Civil Revision No. 6252 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6252 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.09.2010 Rajesh Kumar ....Petitioner Versus Renu Bala ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Harmandeep Singh Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution to challenge the order dated 30.8.2010, vide which the 1/3rd salary of the petitioner is ordered to be attached, to execute the decree i.e. the order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, granting maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that the impugned order passed by the learned Executing Court, cannot be sustained in law, as the petitioner is paying maintenance to the respondent-wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. She was, therefore, not entitled to any maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In support of this contention the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Smt. Sonia Vs. Om Parkash, 2010(2) RCR (Criminal) 121, wherein this Court has laid down, that the wife cannot be granted maintenance pendente lite in Civil Revision No. 6252 of 2010 (O&M) -2- the proceedings under Hindu Marriage Act when she has been awarded maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. This Court held, that the wife was not entitled to double maintenance. The order was passed in revision against order granting maintenance. Reliance on this judgment by the learned counsel for the petitioner is totally misconceived. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner is to be read in the facts and circumstances of said case, as there is no bar under the law for the Court to grant maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in addition to the maintenance granted under Section 125 Cr.P.C. keeping in view the adequacy of the maintenance granted under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Even otherwise, this judgment has not applicability to the present case, as the order passed by the learned Matrimonial Court under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was not challenged and has attained finality, therefore, it was not open to the learned Executing Court to go behind the decree to find out whether the learned Matrimonial Court could have granted maintenance or not. The order of attachment also is in consonance with Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Consequently, finding no merit in this revision petition it is ordered to be dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge September 27, 2010 R.S.