Judgment :- 1. Revision petitioner is the husband of the respondent. They have three children. In M. C. 2/1979 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichur, order was passed under S.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') directing revision petitioner to pay monthly Rs. 100/- for the maintenance of the wife and Rs. 170/- in all for the maintenance of the three children. Thereafter, husband filed O.P. 156/1984 before the District Court, Trichur seeking decree of divorce under S.13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'the Act') on grounds of desertion and cruelty. Respondent is opposing the petition. She filed I.A. 1540/1984 seeking an order under S.24 of the Act providing for maintenance pendente lite and expenses of the proceeding. She claimed Rs. 300/- per month as maintenance pendente lite and Rs. 1,000/- as litigation expenses. Application was opposed by the husband. However, the Court passed an order directing the husband to pay Rs. 500/- as litigation expenses and Rs. 200/- per month as maintenance pendente lite. Court further directed that the sum of Rs. 200/- per month would be inclusive of Rs. 100/- per month ordered in her favour by the criminal court. It is this order which is now challenged. 2. Revision petitioner challenges the quantum fixed by the matrimonial court. He is working as conductor in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation with total emoluments of Rs. 1365/- per month. Deductions for G.P.F. and L.I.C. premium would be Rs. 123/- per month leaving a balance of Rs. 1242/- per month. Court below accepted that he has to maintain his parents and has to pay Rs. 170/- per month for the maintenance of the three children. It was on this basis that maintenance was fixed, considering his income and the fact that the wife has no income. Considering his income and liabilities, it is difficult to hold that the quantum fixed by the court below as maintenance or as litigation expenses is excessive. Revision petitioner would contend that there are other deductions for discharge of provident fund loan and co-operative society loan. These deductions cannot obviously be taken into account in computing his income. I do not find any ground to interfere with the quantum fixed by the court below. 3. Revision petitioner would contend that there are other deductions for discharge of provident fund loan and co-operative society loan. These deductions cannot obviously be taken into account in computing his income. I do not find any ground to interfere with the quantum fixed by the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that in view of the order of maintenance passed by the criminal court under S.125 of the Code, matrimonial court could not have passed order under S.24 of the Act. Learned counsel would contend that there cannot be two parallel orders co-existing at the same time. According to him, matrimonial court should have refrained from passing order of maintenance. This ground is not specifically taken in the revision petition, but I am considering the same since it has been urged before me. 4. S.125 of the Code deals with passing of an order for maintenance of wife, children and parents. Before order is passed, Criminal court must be satisfied that the wife is unable to maintain herself and the husband has sufficient means but has neglected or refused to maintain her. On such proof, Criminal court can pass order for maintenance subject to the ceiling of Rs. 500/- per month. Sub-sections (4) and (5) of S 125 as also the provisions of S.127 provide further restrictions on the claim of a wife or a divorced wife. A wife, who is living in adultery or without sufficient reason refuses to live with the husband or lives separately by mutual consent is not eligible to claim maintenance under these provisions. Order of maintenance passed is to be enforced by issue of warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fine and the criminal court is competent to sentence the defaulting husband to imprisonment. Procedure is laid down in S.126 of the Code. 5. From the above provisions, it could be seen that provisions in the Code are intended to provide for summary, speedy and cheap remedy or a limited nature to wives and other dependents. The provisions create a statutory right, independent of personal law, a right which cannot be enforced in a civil court. This right and remedy do not take away any right which the wife has under common law or personal law or other statutes. See Kariyadan Pokkar v. Kayat Beyeran Kutti (ILR XIX Mad. The provisions create a statutory right, independent of personal law, a right which cannot be enforced in a civil court. This right and remedy do not take away any right which the wife has under common law or personal law or other statutes. See Kariyadan Pokkar v. Kayat Beyeran Kutti (ILR XIX Mad. 461), Lingappa Goundan and another v. Esudasan (ILR XXVII Mad. 13), Mohammed Haneefa v. Mariam Bi (AIR 1969 Mad. 414) and Syed Ahmad v. N.P. Taj Begum (AIR 1958 Mysore 128). 6. These provisions have been enacted with the object of enabling uncared wives and other dependents to secure much needed and urgent relief. The object is to serve a social purpose of alleviating privation and avoiding destitution and vagrancy. Legislature has tried to identify the relations or persons who can be compelled to help such destitutes. Design of the provisions is to provide urgent relief to the needy. In the very nature of things, relief must be ensured without delay and expenses. That is why the remedy is summary, speedy and cheap; at the same time,, its efficacy is very limited. It is subject to various conditions and restrictions and maximum limit is also prescribed. Naturally, any orders passed by the Criminal court are subject to final determination of rights of parties by competent civil court. See Ashish v. D.C. Tewari (AIR 1970 Delhi 98). 