MILAP CHANDRA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order of the Additional District Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh dated 21st March, 1976 by which he partly allowed the application of the petitioner moved under Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (here in after referred to as 'the Act'), simply granted litigation expenses at rate of Rs. 25/ - per month and refused to grant maintenance on the ground that order under Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has already been passed. The application was moved by her in the case started by her husband Kaka Singh under Section 9 of the Act.
(2.) NOTICE was issued to the non -petitioner for showing cause as to why revision petition be not admitted and allowed at the admission stage. Despite service of the notice, none has put appearance for and on behalf of the non -petitioner Kaka Singh. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the learned lower court has seriously erred in refusing to grant maintenance on the ground that an order has already been passed under Section 125, Cr.P.C. He contended that despite this order, maintenance could be granted under Section 24 of the Act. He also contended that the grant of litigation expenses at rate of Rs. 25/ - per month is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 24 of the Act and the learned trial court should have granted a lump -sum amount to meet the litigation expenses. He lastly contended that the monthly maintenance should be granted at least at rate of Rs. 200/ - and Rs. 500/ - be granted as litigation expenses.
(3.) THE learned Additional District Judge, Hanumangarh has refused to grant' maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the around that the petitioner Mst. Dhola has already been granted maintenance at rate of Rs. 150/ - per month under Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The provisions of Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act are not subject to the provisions of Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 The trial court should have awarded maintenance under Section 24 of the Act, it has no justification to refuse it on the ground that an order under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has already been passed Mst. Dhola has categorically stated in her affidavit that despite order under Section 125, Cr.P.C. her husband is not paying a single pie towards maintenance. In Surjeet Kaur 7 Heera Singh AIR 1978 P&H; 12, it has been held that jurisdiction of the subordinate court relief under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is not ousted by mere pre -existing order of a Criminal Court under Section 125, Cr.P.C. 1973.;