Cr.M.M.O. No.43 of 2009 27.4.2009. Present: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner/husband against the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge (I), Kangra at Dharamshala, passed in revision petition on 1.8.2008 whereby the order of maintenance to the respondents at the rate of Rs.1500/- each passed by the learned trial Court was up-held. Heard. Against the concurrent findings of facts, where there is no abuse of process or lack of jurisdiction, this Court cannot interfere while exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The main grouse in this petition raised by the petitioner/husband is that the respondent No.1 did not join his company despite a compromise having been effected in the proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, thus, the petitioner was compelled to file the petition for divorce wherein respondent No.1 was granted the amount of Rs.1500/- per month besides the litigation expenses of Rs.3,000/-. Thus, while granting the maintenance in the divorce proceedings, the maintenance as granted in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not apportioned, whereas the petitioner, who is a petty employee, cannot afford to pay such huge amount from his salary. It is pertinent to note that the order of maintenance passed by the learned trial Court was in existence when the order of maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was passed in favour of respondent No.1/wife, which should have been brought into the notice of the Court where the divorce petition was pending. In fact, the grievance of the petitioner should have been against the order passed against him under the Hindu Marriage Act for maintenance. The scope of both laws is different and is not dependent on each other. The proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are summary in nature, providing only a speedy remedy against starvation of a deserted wife or child or indigent parents. The divorce petition is an extra burden on the wife where she would like to defend the allegations made by her husband. In any case, the proceedings under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be used to upset the concurrent findings of facts by the Courts below in the situation in hand, more specifically, when the provisions of Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provide for alteration in allowance, if the circumstances so warrant. Therefore, in the circumstances aforesaid, the petition is dismissed. (Surinder Singh), J. April 27, 2009 (sck)