ORDER H.C.P. Tripathi, J. - This revision is directed against an order of the learned Magistrate 1st Class, Dehradun, directing the applicant to pay Rs. 70 per month as maintenance allowance to the Respondent. This order, which has been upheld in revision by the learned Sessions Judge, was passed by the Magistrate in a proceeding u/s 488, Code of Criminal Procedure initiated by the Respondent on the allegation that she was the legally wedded wife of the applicant and that he was neglecting to maintain her and therefore she was living since the last several years with her parents. It appears that during the pendency of this proceeding before the Magistrate the Respondent had filed a suit against the applicant for judicial separation u/s 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before a civil court. That suit was dismissed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge, Dehradun, on 8-10-63 inter alia, on the finding that "it has been proved beyond any doubt that the Respondent did not desert the Petitioner and it is the Petitioner who had withdrawn herself from the society of the Respondent without any reasonable cause and without the consent of the Respondent. It has also been proved that the Respondent has not willfully neglected or failed to maintain the Petitioner and as such the Petitioner has failed to prove desertion." A certified copy of the judgment of the learned Civil Judge has been filed in this Court by the applicant. 2. In view of this decision by a competent civil court, the impugned order of the Magistrate allowing the maintenance allowance to the applicant cannot be sustained (vide Jogendra Krishna Banerji and Others Vs. Administrator-General and Others, AIR 1940 Cal 87 and Sharda Prasad Vs. Emperor ). 3. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has argued that the appeal against the order of the Civil Judge is pending in this Court. The pendency of the appeal can have no effect on this proceeding. The Respondent can, however, seek her remedy before the appellate court under Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 4. In the result, this revision is allowed and the impugned order of the Magistrate dated 30-4-1963 is quashed.