IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1025 of 2009 Ganesh Singh, son of Sri Tej Narayan Singh, resident of AIRCRAFT Production SQN, 01 B R D, AIR FORCE Station Chakeri, Kanpur (U.P.) ………Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Bihar 2. Asha Singh, wife of Sri Ganesh Singh, D/o Sri Dhiojee Singh, resident of village-Husena Bangara, P.S.-M.H. Nagar, District- Siwan. …….Opp.Parties. 4. 09.08.2011 The husband-petitioner has preferred this revision application under Section 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the order dated 8.04.2009 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Siwan in Maintenance Case No.90/07 by which the petition dated 23.12.2008 filed by the petitioner for the dismissal of the maintenance case filed by the opposite party no.2 has been rejected. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Chandigarh court has enhanced the maintenance amount payable to his wife from Rs.1900/-per month to Rs.3000/-per month and the petitioner cannot be vexed by two different courts in different States for the same cause. The opposite party n o.2 is also a Shiksha Mitra and has own earning. 2 The learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that there are two proceedings. The petitioner has filed a Matrimonial Case under Section 13 (1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage and in that case, Chandigarh court has enhanced the amount of maintenance pendentelite from Rs.1900/-per month to 3000/-per month and this amount is to be adjusted per month and the amount granted by the Air Force authority has also to be adjusted. Any amount given under the maintenance case will be adjusted from any sum of money given to the opposite party. The wife cannot be debarred from taking recourse to maintenance case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The maintenance case is still pending and the petitioner may raise all the grievances before the learned court below. After hearing the learned counsels for both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party is correct. The maintenance case is still pending for hearing. A sum of Rs.3000/-per month has 3 been directed to be paid to the opposite party by the petitioner by the court at Chandigarh in the divorce case as maintenance pendente lite. It cannot be said that the amount has been granted forever. Any amount paid to the opposite party for maintenance by the petitioner will be the subject of the amount which would be payable to the opposite party in the amount of maintenance. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. In the result, this petition is dismissed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)