ASIT KUMAR BISI, J. ( 1 ) NONE appears on behalf of the O. Ps. in spite of service of the copy of the revisional application. Affidavit-of-Service be kept on the record. Heard Mr. Tapan Dutta Gupta, learned Advocate for the petitioner. ( 2 ) THE revisional application is at the instance of the petitioner/husband and the same is directed against the order dated 17. 6. 1999 passed by the learned S. D. J. M. , Jalpaiguri in Misc. Case No. 91 of 1998. ( 3 ) BY the impugned order dated 17. 6. 1999, the learned S. D. J. M. , Jalpaiguri allowed the Misc. case under Section 125 of Cr. P. C. and awarded maintenance @ Rs. 1,200/- per month in favour of the wife who is presently O. P. No. 2. ( 4 ) IN course of the hearing of the present revisional application Mr. Dutta Gupta, learned Advocate for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the fact that alimony pendente lite @ Rs. 400/- per month has been awarded by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Jalpaiguri under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Matrimonial Suit being No. 46/92 which is still pending between the parties. The certified copy of the relevant order dated 4. 6. 1993 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Jalpaiguri in the said matrimonial suit makes it quite evident that the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Jalpaiguri has duly considered the monthly income of the husband and fixed the quantum of alimony pendente lite @ Rs. 400/- per month after taking into account the monthly income of the wife to the tune of Rs. 600/- per month. ( 5 ) THE learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri has clearly mentioned the admitted fact that the husband is an employee of Gramin Bank and his monthly income is about Rs. 5,000/ -. It is contended by Mr. Dutta Gupta, the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the wife cannot claim more than 1/5th of the gross amount of the monthly salary of the husband and cited the case of Dhananjay Samanta v. Sabitri Samanta, reported in II (2000) DMC 698=2000 C. Cr. LR (Calcutta) 179, in support of his contention. He has further contended that the maximum amount of maintenance allowable in the instant case is Rs. LR (Calcutta) 179, in support of his contention. He has further contended that the maximum amount of maintenance allowable in the instant case is Rs. 1,000/- per month which is l/5th of the gross income of the husband but since the wife earns Rs. 600/- per month the said amount is to be deducted in fixing the quantum of maintenance payable to the wife. He has drawn my attention to the relevant portion of the order dated 4. 6. 1993 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in the above noted matrimonial proceeding pending between the parties and pointed out that the alimony pendente lite @ Rs. 400/- has been fixed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Jalpaiguri in the said matrimonial suit after taking into consideration all the aspects of the matter including the monthly income of the wife. On going through the materials-on-record I find sufficient force in the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner. In my view the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri fixed the quantum of maintenance @ Rs. 1,200/- per month without considering the relevant factors and that being so, the said amount without considering the relevant factors and that being so, the said amount of maintenance should be reduced to Rs. 400/- per month. ( 6 ) THE revisional application is allowed in part. The impugned order dated 17. 6. 1999 passed by the learned S. D. J. M. , Jalpaiguri, in Misc. Case No. 91 of 1998 is modified to the following extent. The wife, O. P. No. 2 is entitled to get maintenance @ Rs. 400/- per month from the husband/petitioner. Since the wife is getting alimony pendente lite @ Rs. 400/- per month which was made under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the matrimonial suit between the parties which is still pending, in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Haridas Bhattacharjee v. Smt. Suparna Bhattacharjee and Ors. , reported in 2000 C. Cr. LR (Cal.) 219, the above order with regard to the maintenance under Section 125 of Cr. P. C. shall be kept in abeyance so long the wife gets alimony pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the order made under Section 125 of Cr. P. C. granting maintenance in favour of the wife Rs. LR (Cal.) 219, the above order with regard to the maintenance under Section 125 of Cr. P. C. shall be kept in abeyance so long the wife gets alimony pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the order made under Section 125 of Cr. P. C. granting maintenance in favour of the wife Rs. 400/- per month will become operative as soon as the order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, ceases to exist. Let a copy of this order be sent down to the learned Court below forthwith.