan, 1987 P.L.R. (Delhi) 24; wherein a contrary view has been taken, but also for the reason that the scope of the two inquiries under the above noted sections is entirely different he is not entitled to relief prayed for. The grant of maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot possibly thwart the claim of the respondent-wife under