JUDGMENT Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, CJ. 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 14th May, 2012 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal East in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1 of 2012 arising out of Criminal (C) Case No. 46 of 2009. 2. The brief background of the case is that the respondent filed a complaint u/s 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter called the "Act") praying for relief of protection, monthly maintenance, compensation, medical expenses etc. Her case is that she had eloped with the petitioner on 13th January, 2006 and formal marriage was performed on 22nd November, 2007 according to Manipur Hindu Rituals and Customs in presence of friends, relatives and parents. Thereafter, they lived together as husband and wife. After two months of their marriage, she came to know that the petitioner was keeping an extra-marital relationship with another lady. On being questioned, he ridiculed her by saying that he had illicit relationship with many beautiful women who are young and modest. She further alleged that the petitioner used to quarreled on trivial issues and beat her without any reason. However, she conceived for the first time in the month of December, 2007 and disclosed about her pregnancy to her mother-in-law and requested for medical check-up. She was advised by her mother-in-law to abort the pregnancy. Thereafter, she was ill-treated and tortured by her mother-in-law. When she informed about the pregnancy to the petitioner, over phone, she was told that he will not take responsibility of the child and she was advised to terminate the pregnancy. She also alleged that one woman with whom the petitioner had an extra-marital relationship registered a complaint for commission of offence u/s 376/417of IPC and consequently, the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Because of the above incident, she was abused by her in-laws. On these allegations and on some other allegations also, the complaint was filed by her u/s 12 of the Act. The said complaint was registered as Criminal (c) Case No. 46 of 2009. The learned Magistrate after issuing notice to the present petitioner and hearing parties, passed an order on 28th November, 2010 directing the petitioner to pay maintenance @ Rs. 1500/- per month and compensation of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only. The said complaint was registered as Criminal (c) Case No. 46 of 2009. The learned Magistrate after issuing notice to the present petitioner and hearing parties, passed an order on 28th November, 2010 directing the petitioner to pay maintenance @ Rs. 1500/- per month and compensation of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only. Subsequently, a joint application was filed by both the parties and it was agreed that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) only to the respondent towards arrear of maintenance from the month of September, 2009 to April, 2011 and pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) as compensation to the respondent. On the basis of the joint application, the Court modified the order. After the said application was disposed of, the respondents filed the present Criminal Misc. case No. 1 of 2012 on 19.1.2012 u/s 125(3) of Cr.P.C. read with Section 31 and sub-section 6 of Section 20 of the Act praying for enforcement of order dated 20.11.2010 passed in Criminal (c) case No. 46 of 2009. The said application was heard on merit and was disposed of in the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- as well as the outstanding amount towards monthly maintenance within 30 days. 3. Challenging the above order the present revision petition has been filed. Shri H. Nabachandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when an order is passed u/s 12 of the Act for payment of maintenance, the same can only be executed u/s 20 sub-section (6) of the Act and recourse to Section 125(3) of the Cr.P.C. cannot be taken. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Magistrate, in the impugned order could not have taken recourse the section 125(3) of Cr.P.C. for passing order not only to pay monthly maintenance but also to pay arrear of monthly maintenance. Mrs. Ayangleima, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that two options are open for the learned Magistrate to execute its order passed u/s 12 of the Act. According to her, order passed u/s12 of the Act could be executed taking recourse Sub-section (6) to Section 20 of the Act as well as u/s 28of the Act. 4. Undisputedly, initial complaint of the respondent was filed u/s 12 of the Act. According to her, order passed u/s12 of the Act could be executed taking recourse Sub-section (6) to Section 20 of the Act as well as u/s 28of the Act. 4. Undisputedly, initial complaint of the respondent was filed u/s 12 of the Act. Learned Magistrate, by an order dated 20th November, 2010, allowed the application and directed for payment of arrear maintenance and Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and monthly maintenance @ Rs. 1,500/- per month. By a subsequent order, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards arrear maintenance and compensation was paid to the respondent. However, for non-payment of monthly maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month, the present application was filed for execution u/s 20 and Sub-section 6 of the Act which provides that upon the failure on the part of the respondent to make payment in terms of the order under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may direct the employer or a debtor of the respondent, to directly pay to the aggrieved person or to deposit with the court a portion of the wages or salaries or debt due to or accrued to the credit of the respondent, which amount may be adjusted towards the monetary relief payable by the respondent. Therefore, if any amount of monthly maintenance had not been paid by the petitioner, learned Magistrate could proceed to execute the same under the above provision and direct the employer of the petitioner to deposit with the court or pay to the respondent a portion of the salary drawn by the petitioner. 5. Section 28 provides that all proceedings u/s 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 and offence u/s 31 of the Act shall be governed by the provisions of Cr.P.C. of 1973 (2 of 1974). Nothing in Sub-section (1) shall prevent the court from laying down its own procedure for disposal of an application under section 12 or under sub-section (2) of section 23. On conjoint reading of section 20 sub-section (6) and section 28 of the Act, it appears that an order passed u/s 12 of the Act granting monetary relief can be executed u/s 20 sub-section (6) of the Act. However, the order passed u/s 12 of the Act can be executed u/s 20 sub-section (6) of the Act provided the respondent has an employment or has a debtor. However, the order passed u/s 12 of the Act can be executed u/s 20 sub-section (6) of the Act provided the respondent has an employment or has a debtor. If the respondent is neither employed nor has a debtor, the order passed u/s 12 of the Act cannot be executed u/s 20 sub-section (6) of the Act. Therefore, the only course open for the Magistrate is to take recourse to section 28 of the Act and in terms of the said provision take further recourse u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. for execution of the order passed u/s12 of the Act. In this connection, reference may be made to a decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Smt. Kanchan -vs- Vikramjeet Setiya reported in 2013 CRI. L.J. 85. 6. In the present case, undisputedly, the petitioner is in employment and therefore, the order passed in favour of the respondent u/s 12 of the Act can be executed u/s 20 sub-section (6) of the Act. I, therefore, modify the order of the learned Magistrate impugned in this revision and direct the petitioner to furnish address of his employer before the learned Magistrate within 15 days from today. On receipt of the address of the employer, learned Magistrate shall pass an order in terms of section 20 sub-section (6) of the Act. 7. The Revision is, disposed of with the above modification.