7. There has been systematic attempt to codify the personal law of Hindus, one of the statutes so enacted being the Hindu Marriage Act, which lays down rules regarding marriage and divorce, conditions of Hindu marriage, guardianship of marriage, ceremonies of Hindu marriage and registration of Hindu marriage. The Act enables either party to a marriage to file petitions before the competent court for restitution of conjugal rights, judicial separation, nullity of marriage and divorce. Divorce by mutual consent also is provided for. The Act has conferred jurisdiction on the Matrimonial Court to provide for permanent alimony and maintenance for the benefit of either party to a marriage. This can be provided under S.25 either at the time of passing a decree or even subsequently, on application. S.24 of the Act deals with maintenance pendente lite and expenses of the proceedings. It is open to the wife or the husband, having no independent income sufficient for support and necessary expenses of the proceedings, to file an application. This can be provided under S.25 either at the time of passing a decree or even subsequently, on application. S.24 of the Act deals with maintenance pendente lite and expenses of the proceedings. It is open to the wife or the husband, having no independent income sufficient for support and necessary expenses of the proceedings, to file an application. On such application, it is open to the Matrimonial court to order the opposite party to pay to the applicant expenses of the proceedings and monthly during the pendency of the proceedings such sum as having regard to the income of both parties it may seem to the court to be reasonable. The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 also deals with maintenance. S.18 relates to maintenance of wives. S.23 deals with the amount of maintenance. 8. Remedies under the Hindu Marriage Act and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act are quite different. Under the former, Matrimonial Court being already seized of the main matrimonial dispute, is empowered to pass an order for permanent alimony and maintenance at the time of passing decree or even subsequently; the Matrimonial Court is also empowered to pass orders regarding maintenance pendente lite during the pendency of the matrimonial proceedings. Remedy under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act can be enforced only in a civil suit and not by way of petition before the Matrimonial court. 9. Jurisdiction of the Act can be invoked only if a matrimonial dispute of the nature contemplated under the provisions of the Act is before matrimonial court. Relief of permanent alimony or maintenance pendente lite can be claimed by either spouse. In the case of permanent alimony, what is to be considered mainly is income or other property of the parties along with the conduct of parties and other circumstances of the case. What is to be considered for the purpose of interim maintenance under S.24 of the Act is income of either party. Orders passed by the Matrimonial Court are enforceable in the like manner as decrees and orders of civil courts. Various restrictions available in regard to an order under S.125 of the Code are absent in S.24 of the Act. Ceiling provided in S.125 of the Code is also absent in S.24 of the Act. Orders passed by the Matrimonial Court are enforceable in the like manner as decrees and orders of civil courts. Various restrictions available in regard to an order under S.125 of the Code are absent in S.24 of the Act. Ceiling provided in S.125 of the Code is also absent in S.24 of the Act. Object of S.24 is to ensure that the party to a marriage who is in a disadvantageous position must be enabled to maintain himself or herself during the pendency of the proceeding and also enabled to spend for the litigation. Where one party to a marriage has no independent income sufficient for support and the other party has, by virtue of S.24 of the Act, they are to be put as far as possible on a position of equality. This is to ensure that the parties before the Matrimonial Court can fairly present their respective cases before the court without being disabled by poverty or lack of means-Purpose of S.125 of the Code, nature of right and remedy provided there, under are different from the purpose of S.24 of the Act and the nature and remedy provided therunder. Procedure and mode of recovery are also different. Remedies are not alternate and not inconsistent with each other. 