IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 808 of 2008 Rajendra yada … Petitioner Vs Smt. Kiran yadav … Respondent Sri Manish Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner. Hon’ble B.c. Kandpal, J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari fro quashing the order dated 25.01.2008 passed by Judge, Family Court, Roorkee, District Haridwar in Case No. 145 of 2007, Kiran Yadav Vs Rajendra Yadav. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent – Kiran Yadav filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.c. against her husband (petitioner) on 02.11.2007 for maintenance which was allowed vide order dated 25.01.2008 and the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00/- to the respondent as interim maintenance. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the court below, the petitioner preferred this petition before this Court. 3. Heard Sri Manish Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner as well as going through the entire record available before me, I am of the view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the court below. The learned Judge, Family Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the evidence available on record, directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1500/- per month to the respondent as interim maintenance. I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order passed by the court below. 5. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed in-limine. 6. Sri Manish Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the petitioner be allowed to pay the arrear of the maintenance allowance granted by the Judge, Family Court in some easy installments. 7. Keeping in view the request made by learned counsel for the petitioner, I direct that the petitioner should pay the arrear of the maintenance allowance granted by the Judge, Family court in four equal monthly installments. In case, if the petitioner does not deposit the arrear of the maintenance allowance as directed by this Court, the court below shallnbe at liberty to take the coercive steps against the petitioner. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 14.05.2008 ASWAL