THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.600 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) against order made in Crl.M.P.No.1113 of 2002 in M.C.No.362 of 1995 on the file of Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Cases-cum- Additional Family Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘Family Court’), whereunder the petition filed under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. for recovery of arrears of maintenance was dismissed. I have gone through the record. The impugned petition was filed under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. for recovery of arrears of maintenance of Rs.20,800/- @ Rs.400/- per month to each of the petitioners therein as awarded in M.C.No.362 of 1995 on the file of the Family Court claimed to have fallen due from October, 2000 to October, 2002. The claim of the revision petitioners is that the High Court was pleased to direct the first respondent to pay Rs.400/- per month in C.R.P.No.3440 of 2000, dated 5.9.2000 towards interim maintenance in I.A.No.336 of 2000 in O.P.No.280 of 1999 on the file of Family Court, Secunderabad, which was filed for divorce and that t the first respondent deposited Rs.16,200/- in the Family Court requesting the Court to adjust the amount towards the payment of maintenance awarded in the maintenance case also and contended that he is not liable to pay the amounts awarded both under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short ‘the Act’). The Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, dismissed the petition relying upon a decision reported in the case of Haridas Bhattacharjee Vs. Suparna Bhattacharjee[1], in which it was observed “A husband cannot be made liable for payment of maintenance both under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The order of the Magistrate regarding the award of maintenance is directed to be kept in abeyance so long as the wife gets alimony under Section 24 of the Act. The order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. gets revived when the order made under Section 24 ceases to operate.” It is pertinent to note here that the Court below while dismissing the petitioner, properly held that the first respondent-husband could not be made liable for the payment of maintenance both under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and considering the amount already paid no arrears need be paid to the other side. Therefore, I do not see any ground to interfere with the order passed by the Court below. The revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. _____________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 11th July, 2011 DR [1] 2000(1) CHN 511