10. I am supported in the above view by decisions in Ram Singh v. State and another (AIR 1963 All. 355), Babu Lal v. Smt. Ram Rati (1968 ALJ 756), Subhagi Devi v. Murli Pradhan (AIR 1968 Patna 139) and Chalamuri Ramakrishna Naidu v. Chalamuri Savitramma (ILR 1977 A.P. 567). In Babu Lal's case, after referring to S.488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, Allahabad High Court observed: "A comparison of the two aforesaid provisions shows that although they overlap each other to a certain extent there is no element of inconsistency between them. In some cases it may be open to a wife to have recourse to either of the said provisions for receiving maintenance from her husband but that does not bring the provisions into any conflict and only makes them equally applicable in certain situations." In Chalamuri Ramakrishna Naidu's case, a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court was dealing with a claim under S.24 of the Act in the face of a decree for maintenance passed by the civil court. The Court observed: "Under this provision (S. 24) the respondent is entitled to claim interim maintenance if she satisfies the Court that she has no independent income sufficient for her support. It is no doubt true that she has obtained a decree for maintenance. But the lower Court has found that inspite of her taking execution proceedings she was not able to realise even a single pie. It cannot, therefore, be said that she has independent income sufficient for her support mere possibility of her executing the decree for maintenance and getting some amount is not a criterion when the Court is satisfied that in fact she has not been able to execute the decree and obtain any amount." 11. I may also advert to a few other decisions. In Surjit Kaur v. Tirath Singh (AIR 1978 P & H 112), the Court had to consider whether order under S.24 of the Act could be passed though the wife had secured order for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50/-per month under S.488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court held that there was no bar and "if it is found that the applicant either has no independent income or his or her income is not sufficient for his or her support, the Court is duty-bound to allow his or her application and grant him or her suitable maintenance pendente lite". The Court further observed: "A mere pre-existing order under the Criminal P.C. for payment of maintenance does not oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to allow maintenance pendente lite under S.24." In Swarajyawati v. L.B. Mannalal (1972 Crl.L.J. 291), the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that an order passed under S.24 of the Act is no reason for the Magistrate to cancel an order passed earlier under S.488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and that he must await final disposal of the matrimonial case. A converse case was considered by the Supreme Court in Ramesh Chander Kauzhal v. Veena Kaushal ( (1978) 4 S.C.C. 70). In matrimonial proceedings, Court awarded maintenance pendente lite at Rs. 400/-per month. Criminal Court passed an ex parte order for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month for the mother and two children together. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the order of the Criminal Court. 12. In matrimonial proceedings, Court awarded maintenance pendente lite at Rs. 400/-per month. Criminal Court passed an ex parte order for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month for the mother and two children together. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the order of the Criminal Court. 12. The fact that order has been passed under S.125 of the Code does not take away the jurisdiction of the Matrimonial court under S.24 of the Act. The two remedies could co-exist. 13. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has place reliance on 1985 Crl. Q. NOC 52. The Note states: "It is by now well settled that the wife can claim only one maintenance. Though there are different forums open to her to claim maintenance, yet there cannot be parallelly running different maintenance orders for one and the same time. Only one of them is enforceable and the others remain just decelerate; in dormancy or consumed." I do not take this as an authority for the proposition that there cannot be two maintenance orders. In fact, the decision contemplates existence of two different maintenance orders but warns that only one of them is enforceable. Learned counsel also relied on Shrimati Mamta Rani v. Raj Kumar (1985 (1) Current Civil Cases 895). That was a case where the Criminal Court passed an order under S.125 of the Code and the Matrimonial Court passed an order under S.24 of the Act. The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the wife will not be entitled to payment twice over. This decision also cannot be taken to be an authority for holding that the Matrimonial Court has no jurisdiction to pass an order under S.24 of the Act when an order passed by the Criminal Court is holding field. The decision only lays down the salutory principle that maintenance cannot be collected twice. 14. Learned District Judge has taken care to state that the sum of Rs. 200/- per month fixed by him as maintenance is inclusive of the sum of Rs. 100/- per month ordered by the Criminal Court. This would mean that the wife cannot collect at the rate of Rs. 300/-per month. She can collect only at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month. If the revision petitioner pays Rs. 100/-through the Criminal Court he need pay only the balance through the Matrimonial Court. 100/- per month ordered by the Criminal Court. This would mean that the wife cannot collect at the rate of Rs. 300/-per month. She can collect only at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month. If the revision petitioner pays Rs. 100/-through the Criminal Court he need pay only the balance through the Matrimonial Court. If, on the other hand, he does not pay any amount through the Criminal Court he is liable to pay Rs. 200/- per month through the Matrimonial Court. Thus, there is no conflict between the orders. There is no jurisdictional error. I therefore decline to interfere. Revision is dismissed.