IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal from Order No. 140 of 2011 Sanjay Mehta S/o Shri Somdutt Mehta R/o Malli Thana Gagalheri District Saharanpur …..…Appellant Versus Smt. Soniya W/o Shri Sanjay Mehta R/o Nasirpur Khurd, P.S. Pathari Tehsil & District Haridwar ……….Respondent Smt. Prabha Naithani, Advocate, present for the appellant Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon'ble Servesh Kumar Gupta,J. Oral: Prafulla C. Pant,J. This is delay condonation application no. 2974 of 2011, for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against order dated 19.01.2011, passed by Judge, Family Court, Haridwar, in execution case no. 3 of 2009. 2 2. There is delay of 27 days in filing the appeal which is sufficiently explained in the affidavit filed with the delay condonation application. 3. Delay condonation application is allowed. Delay is condoned. 4. Heard on admission. 5. This appeal, preferred under section 19 of Family Court Act, 1984, is directed against the order dated 19.01.2011, passed by Judge, Family Court, Haridwar, in execution case no. 3 of 2009, whereby said court has directed to issue recovery warrant of ` 24,500/-, recoverable under section 24 of Hindu marriage Act, 1955. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the trial court has erred in law in not adjusting the amount payable by the appellant to his wife under section 125 Cr.P.C.. However, perusal of the impugned order shows that the order directing to pay maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C., was got set aside by the appellant (husband) himself. As such, there remain nothing which was to be adjusted from the amount payable under section 24 3 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The proceedings under section 125 Cr.P.C., and that of one under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, are independent proceedings. In our opinion trial court has committed no error of law in directing to issue recoverable warrant of ` 24,500/-, payable as maintenance under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the economic condition of the appellant is not such in which he can pay the entire amount in one go. 8. In the above circumstances, this appeal is dismissed summarily with the observation that the appellant may deposit amount of ` 10,000/-, by 15.05.2011, another installment of ` 10,000/-, by 15.07.2011, and remaining amount by 15.09.2011. In default of any of the installment recovery of entire remaining amount may be made in pursuance to the impugned order at once. (Servesh Kumar Gupta,J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 21.04.2011 Parul