JUDGMENT Rajeshwar Singh, J. - This is a revision against the order of the Magistrate directing the petitioner under Section 125, Cr. P.C. to deposit the amount of maintenance awarded to the child and ordering that in case of default he would be sent to jail. 2. The petitioner in this revision has raised the objections that the child is not the son of the applicant, he is living with his maternal uncle the identity of the child has not been established and the mother is not entitled to move the application on behalf of the petitioner. Most of these objections were to be considered at the stage of hearing of application under Section 125, Cr. P.C. for granting maintenance. They are hardly open when order is being executed. When the mother moved an application on behalf of the child, it shall be presumed that the child is living with the mother and mother should be given the amount. 3. Further it has been argued that the amount should be recovered by a warrant of attachment and if it could not be realised only then arrest should have been ordered. But the provision contained in Section 125(3), Cr. P.C. shows that both of the procedures can be adopted simultaneously. It says that it can be realised by attachment of property and the Magistrate may also sentence the person concerned. So the revision has no force and it is accordingly dismissed.