CRP 120/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE I.A. ANSARI The petitioner herein has instituted a proceeding, under Section 9 of th e Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, against the opposite party herein, seeking restituti on of conjugal rights on the ground that the opposite party herein, who is his w ife, has been living, without sufficient cause, separately from the petitioner w ith their minor child. While resisting the proceeding for restitution of conjugal rights, the o pposite party herein filed a petition, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Ac t, seeking maintenance pendente lite and expenses of the proceeding. The petitioner resisted the application for maintenance pendente lite an d the expenses of the proceeding made under Section 24 on the ground that in a p roceeding, under Section 125 Cr.PC., the opposite party has already been allowed interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.2500/- per month by order, dated 07.11.20 10, passed, in Misc. Case 15(M) of 2008, by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistra te, Tinsukia. Having pointed out that granting of interim maintenance, under Section 1 25 Cr.PC, did not debar the opposite party from claiming maintenance pendente li te and the expenses of the proceeding and that in the fact situation of the pres ent case, the present petitioner is bound to provide maintenance pendente lite a nd expenses of the proceeding, the learned Court below passed an order, on 04.03 .2010, directing the present petitioner to pay Rs.1,000/- as maintenance pendent e lite and Rs.10,000/- as expenses of the proceeding. Heard Mr. P.K. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. GP Bhow mik, learned counsel, for the opposite party. There is no dispute that the petitioner and the opposite party are legal ly wedded husband and wife, they have a minor child, the opposite party lives se parately with the child and that the petitioner, who was in Indian Air Force, on the post of a Sergent. The additional affidavit, which the petitioner has filed , shows that the petitioner’s pension is Rs.6000/- per month and he received, at the time of his retirement, a sum of about rupees six laks. Considering the fact that the child, in question, was fathered by the pe titioner and there is no bar, under the law, to grant maintenance pendente lite in a proceeding for restitution of conjugal rights even if interim maintenance h as been directed to be paid by a husband in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.PC ., the learned Court below, in the facts and attending circumstances of the pres ent case and the law relevant thereto, cannot be said to have acted without juri sdiction or illegally in directing maintenance pendente lite to be paid at the r ate of Rs.1000/- per month and Rs.10,000/- as expenses of the proceeding. Situated thus, this Court does not find any infirmity, legal or factual, in the impugned order. This revision, therefore, fails and the same shall accordingly s tand dismissed. No order as to costs.