IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 278 of 2010 1. Master Sparsh S/o Sri Gautam Chadha Through his mother & natural guardian Mrs. Richa, at present R/o 104/24, Dehradun Road, Rishikesh, District Dehradun. 2. Kumari Sana D/o Sri Gautam Chadha Through her mother & natural guardian Mrs. Richa, at present R/o 104/24, Dehradun Road, Rishikesh, District Dehradun. ...…………. Petitioners Versus Sri Gautam Chadha S/o Sri Chaman Lal Chadha R/o M-281, First Floor, Guru Harikrishan Nagar, Pashchim Vihar, New Delhi. ...…………. Respondent Mrs. Prabha Naithani, Advocate for the petitioners. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.), the petitioners have sought direction to the respondent to make payment of Rs. 1,18,800/- in compliance of order dated 15.03.2008, passed by Addl. 2 Judge, Family Court, Rishikesh, in Case No. 11 of 2004; Richa Chadha Vs. Gautam Chadha. A further direction has been sought against respondent to comply the order dated 06.06.2008, passed by this Court, in Criminal Revision No. 100 of 2008; Gautam Chadha Vs. State of Uttarakhand. 3) Section 482 of Cr.P.C. empowers this Court to issue orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of process of law of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 4) Perusal of the papers on record show that the Addl. Judge, Family Court, vide his order dated 15.03.2008, disposed of Case No. 11 of 2004, whereby he granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,700/- per child (in all Rs. 3,400/- per month) to the petitioners, to be payable by respondent Gautam Chadha. Perusal of Annexure –2 to the petition further discloses that said order was challenged by Gautam Chadha by filing Criminal Revision No. 100 of 2008, in which an interim order was passed on 06.06.2008, whereby on making payment at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per child (in all Rs. 2,000/- per month), the execution in respect of remaining amount was stayed. Section 125 of Cr.P.C. not only provides the procedure for decision on the applications moved under it, but also provides procedure for execution. That being so, this Court in its jurisdiction under Section 482 of 3 Cr.P.C. cannot pass an order relating to which the petitioners are at liberty to file execution application before the trial court. On going through the Annexure –3 to the petition, this Court finds that the petitioners have already filed an execution application before the trial court. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent is neither complying regularly the condition mentioned vide order dated 06.06.2008, nor making the payment in compliance of the impugned order passed by the trial court. 5) In the above circumstances, this petition is disposed of summarily directing that if the respondent has committed default in payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per child, by tenth of each month as per the stay order mentioned above, the trial court shall proceed with the execution expeditiously for realization of maintenance. It is pertinent to mention here that the order dated 06.06.2008, passed in criminal revision, itself provides that if the condition is not fulfilled that interim order shall automatically stand vacated. 6) With this observation, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. stands disposed of. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. April 06, 2010. H. Negi