Judgment L.N.Mittal, J. 1. Smt. Sonia has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 18.9.2008 (Annexure P/2) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal, whereby application moved by the petitioner herein under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, the Act) claiming maintenance pendente-lite and litigation expenses from the respondent-husband Om Parkash during pendency of divorce petition filed by respondent herein against the petitioner under section 13 of the Act, has been disposed of. 2. The petitioner herein claimed litigation expenses and maintenance for herself as well as for the minor son Jonny residing with her. 3. The application was resisted by the respondent-husband alleging that the petitioner had already received Rs 1,60,000/- as maintenance for herself as well as for the minor child pursuant to compromise effected between the parties and thereupon petition under section 13-B of the Act had been filed but subsequently the petitioner herein withdrew her consent for divorce by mutual consent and therefore, the said petition under section 13-B of the Act was dismissed. 4. Learned Additional District Judge vide impugned order Annexure P/2 rejected the prayer of the petitioner herein for maintenance pendente-lite on the ground that she had already received Rs 1,60,000/-as per compromise between the parties but the respondent-husband has been directed to pay Rs 5500/- as litigation expenses to the petitioner-wife. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the amount of Rs 1,60.000/- which was payable to the petitioner under the compromise was given to one Jai Bhagwan alias Dayala to be paid to the petitioner herein after passing of decree of divorce and since petition under section 13-B of the Act was dismissed, the said amount was paid by Jai Bhagwan alias Dayal to the respondent-husband and not to the petitioner. Reference has been made to affidavit of Jai Bhagwan alias Dayala filed in the instant revision petition. It was pointed out that the husband while appearing as witness in petition under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.) admitted that the amount of Rs 1,60,000/- had been kept with Jai Bhagwan alias Dayala and was to be paid to the petitioner- wife after grant of divorce. 7. It was pointed out that the husband while appearing as witness in petition under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.) admitted that the amount of Rs 1,60,000/- had been kept with Jai Bhagwan alias Dayala and was to be paid to the petitioner- wife after grant of divorce. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioner-wife furnished affidavit with petition under section 13-B of the Act admitting to have received amount of Rs 1.60,000/- as per compromise. I need not to go into aforesaid contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties because in petition under section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner-wife and minor son Jonny, they have been granted Rs. 750/- per month each as maintenance payable by the respondent-husband vide order dated 17.3.2009. The said order has attained finality. Consequently, the petitioner-wife cannot be granted maintenance pendentelite in the instant proceedings when she had already been awarded maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. The quantum of maintenance has also been assessed on the basis of evidence led by the parties. The petitioner cannot get double maintenance for the same period. Consequently, for this reason the impugned order cannot be set aside. 8. As regards litigation expenses, learned Additional District Judge has already granted Rs. 5500/- as litigation expenses to the petitioner-wife. 9. In view of the aforesaid, there is no merit in the instant revision petition which is accordingly dismissed.