JUDGMENT :

Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.

1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Saksham Agarwal, learned counsel for the sole respondent.

2. On the request of the learned counsels for the parties to argue the matter on merits for final disposal of the appeal, the matter was heard and the judgment/order was reserved.

3. This appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been filed challenging the order dated 28.02.2020 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family court, court no. 1, Lucknow in Misc. Case No. 107-C/16 (original case no. 667/2016), on an application of the respondent-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short 'the H.M. Act'), whereby the application was partly allowed with a direction to the appellant-husband to make payment of Rs. 2500/-per month, as interim maintenance upto the final judgment in Original Case no. 667/2016.

4. The marriage of the plaintiff-appellant with the defendant-respondent was solemnized on 14.12.2005 but due to differences between them, the appellant filed Original Case No. 667/2016 for divorce under Section 13 of the H.M. Act. In this case, the respondent filed petition under Section 24 of the H.M. Act being Misc. Case no. 107-C/2016 for maintenance and pendente lite expenses.

5. In the application it was, inter alia stated that she had no source of income for her support. She was having two minor daughters and was unable to maintain herself and the minor daughters as also to bear the expenses of the litigation. The monthly income of the appellant was stated to be about Rs. 90,000/-per month from his Gym Club and the rent of the houses under his ownership/landlordship.

6. The appellant filed objection and inter alia denied the claim of the respondent and submitted that the respondent had source of livelihood and her monthly income was about Rs. 60,000/- and denied that his monthly income was Rs. 90,000/-.

7. The family court vide order dated 28.02.2020 allowed the petition under Section 24 of the H.M. Act and awarded pendente lite maintenance of Rs.2500/-per month and Rs. 6000/-as one time expenses of the litigation and an amount of Rs.100/-for each date of personal appearane of the respondent towards travelling expenses.

8. The respondent herein had filed criminal case no. 1179 of 2016 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for maintenance to her and two minor daughters in which the Incharge Principal Judge, Family court, Lucknow vide order dated 09.09.2016 allowed interim maintenance of Rs. 1500/-per month for the respondent and a further sum of Rs. 1000/-per month to each of the two minor daughters was also allowed.

9. Sri Manoj Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant raised the only submission that the respondent-wife and two minor daughters are already receiving interim maintenance which was granted in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. but deliberately the respondent did not disclose the same in the petition under Section 24 of the H.M. Act. The appellant cannot be saddled with liability of maintenance in both the proceedings and the amount of maintenance granted under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to the wife was liable to be adjusted, in the proceedings under Section 24 of the H.M. Act.

10. Sri Saksham Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant has not paid any amount towards interim maintenance awarded vide order dated 09.09.2016 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The appellant, admittedly, is running Gymnasium. The amount of pendente lite maintenance of Rs.2500/-per month and the amount of interim maintenance of Rs.1500/-per month under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to the respondent-wife in total, amounting to Rs.4000/-per month cannot be said to be unreasonable, although even in such amount, it is very difficult for the respondent to maintain herself. He submits that the appellant did not raise the plea of adjustment or set off the amount of interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr