1. Heard.

This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner/non-applicant against the order dated 5.4.2008 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior, in Suit No. 117-Al07 (HMA), whereby the learned Family Court rejected the application for grant of maintenance pendente lite filed by the petitioner under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the "Act") and awarded Rs. 1,500/- only towards litigation expenses.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-husband has filed an application under section 13 of the Act for dissolution of marriage solemnized between the petitioner-wife and respondent-husband. The· proceedings have been registered as Case No. 117 -Al07 (HMA) and is pending before the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior. In the said proceedings, petitioner-wife filed an application under section. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking maintenance pendente lite and expenses for the proceedings. The respondent-husband is working at SRF Malanpur and his monthly income is Rs. 10,562/-. He is having agricultural land at Village Chhareta, from which his income is Rs. 35,000/- per annum. He is also having house at Saraswati Nagar, the valuation of which is Rs. 50.00 lacs, 200 sq. mtr. plot at SADA, 74.30 sq.mtr. land at Mahalgaon, near Govindpuri and 1,250 sq.ft. land at Mehra Gwalior. No reply of this application was filed by the respondent. The petitioner wife also filed an application claiming maintenance under section 125, CrPC, in which maintenance was awarded to the petitioner @ 2,000/per month vide order dated 7.12.2007. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is getting maintenance @ Rs. 2,000/- per month. An objection was raised before the Family Court that the petitioner-wife was only entitled for one maintenance and no maintenance pendente lite in an application filed under section 24 of the Act can be granted by the Family Court.

3. The Family Court considered the said objection and held by the impugned order that the petitioner is getting maintenance @ Rs. 2,000/per month and therefore there is no need for grant of further maintenance in an application filed under section 24 of the Act. In respect of litigation expenses, the Family Court awarded a sum of Rs. 1,500/- to the petitioner.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that scope and object of the proceedings under section 125, CrPC and under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act are different. There is no bar that if an application under section 125, CrPC is allowed, then the application filed by the petitioner under section 24 of the Act is not maintainable.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are consistent views of various Courts that both the proceedings of section 24 of the Act and section 125 of CrPC can be invoked seeking maintenance and alimony pendente lite by either of the spouse and therefore the learned Family Judge committed an error in not granting alimony pendente lite. She further submitted that the grant of adjustment, therefore, is a matter to be decided by the Family Court after considering the documents filed by her regarding the income of the respondent-husband. This question was cropped up for consideration before this Bench in the case of Ashok Singh Pal v. Smt. Manjulata [2008 (I) MPWN 107] para 10 is relevant, which reads as under:

"10. The Supreme Court in the case of Sudhip Choudhary (supra) relied upon by Shri R.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, does not say that the amount of maintenance granted should be adjusted, it only says that maintenance amount may be adjusted. In the case of Narayani Rathore (supra) after considering the grant of maintenance made, this Court found that amount of maintenance granted under section 125, CrPC should be adjusted while considering the question of maintenance and simultaneously adjustment was granted, howeve