M. G. Giratkar, J
1. None appears for the applicant.
2. On 12Â9Â2018, none appeared for the parties. Case was fixed for dismissal on 17Â9Â2018. On 17Â9Â2018, Ms. Priyanka Gaikwad, Advocate
holding for Advocate Kshirsagar for the applicant appeared and requested for time and it was granted as last chance. Today also, none appears for
the applicant. Advocate Shri Badar is present for the respondent. He has submitted that present revision is against the order of maintenance granted
by Family Court in E Petition No. 1/2016. There is no bar under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to grant maintenance, even the order
for maintenance is passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Learned counsel has pointed out decision of this Court in the case of Alka
w/o Vardhaman Bamb Vs. Vardhaman @ Pushkaraj @ Narendra s/o Nemichand Bamb reported in 2000(3) Mh.L.J. 512.
3. In the present revision, respondent â€" wife filed application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. During
pendency of this application, husband moved before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Bhusawal and filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights.
RespondentÂwife appeared and applied for maintenance and litigation expenses as per the provisions of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Application, Exhibit 13 in the said petition came to be decided on 13Â7Â2016. Husband was directed to pay Rs. 3,000/Â per month to his wife Pallavi
towards financial assistance from the date of filing of application till the conclusion of the matter. H.M.P. No. 295/2015 finally decided on 9Â3Â2017.
The appeal filed by wife came to be dismissed on 24Â8Â2017. From the order below Exhibit 13 in H.M.P. No. 295/2015, it is clear that “husband
was directed to pay financial assistance to the tune of Rs. 3,000/ to the respondent â€" wife per month from the date of filing of application till
conclusion of this matter.†Therefore, plain reading of the order dated 13Â7Â2016 below Exhibit 13 in H.M.P. No. 295/2015 clearly shows that the
order of granting financial assistance was till the conclusion of that matter. Certified copy of judgment in H.M.P. No. 295/2015 shows that it is finally
decided on 9Â3Â2017. Therefore, there is no doubt that order of financial assistance of Rs. 3,000/Â per month passed under the provisions of Section
24 of the Hindu Marriage Act came to an end on 9Â3Â2017.
4. Impugned judgment granting maintenance to the respondent â€" wife is dated 26Â10Â2017 in E Petition No. 1/2016. It is clear that on the day of
judgment dated 26Â10Â2017, there was no order of any maintenance in favour of the respondent â€" wife. This Court in the case of Alka w/o
Vardhaman Bamb Vs. Vardhaman @ Pushkaraj @ Narendra s/o Nemichand Bamb (supra) has held as under :Â
The object and purpose of section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 are very different. The
proceedings under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code provide immediate and speedy remedy to the wife and children so as to avoid vagrancy of
the wife and the children. As against that section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act tries to bring to equal level both the parties in litigation by providing
maintenance and cost of litigation so that there should be fair play while deciding the matrimonial rights of the parties. Thus, the scope of section 24 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in a matrimonial litigation is quite different than the case under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. An
order passed under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has no relevance with the order under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955.
5. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Leena w/o Chandrakant @ Balasaheb Chavan Vs. Chandrakant @ Balasaheb Arjunrao Chavan
reported in 2000(2) Mh.L.J. 1 has held that “despite there being order under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Matrimonial Court
passed an order under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act granting permanent alimony. Amount awarded by Matrimonial Court will be in addition
to the amount awarded under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.â€
6. There is no dispute that husband had filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights. In that petition, application under Section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act was filed by the wife. During pendency of that petition, application under Section 24 was allowed and it was specifically directed to
the husband to pay financial assistance of Rs. 3,000/Â and litigation expenses. The order is very specific. That amount was to be paid till the disposal
of Hindu Marriage Petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Before passing the judgment on application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, Hindu Marriage Petition for restitution of conjugal rights was already decided. In view of the cited judgment, there is no bar to the Court to
grant maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code even though financial assistance/maintenance was granted by the Matrimonial
Court dealing in matrimonial proceedings. Hence, impugned order passed by the Family Court is perfectly legal and correct. There is no perversity or
illegality in the impugned order. In that view of the matter, revision deserves to be dismissed and, accordingly, it is dismissed.
