Alimony pendente lite can be claimed by wife by resorting to both provision u/s.125 of Criminal Procedure Code and also u/s. 24 of Hindu Marriage Act.

In the said proceedings, respondent/wife filed an application
u/s.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking maintenance pendente lite and
expenses for the proceedings. In the application filed u/s.24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, the respondent/wife claimed a sum of Rs.2000 per month as
maintenance and a sum of Rs.500 as litigation expenses.

Apart from filing this application u/s.24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act in the proceedings pending under the Hindu Marriage Act, the
respondent/wife also filed an application claiming maintenance u/s.125 of Cr. P.
C. before the same Family Court. In this application also the respondent wife
claimed a sum of Rs.2,000 as maintenance and Rs.500 as litigation expenses. In
both these cases, the Family Court had directed for payment of Rs.1,000 as
maintenance and a sum of Rs.500 as litigation expenses. The petitioner husband
filed an application for adjustment of the maintenance granted in both the
proceedings, which was rejected.

The petitioner husband filed petition under Article 227 of
the Constitution, challenging the rejection of the application for adjustment of
the maintenance granted in both the proceedings.

The Court observed that, the Court, which decided the
applications u/s.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and S. 125 of Cr. P. C. was alive
to the situation that proceedings under both these Sections are pending and
decided both the applications on the same day by passing two different orders.
The Court while passing one order could take note of the same and thereafter
could have granted adjustment of the amount while passing the other order. Where
the Court after evaluating totality of circumstances found that maintenance
granted in each case i.e., u/s.125, Criminal P. C. and S. 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act is sufficient and no adjustment is necessary, dismissed the
application of the husband for adjustment, no error of law was committed
warranting interference.

There is nothing under the law which lays down as a mandatory
requirement the principle for granting adjustment or deducting the amount of
maintenance or alimony granted in a proceeding u/s.125 Criminal P. C. or u/s.24
of the Hindu Marriage Act or vice versa. The principle laid down is that
maintenance u/s.125 of Criminal P. C. and alimony pendente lite u/s.24 of
the Hindu Marriage Act can be claimed by resorting to both these provisions and
the Court is competent under these provisions to grant relief to the person
concerned and the question of adjustment to be granted has to be decided after
taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the amount granted,
and the capacity of the person directed for making the payment. There is nothing
to suggest that as a thumb-rule adjustment to the amount is to be granted in
each and every case.