JUDGMENT R. N. Prasad, J. This application has been filed against the order dated 13-12-1996 passed by Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge. Arrah in Matrimonial Case No. 41 of 1993 whereby the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 1000/- per month to respondent no. 1 to maintain herself and her three children from the date of passing of the order and also to pay Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost to her. 2. The petitioner was married with opposite party no. 1 on 23.4.1979. The petitioner filed matrimonial case no. 41 of 1993 against opposite party no. 1 alleging therein that opposite party no. 1 is leading adulterous life with opposite party no. 2. The opposite party no. 1 appeared in the case and filed a petition under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month for herself and for her three children and Rs. 20,000/- as cost of litigation. It was stated in the petition that the three children were born out of the wedlock from the petitioner. She has no means of earning and is unable to maintain herself and three children. The petitioner is Stenographer-cum-P. A. to the Additional Director Education, Patna and drawing more than Rs. 6,000/- per month as salary. A rejoinder to the said petition was filed by the petitioner stating therein that she is not entitled to maintenance as she has been allowed maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- per month under section 125 Cr. P. C. and also that she is leading adulterous life with opposite party no. 2. The court allowed maintenance of Rs. 1000/- per moth to opposite party no. 1 and cost of litigation Rs. 2,000/- by the impugned order. 3. The admitted position is that the marriage between the petitioner and Opposite party no. 1 was solemnized according to Hindu rites on 23.4.1979. There children were born from their wedlock. Children are living with opposite party no. 1. The matrimonial case no. 41 of 1993 was filed by the petitioner on 23.12.1993. Opposite party no. 1 was allowed maintenance under section 125 Cr. P. C. at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month for herself Rs. 500/- per month for her children. She was also allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1. The matrimonial case no. 41 of 1993 was filed by the petitioner on 23.12.1993. Opposite party no. 1 was allowed maintenance under section 125 Cr. P. C. at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month for herself Rs. 500/- per month for her children. She was also allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month for herself and for maintenance of her three minor children under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since she has been allowed; maintenance under section 125 Cr. P. C. the court below has committed error in allowing maintenance under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 4. The provision of section 125 Cr. P. C. are quite distinct from the provision of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Under section 125 Cr. P. C. only one spouse, namely, wife would be entitled for maintenance. She can be awarded maintenance if she establishes that she has no independent source of income and that she has been refused and neglected maintenance by her husband and her husband has sufficient means to maintain her; whereas under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act either wife or husband, as the case may be, can be granted maintenance pendente lite and also expense of the proceeding if she or he has no independent course of income sufficient for his other maintenance or necessary expense of the proceeding. The nature of respective case in both the proceedings is quite different. There can be no difficulty on the part of the wife for pursuing remedy under both the provisions simultaneously as there is no bar under the law. Once it is shown that she is entitled for maintenance/interim alimony, the court is required to consider the economic status and condition of the parties. Therefore, it cannot be said that since opposite party no. 1 has been granted maintenance for her and her children under section 125 Cr. P. C. she cannot maintain a petition under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the court cannot allow interim alimony under the afore said provision. In this regard reference may be made to the cases of Hansaben Vs. Ramesh Kumar Ratilal Patani, 1992 (3) Cr. L. J. 3688 and Vishwanath Pandlik Chavan Vs. Nirmaly and others 1992 (2) Cr. L. J. 1262. 5. In this regard reference may be made to the cases of Hansaben Vs. Ramesh Kumar Ratilal Patani, 1992 (3) Cr. L. J. 3688 and Vishwanath Pandlik Chavan Vs. Nirmaly and others 1992 (2) Cr. L. J. 1262. 5. In the instant case, it appears that the said question was raised before the court below and the court considering the aforesaid aspect allowed interim alimony under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The court has taken into consideration the income of the petitioner and held that he is gating salary more than Rs. 6,000 per month and opposite party no. 1 has no other means of income. The court has also taken into consideration that three minor children are reading in schools and are living with opposite party no. 1. Accordingly, the court below allowed alimony and cost of litigation. Thus, it cannot be said that the order impugned is bad in law. Accordingly, I find no merit in this application. It is, accordingly dismissed but without cost. Application Dismissed.