IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION No. 263 Of 2010 Makan Singh, S/O Shri Chandan Singh, R/O Village Syasu, Patti Gusain, Tehsil Tehri, District Tehri Garhwal. ……………. Applicant Versus Master Ajay Pratap(minor), S/O Shri Makan Singh, R/O Village Godri, patti Raika, Tehsil Pratapnagar, District Tehri Garhwal, through his natural guardian And mother Smt. Savita Devi. ………….. Respondent Shri Pawan Mishra, Advocate present for the petitioner Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard (2) By means of this petition, moved Under Section 482 of Code of Criminal procedure, 1973, the petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 15.04.2009 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal and order dated 16.09.2009 passed by Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, whereby the order of the Magistrate has been affirmed. (3) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner got married to Savita Devi and out of the wedlock respondent Ajay Pratap (minor) was born. An application was moved by respondent Ajay Pratap minor son of the petitioner before Chief Judicial Magistrate,Tehri Garhwal, which is, registered as Criminal Misc. Case no 01.08.2008, where in the respondent has claimed maintenance from his father (present petitioner). During the pendency of said application a prayer was made for interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month. It is pleaded by the respondent through his mother, stating that the petitioner is a contractor and have sufficient means to pay the maintenance, while the respondent is unable to maintain himself. The application was contested by the petitioner before the trial Court stating the respondent lives with his mother Savita Devi who is working as Shiksha Mitra and earning Rs. 6000/- per month, and she can maintain the child. He has also pleaded that he is unemployed. The trial Court after hearing the parties, directed the petitioner to pay interim at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month. Aggrieved by said order dated 15.04.2009 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate,Tehri Garhwal Criminal revision no. 19 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner before the Sessions Judge Tehri.The revisional Court, after hearing the parties, concurred with the view taken by the trial Court and dismissed the revision. Hence this petition. (4) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is a labour.He further pleaded that his wife is Shiksha Mitra and earns sufficient money to maintain herself and her child. As far as the economic status of the petitioner is concerned, there is factual finding recorded by the trial Court, and the same has already been affirmed by the revisional Court. It is not desirable on the part of this Court to go into the factual aspects of the matter in its jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.P.C. Having gone through the impugned order and after considering the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Court does not find it a fit case interference in its jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.P.C (5) Therefore, the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C is dismissed summarily with the observation that the trial Court may proceed with the main application moved under section 125 of Cr.P.C expeditiously. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.27.3.2010 Nahid