ALKA @ PRACHI Vs. SANJAY @ SANJU MIDHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As per office note, notice issued to sole respondent has been received back duly served. No one appears on behalf of respondent. Respondent is proceeded against ex parte. Heard Mr. Sidhu.

(2.) Only a short legal point is involved in this case which is covered by precedent of this Court in favour of the petitioner. This petition arises out of the order dated August 17, 2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, (Family Court) in a divorce petition filed by the respondent in HMA Case No.71 of 2015 case titled as Sanjay @ Sanju v. Alka @ Prachi. The Kurukshetra Court has dismissed the application filed under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the petitioner for the reason that the respondent-wife was already in receipt of maintenance allowance @ Rs. 7,000/- per month from the petitioner-husband granted in a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. While dismissing the application, the Court below has awarded a sum of Rs. 5500/- in lump sum as litigation expenses alone and refused to pass orders on the main prayer for interim maintenance.

(3.) The view taken by the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, cannot be sustained. In Sudeep Chaudhary v. Radha Chaudhary, (1997) 1 SCC 286, the Supreme Court held that the amount awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance is adjustable against the amount awarded in the matrimonial proceedings. Following the dictum in Sudeep Chaudhary's case (supra) and noticing the ruling in Smt. Sonia v. Om Prakash, 2010 (2) RCR (Civil) 160, guiding that the law on the subject which is crystal clear that an order for grant of maintenance has to be passed under Section 24 of the Act even if there is also in existence an order passed for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The Single Bench of this Court in the judgment in Vikas Kumar v. Ritu, 2015 (1) HLR 50, has applied the law in the aforesaid judgments which makes the research on the point easier.