MASTER SPARSH S/O SRI GAUTAM CHADHA AND KUMARI SANA D/O SRI GAUTAM CHADHA THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN MRS. RICHA Vs. SRI GAUTAM CHADHA S/O SRI CHAMAN LAL CHADHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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. Judge, Family Court, Rishikesh, in Case No. 11 of 2004; Richa Chadha v. 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 v. State of Uttarakhand.

(3.) 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 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.