JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J. (Oral) :- Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In order to properly appreciate the respective submissions urged by the learned counsel, it is necessary to notice a few facts relevant for determination of this case. 3. It is not in dispute that Atma Ram (hereinafter referred to as the husband), is married to Rameshwari Devi (hereinafter referred to as the wife) and Pinku (hereinafter referred to as the Son) is the son of the said parties. Besides the son, parties have another son Gian Singh and Ms. Kamla a daughter and both these children are admittedly residing with the husband. Case of the wife in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was that her husband, his brother Daulat Ram and his sister Bimla as well as the mother of the husband often beats her and a criminal case was filed in that behalf against Daulat Ram which was compromised. Besides this, it was further claimed by the wife that she had been turned out of her matrimonial house by her husband, his brother, sister and mother. Their son according to wife was born in the hospital and since the wife was beaten by the mother of husband in 1987 and was turned out, where after the husband had neglected and refused to maintain them as such the proceedings for maintenance came to be initiated. Claim made by the wife and son was disputed by the husband, according to him wife had withdrawn from the society without any justifiable cause and allegations made by her were false and incorrect which were aimed at extracting money out of the husband. In these circumstances petitioner was contested and resisted by the husband. 4. Trial Court after conclusion of the trial, vide judgment dated 27-5-1993 granted Rs. 300/- p. m to the wife and Rs. 200/- p. m to the son as maintenance from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. i.e. with effect from 1-4-1991. Husband was aggrieved by this order, he preferred Criminal revision before the court below and by means of order dated 20-4-1996, the revision petition filed by the husband was dismissed, hence the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 5. Record of the case shows that notice was issued to the respondents on 6-8-1996. Thereafter wife and son put in appearance in this court on 21-12-1996. Record of the case shows that notice was issued to the respondents on 6-8-1996. Thereafter wife and son put in appearance in this court on 21-12-1996. Case was taken up on 5.3.1997 when none appeared on behalf of the wife and son and the Court while admitting the matter operation of the order of maintenance was stayed. When this case was taken up for hearing on 21-4-1997, it was pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the husband that there is likelihood of some reconciliation and parties were called. Parties appeared in court on 26-5-1997 and an attempt was made to reconcile the matter between them but it did not bear any fruit. 6. In the context of the present case it may be noticed here that after the order of maintenance had been passed in favour of the wife as well as the son noticed above, according to the learned counsel for the husband a total sum of Rs.4800/- has been paid. On the other hand according to the learned counsel for the wife only a sum of Rs.2400/- in all has been paid till date. So far the payment of Rs.2400/- stated to have been made by the husband during the conciliation proceedings in court is concerned, there is nothing on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla before whom conciliation was attempted which ultimately failed, in these circumstances, this court is constrained to observe that only a sum of Rs. 24000/- has been paid. 7. Order of stay against execution on Cr. M.P. No.l80/97 was passed on 5-3-1997. Record shows that after the stay had been passed reply to said application was filed by the wife as well as the son, who also filed Cr. M.P No. 153 of 97 wherein prayer was made for vacation of stay order which was confirmed on 5-3-1997. It may also be appropriate to notice here that on 13-6-1997 it was ordered that before the case is taken up for further hearing the husband should deposit the amount of maintenance as ordered by the trial Court for which purpose time had been allowed to him till 31-7-1997. It may also be appropriate to notice here that on 13-6-1997 it was ordered that before the case is taken up for further hearing the husband should deposit the amount of maintenance as ordered by the trial Court for which purpose time had been allowed to him till 31-7-1997. Here it may also be appropriate to notice that on every hearing, learned counsel appearing for the husband stated at the bar that his client is ready and willing either to take back his wife as well as son to his home, or to part with the company on the terms the wife wants to settle the matter once for all and thirdly the option given by the husband was that he is ready and willing to clear the arrears if reasonable time is given to him. Last offer is made to show the bona-fide on the part of the husband. Fact remains that not a single penny has either been paid in this court or out of court to wife and son which shows the hollowness of the submission that was forcefully urged on behalf of the husband. This court is further constrained to observe that this was purely a submission without the husband intending to abide by it 8. In this behalf a reference needs to be made to Cr. M.P. No. 198 of 97 filed by the husband to the effect that either the order directing die payment may be modified or else the main case may be heard without asking the husband to deposit the arrears of maintenance or in the alternative he may be allowed to withdraw the petition. This conduct on the part of the husband further shows that in what manner he is making an attempt not only to over reach the orders of the court but also had been abusing the process of law and court 9. Except for conciliation purpose on 26-5-1997, the husband- petitioner has not cared to attend the proceedings of this court and when learned counsel is called upon to explain the employer/ the person under whose employment husband is working he Was unable to give particulars except that he is working in Fruit Research Institute or Project at Mashobra. This further highlights the seriousness on the part of die husband to prosecute these proceedings. This further highlights the seriousness on the part of die husband to prosecute these proceedings. He was rightly acting so because there was an order operative in his favour against execution of the order of maintenance. In this background it was considered proper to finally hear the parties and dispose of the case. 10. Shri R. K. Bawa, learned counsel for the husband urged that husband is ready and willing to get his wife as well as the son wherever she wants to stay at either of the three places viz at his native village or at Theog or at Shimla and both of them would be provided separate residence as well as maintenance in that behalf since she has withdrawn from the society of the Husband without there being any justifiable cause and thus she cannot be permitted to take advantage of her own wrong Regarding payment of arrears of maintenance a very magnanimous offer has-been made that the husband is willing to file an undertaking in the court to clear the arrears of maintenance as well as continue paying the maintenance in terms of the orders passed by the trial court regularly. Lastly it was urged that no case is made out under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and both courts have fallen into error while upholding the claim of the petitioner-husband as there is no legal evidence to sustain such findings. In support of these submissions, reference was made by Sh. Bawa to oral as well as documentary evidence examined during the course of proceedings before the trial Court. 