1. Challenging the order dated 10.10.2007 Annexure P-1 passed by the Principle Judge, Family Court, Gwalior in Case No. 531-Al06 (Hindu Marriage Act) rejecting an application for adjustment of interim alimony granted in the proceedings held in the case in question i.e. Case No. 531-A/06 pending under the Hindu Marriage Act, petitioner has filed this petition.

2. Facts in brief necessary for disposal of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution are that petitioner/husband has filed an application under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage solemnized between the petitioner/husband and respondent wife. The proceedings have been registered as case No. 531-A/06 (HMA) and is pending before the Presiding Judge, Family Court, Gwalior. In the said proceedings, respondent/wife filed an application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking maintenance pendente lite and expenses for the proceedings. In the application filed under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act respondent/wife claimed a sum of Rs. 2,000/per month as maintenance, a sum of Rs. 500/- as litigation expenses. It was her case that petitioner/husband is earning more than Rs. 15,000/per month. Apart from filing this application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the proceedings pending under the Hindu Marriage Act, respondent-wife also filed an application claiming maintenance under section 125 of CrPC before the same Family Court which was registered as Misc. Cr. Case No. 647/2006. In this application also respondent-wife claimed a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as maintenance and Rs. 500/- as litigation expenses. Both these applications were decided by the same Presiding Officer of the Family Court on the same day i.e. 13.4.2007 vide Annexure P-2 and Annexure P-3 respectively. In both these cases, learned Family Court has directed for payment of Rs. 1,000/-as maintenance and a sum of Rs. 500/- as litigation expenses. Inter aha contending that adjustment of the amounts granted by way of maintenance under section 125 of CrPC is not granted while passing order on the application filed under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, an application was filed before the Family Court, the aforesaid application for adjustment having being dismissed vide order dated 10.10.2007, Annexure P-1 , petitioner is before this Court in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging the rejection of the application for adjustment of the maintenance granted in both the proceedings.

3. Shri R. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that respondent-wife was only entitled for one maintenance and when orders were passed by the Family Court on both the applications i.e. under section 125 of CrPC so also under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, adjustment of the amount paid under section 125 of CrPC should have been granted. In support thereof, he places reliance in the case of Narayani Rathore (Smt.) v. Ramesh Chandra Rathore [2003 (II) MPWN 151] and also places reliance on a judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Sudeep Chaudhary v. Radha Chaudhary [2000 (I) MPWN 119].

4. Refuting the aforesaid contentions, Shri Sarvesh Chouhan, learned counsel for the respondent-wife submitted that the scope and object of the proceedings under section 125 of CrPC and under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act arc different and learned Court can grant relief in both these cases and in the present case learned Court having found entitlement of the respondent-wife to get benefit under both these provisions, passed the order on the same day and refused to grant adjustment. Shri Chouhan, argues that in doing so leaned Court has not committed any error warranting interference in these proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the provisions of section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and that of section 125 of CrPC, it is seen that remedies available to an a