HfGH GOURT OF ©HHAmSQARHAT SIL.ASPUR W.P. ;)No.3174of2007 ' F^StiGner Nilesh Rajak. agedabout28yeaFSt Applwant sonofNarmadaPrasadRajaK.Wo "Mat" Chhaya" Tiiak Nagsr, Biiaspur, Tahsii and District B!faspur(C.G.) Smt Richa Rajak. agsd about 22 years, wife 'of Niiesh Ra/ak, D/o Ba^nt Kumar Kanaujiya, R/o Giriiyari, Cfo Basamt Kumar Kanauji^i, Raitoay Guard, near Shrinasar Gas Godown, Gudyari, Rapur, Tdisil and Dtelrict Raipur{C.S.) Vsreus Respondent Nonappiicant WSrT PETJTION UNDERARTICLE 2270F TH! CwlSTfTUTlOS^WWlDlA : HoR'ysJustice SaSsh K. Agmhofri ShriM.K. Bhadi.in, AdvocatefwffWpeWmwr. ORDER (Passadon mis 14 esaycf Juna, 2007) 1. Lssrned; counse! appsarins for the petitioner submite that the pefiSoner is the husband of the responcterit. By ordei' dated 25.3.2007 passed in LokAdaiat. the petitioner was directsd to pay a sumofRs. 12{X)/-p.m.toward3maJntenancsinaps&'tionfi!sdundsr Seciion 125 of {hs Gode of C."mina! Procedure. Thereafter the Famity Court in a eiivorce suit. being Case No. 302-A/2005 passed the order dated 3G.4.2(X?7 directing the (^tifionerto s?ay a sum of Rs.SOO/- p.m. to the respondent as mterim maintenance. 2. Leamsd counsel for the peS'tioner submte that the first order passed undsr Section 425 ofthsCr.P.C is subiectto adiusftnsnt in the ordsr passed bythe Famiiy Court under Section 24 ofthe Hindu Mamage Act. There is nd dispute wjth rsgard to tt)e contsnfion of fchs leamed counsei. The petitjoner ctoes not question She quantum of Ihe ^- F ^ %^ amount payable by way of rnaintsnance to the respondents. The petitioner further does not <***1^***) ^ul/lilit that the ihcome of the petitioner/husband is notsuch^ asto pay an amount of Rs. 2000/- p.m.(Rs.1200A.+80Q/-). 3. Be that as it may, the adiustment does not mean on!y ttie amount shoufd be wifriin the amount granted by the Giw! Court. The adiustment means in addition whatever has been granted under the provisions of Section 125 pfthe Cr.P.C., some niore amounS ean aiso be granted undsr Section 24 ofthe Hindu Marriage Act. 4. In view of She above. the grant of tota! sum of Rs. 20CX)/- under two provisions is permissible in iaw. Thus. Shere is nothing in the matter. 5. Thfe petition is accordinglydjsmissed. summariiy. -!. 1 llj Thakur ^••:.-Sd7-;:,^% :SatisSi^|i'istotr1^ t'.fiBg^?^'?." F~