B. K. RATHI, J. The opposite party No. 2 moved an application against the revisionist under Section 125, Cr PC. On that application she has been awarded maintenance @ Rs. 500/- per month by Principle Judge, Family Court, Kanpur (Nagar) by order dated 3-8-1999. Ag grieved by it, the present revision has been preferred. 2. I have heard Sri Saghir Ahmad, learned Counsel for the revisionist. Sri A. K. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the op posite party No, 2 and the learned A. G. A. and have gone through the record. The affidavits have been exchanged. 3. It is contended that the revisionist is ready to keep the opposite party No. 2. However, the opposite party No. 2 has claimed separate residence and main tenance on the ground of cruelty and ill-treatment by the revisionist. The entire evidence has been considered. The revisionist also filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights but later on it was got dis missed on 5-10-1998 by order, Annexure No. CA- 1 passed by Principle Judge, Fami ly Court, Kanpur (Nagar ). In the cir cumstances there was sufficient ground for separate residence and maintenance. 4. Next it is contended that income of the revisionist has not been assessed and maintenance @ Rs. 500/- per month have been awarded. It is the case of the revisionist that he is TV Mechanic and is earning Rs. 700-800 per month. The learned trial Court took judicial notice of the fact that a Tv Mechanic. can easily earn much more than Rs. 700-800 per month. Therefore, there is no illegality in awarding maintenance @ Rs. 500/- per month. 5. Lastly it is contended that in a matrimonial petition maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month has also been awarded to opposite party No. 2 from the revisionist under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. This fact has not been disputed. It is contended that maintenance can not be recovered under Section 125, Cr PC and also under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, recovery of the main tenance can be permitted in any of the two cases. 6. No other point has been pressed before me in this revision. The revision is accordingly dismissed. It is contended that maintenance can not be recovered under Section 125, Cr PC and also under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, recovery of the main tenance can be permitted in any of the two cases. 6. No other point has been pressed before me in this revision. The revision is accordingly dismissed. However, it is ob served that the opposite party No. 2 shall recover maintenance either under Section 125, Cr PC or under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act and recovery under the both orders shall not be allowed by the execut ing Court. Revision dismissed. .