Civil Revision No.7903 of 2010 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.7903 of 2010 Date of decision: 22.9.2011 Ajit Singh ...Petitioner Versus Surinder Kaur ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Mithlesh Puri, Advocate for the petitioner. . Ms. Shivay Dhir, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner-husband has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside of order dated 13.10.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Mohali whereby it has been ordered that he shall pay ad-interim maintenance to the respondent-wife @ ` 5000/- per month from the date of application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act i.e. 20.11.2008 and further directed to pay ` 5500/- as litigation expenses to the respondent-wife. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent-wife was getting ` 3500/- per month as maintenance as had been ordered in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and ` 5000/- per month have been awarded under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that separate maintenance cannot be awarded under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and under Section 24 of Civil Revision No.7903 of 2010 -2- **** the Hindu Marriage Act. According to him, the maintenance awarded under the aforesaid provisions is liable to be adjusted from the quantum of maintenance which is higher. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent was not able to dispute that the maintenance under the two statutes had to be adjusted and that claimant was not entitled to separate maintenance under both the statutes. He, however, stated that respondent-wife has no objection with regard to the adjustment of monthly maintenance which had been awarded under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the maintenance of ` 5000/- per month awarded under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act with effect from 20.11.2008. Ordered accordingly. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner states that a sum of ` 11,000/- as litigation expenses had been deposited in this Court in terms of order dated 11.3.2011 passed by this Court, which learned counsel for the respondent-wife confirms that the same have been received. 4. Consequently, the revision petition is disposed of with the above modification in order dated 13.10.2010 as noticed above. September 22, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Pka Judge