JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant petition stands directed by the petitioner herein against the impugned order rendered on 24.04.2013 by the learned District Judge, Shimla on an application preferred before him by the petitioner herein/applicant under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The learned District Judge declined relief qua maintenance pendent lite to the applicant/petitioner herein. However, it assessed in her favour litigation expenses quantified in a sum of Rs.5000/-. 2. The applicant/petitioner herein stands aggrieved by the aforesaid rendition, hence, has preferred the instant petition before this Court. The learned counsel appearing on either side have been heard at length. 3. The order impugned before this Court while its declining assessment of maintenance pendent lite to the applicant/petitioner herein had borne in mind the factum of the petitioner herein/applicant standing assessed by the Magistrate concerned in a petition constituted before him by her under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure maintenance in a sum of Rs.2000/-. The learned District Judge, Shimla on an appreciation of the material placed before him had held of the petitioner herein/applicant not adducing any cogent evidence in display of the respondent herein holding any agricultural income in the quantum as averred in the application constituted before it. In sequel, he has assessed the respondent herein to be holding a meager per mensem income of Rs.4500/-. Since, the petitioner herein stood assessed by the Magistrate concerned in proceedings constituted before him under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. maintenance allowance quantified in the sum of Rs.2000/- per month naturally constrained the learned District Judge, Shimla to given the petitioner holding a minimal income of Rs.4500/- construed in conjunction with his standing fastened with a liability by the Magistrate concerned while allowing the application preferred before him by the petitioner herein/applicant to defray to the latter maintenance quantified in a sum of Rs.2000/- per month , his hence declining the claim of the petitioner/applicant to claim any relief in a petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, does palpably not suffer from any infirmity. Contrarily, in the learned District Judge, Shimla in affording the aforesaid reason for declining the assessment by him of maintenance pendent lite in favour of the petitioner herein/applicant in a petition constituted before him by her under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act had revered both the apt evidence existing on record besides, the factum of the petitioner herein/applicant standing assessed monthly maintenance allowance in a sum of Rs.2000/- by the Magistrate concerned in proceedings constituted before him by the petitioner herein/applicant under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. 4. Even though, it was open for the petitioner herein/applicant to constitute a petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the learned District Judge, subsequent to hers obtaining an award of maintenance allowance from the Magistrate concerned in a petition constituted before him under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., yet, even when the petitioner/applicant stood neither legally interdicted nor barred to after rendition in her favour of an adjudication by the Magistrate concerned in a petition constituted before him by her under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., to institute a petition before the learned District Judge Shimla, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act nonetheless when she stood debarred to reap the benefit of reliefs secured by her from both the Courts, necessarily, the learned District Judge, Shimla in not discounting the factum of the petitioner herein receiving an award of maintenance quantified at Rs.2000/- per month from the Magistrate concerned in proceedings constituted before him by her under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., has not committed any gross illegality or impropriety. Necessarily, the order of the learned District Judge, Shimla while declining the relief of maintenance to the petitioner herein/applicant in a petition constituted by her before him under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act deserves to be affirmed and maintained. Accordingly, the impugned order to the extent hereinabove is affirmed and maintained. 5. However, the learned District Judge, Shimla had assessed litigation expenses comprised in a sum of Rs.5000/- in favour of the petitioner herein/applicant. The aforesaid quantification by the learned District Judge, Shimla, appears to be minimal. Consequently, the aforesaid part of the order rendered by the learned District Judge, Shimla, is modified to the extent of the respondent herein defraying to the petitioner herein/applicant litigation expenses quantified in a sum of Rs.15000/-. The aforesaid quantification by the learned District Judge, Shimla, appears to be minimal. Consequently, the aforesaid part of the order rendered by the learned District Judge, Shimla, is modified to the extent of the respondent herein defraying to the petitioner herein/applicant litigation expenses quantified in a sum of Rs.15000/-. The said amount shall include the sum of Rs.5000/- as awarded by the learned District Judge, Shimla. Consequently, the instant petition is partly allowed and the impugned order is modified to the extent hereinabove. All pending applications stand disposed of.