ORDER
1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in M.C. 34/81 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narasapur, which was confirmed by the Court of Session, West Godavari at Eluru, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 24/82 altering maintenance from Rs. 150/- to Rs. 100/-. In this application, the contention of the petitioner is that he filed an application for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The basis for filing the said application is said to be that the 1st respondent, his wife has been suffering from leprosy. It was consented by the parties that till she gets cured of the disease she can live separately and on that basis the 1st respondent has been living with her parents. Once there is a consent given by the 1st respondent to live apart by operation of S. 125(4), Cri.P.C., she became disentitled to claim maintenance. When the dispute is pending in O.P. No. 50/81 on the file of the subordinate Judge, Tanuku, under S. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, it is open to the 1st respondent to lay a claim for alimony pendente lite under S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and by operation of S. 24, the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court under S. 125, Cr.P.C. has been excluded. I am unable to agree with either of these contentions. The remedies under S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and under Section 125, Cr.P.C. are not alternative but they are concurrent and optional to the party entitled to make avail of. They are remedial measures intended to alienate the hardship that may be caused to either spouse i.e., the applicant under Section 125, Cr.P.C. or the respondent under S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, the mere possibility of availability of the remedy under S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act does not take away the power and jurisdiction of the Court under S. 125, Cr.P.C. to grant relief. Therefore, the contention that the criminal Court has no jurisdiction, when an application under S. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been filed to grant maintenance to the 1st respondent is devoid of substance and accordingly it is rejected. With regard to the second contention that the respondent was suffering from the alleged loathsome decease and there was an agreement between the 1st respondent and the petitioner that she should live apart from the conjugal society of the petitioner so long as she is not cured of the alleged leprosy, is a question of fact. Admittedly, this point has not been raised either before the Magistrate or before the Sessions Court and therefore, for the first time, this point cannot be permitted to be raised.
2. Under these circumstances, I do not find any grounds to admit the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and accordingly it is dismissed.
3. Petition dismissed.