11. On the other hand Ms. Ranjana Parmar, learned counsel for the wife and son controverted all the pleas urged on behalf of the husband and has pointed out that neither any illegality nor impropriety is there in the impugned orders which warrants any interference in the present proceedings. According to Ms. Parmar that no case for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been made out to show that by ordering maintenance thus is abuse of the process of court or that the order calls for interference for securing the ends of justice. It was further urged on behalf of the wife and son that it is the husband who is abusing the process of law and court by his money power and the present proceedings are a clear cut example thereof. It was further urged on behalf of the wife and son that it is the husband who is abusing the process of law and court by his money power and the present proceedings are a clear cut example thereof. Regarding bonafide of the husband learned counsel urged that the hoax created by the husband by making offers without abiding by those is of no consequence. Another interesting argument urged by Shri Bawa Singh needs to be noticed her is that at no point of time any execution was levied against the husband for claiming maintenance before any court, so his client cannot be blamed for non-payment. This matter has been argued by the learned counsel for the husband as if he was arguing a second revision in the garb of the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Fact remains that trial court had the jurisdiction to have considered the claim of the parties and then passed the order which it had as exercised in favour of the wife and son and the said order has been upheld in revision by the revisional court below. Purpose of enacting provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to provide immediate relief to the person entitled for it as well as to avoid vagrancy as also to ensure that speedy remedy is available to such persons. In the instant case, this court is further constrained to observe that the husband at no point of time had any bonafide intention in the facts, background as well as circumstances of the case to pay anything in terms of the orders passed by the court below except for vehemently urging that he is ready and willing to liquidate arrears as well as to file undertaking in that behalf. Nothing has been done till date. That being so, the offer of filing undertaking in that behalf is meaningless and is hereby rejected. 12. So far the matter relating to seriousness of the husband to keep the wife and son with him is concerned, record of the revisional court below shows that effort for conciliation Was made, but failed. It was thereafter that the case was heard finally and disposed of by the said court. 13. Looking to the background of his case, it cannot be said that the wife is taking advantage of her own wrong or that she had withdrawn from the society of her husband of her own. It was thereafter that the case was heard finally and disposed of by the said court. 13. Looking to the background of his case, it cannot be said that the wife is taking advantage of her own wrong or that she had withdrawn from the society of her husband of her own. This court finds no reason to take a contrary view regarding the refusal as well as neglect on the part of the husband to maintain both wife and son. When learned counsel for the husband was asked as to what steps his client has taken to bring back his wife, it was submitted by the learned counsel that Panchayat was held but it did not bring fruitful results. Needless to point out that if the husband was so genuine in his efforts he could have initiated some farther steps also. This also reflects the genuiness of his offer as well as efforts to bring home the wife and the son. Besides this, no case for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been made out by the husband. On the other hand, he is abusing the judicial process to defeat the order of maintenance granted to wife and son. 14. For the reasons set out here-in-above, there being no merit in-this petition, the same is accordingly dismissed. 15. Now remains the question as to how the matter in relation to the payment of maintenance is to be dealt with. If the explanation of the husband is accepted, then it would mean to say that wife and son both should be dragged for litigation thereby incurring more expenses besides inconvenience to both of them and as a consequence of this husband would be successful ir further putting off the payment of maintenance amount. This court is of the view that it was of no use to have passed the order which cannot be implemented or enforced and which remains in papers only. Husband is admittedly employed in the service of Government of Himachal Pradesh. In these circumstances, it is ordered that the employer/D.D.O. of the husband on producing of certified copy of this order shall deduct a sum of Rs. 1500/- p.m. from the salary of the husband with effect from 1-11-1997. This amount of Rs.1500/- will be remitted to the wife by the employer/ D.D.O. at the expense of the husband to Rameshwari Devi wife of Atma Ram. 1500/- p.m. from the salary of the husband with effect from 1-11-1997. This amount of Rs.1500/- will be remitted to the wife by the employer/ D.D.O. at the expense of the husband to Rameshwari Devi wife of Atma Ram. A sum of Rs. 500/- p.m. shall be adjusted towards current maintenance from the month of November, 1997, whereas a sum of Rs. 1000/- p.m. shall be adjustable in the arrears of maintenance. It is made clear that arrears of maintenance after deducting Rs.2400/- already paid with effect from 1-4-1991 to 31-10-1997 work out to Rs. 37,100/-This order J remain in force till the sum of Rs.3.7,100/- is not liquidated in its entirety, where after a sum of Rs..5.00/- p.m. will only be deducted. In case husband petitioner pays the amount of arrears of maintenance in lumpsum, he is at to approach this court for modification of this order. Employer/D.D.O. hall carry out this direction in its fetter and spirit. 16. Husband will pay Rs. 1000/- as costs of this petition. 17. Expert order passed on 53.1996 staying the operation of the maintenance order is hereby discharged.