THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2543 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is the husband of the respondent. He filed O.P.No.601 of 2008 in the Family Court, Hyderabad, against the respondent for divorce. The respondent, in turn, filed I.A.No.105 of 2009 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) in the said O.P., claiming a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards legal expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards maintenance. The petitioner opposed the application stating that the respondent has already filed M.C.No.29 of 2006 in the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodad and an amount of Rs.1500/- p.m., was granted as maintenance. It was also mentioned that in a criminal revision filed before this Court, an order of interim stay was passed on condition of the petitioner paying a sum of Rs.750/- p.m. towards maintenance. After taking note of the contentions advanced by the parties, the Family Court passed an order dated 26.05.2010 awarding a sum of Rs.2,250/- p.m., in addition to Rs.750/- p.m., already awarded by this Court towards maintenance. The same is challenged in this revision petition. The petitioner contends that the O.P. itself was heard finally and it is posted for judgment on 12.07.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. The respondent has already availed the remedy under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by filing M.C.No.29 of 2006. An order was passed directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- p.m. and in the criminal revision filed by the petitioner before this Court, an interim order was passed directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.750/- p.m. It is no doubt true that the Family Court has taken note of the maintenance granted by this Court. But that however be a debate as to whether a spouse can avail the remedy under Section 125 Cr.P.C as well as the one under Section 24 of the Act. This Court does not intend to entertain any discussion in relation to that aspect because the O.P. itself is heard and posted for judgment on 12.07.2010. Whatever may be the justification or otherwise for awarding the monthly maintenance, this Court is of the view that the Family Court ought to have passed an order as regards legal expenses. Though no revision is filed in relation thereto, it is felt that the ends of justice would be met if the order is modified the one of directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- towards legal expenses. The question of awarding monthly maintenance to the petitioner shall be considered depending upon the outcome of the O.P. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is allowed modifying the order dated 26.05.2010 to the effect that the petitioner shall be under obligation to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- to the respondent towards maintenance within two weeks from today. The direction as to payment of monthly maintenance is set aside and that question shall be considered at the time of disposal of the O.P. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. 5th July, 2010 Note: C.C. in 2 days. (B/o) Js.