( 1 ) "whether a Court granting an ad interim or final award of maintenance to the discarded, disabled dependents, should rest itself, contended, thus far only and not further, merely stopping at the passing - of the said award, and thereafter necessarily wait for sometime to help them out to realize the amount so awarded till only, if, as and when they so approach it once again, following the second bout of the legal duel by way of execution of the impugned award either by taking-up further proceedings by way of executive and/or the Contempt proceedings ? Or "whether alternatively, following the call of humanistic approach and the speedy justice as promised under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India, the concerned Court should immediately volunteer and take upon itself the sacred duty to render easy and expeditious substantial justice by seeing that the amount awarded is immediately made available to the claimants in a manner which may not only ultimately save them from further undue harrassment of roaming about from pillar to the post, but before they ultimately getting exhausted and exasperated, start thinking and cursing that the remedy sought for was worst than their ailments and: start entertaining second thought of ever approaching the Court in future for begging the Justice?"1. 1 Aforesaid two staggering questions stare at us right in our eyes, demanding immediate answers in the overall interest of Justice to the needy claimants crying out their hearts for survival. Despite the maintenance award passed in favour by no less an agency than the Court itself, not to comply with the same is indeed something extremely serious and one of the most vexed social problem which plagues most of the maintenance claimants. Each one of us, nowadays witness this tragedy of the claimants and yet passively as if watch the same relegating the sufferers to the mercy of mechanical legal procedures, as if there is no immediate reasonable way-out. This Court accordingly appreciating the human tragedy involved and heart-burns for such ill-fated claimants and also taking the responsibility of reflecting the overall social conscience and the concern of which this Court claims to be the beholder, would like to find out, discuss and direct certain ways and means which may ultimately provide immediate helping hand of the Court extended to such claimants before their faith in the "law" and "the administration of justice"is put to test if not lost. .

( 2 ) IN order to appreciate, understand and ultimately answer the questions raised above, it is first of all necessary to have a look at the few relevant facts leading to this Contempt proceedings. 2. 1 Few relevant facts - Petitioner Miss Shilpa Shah happens to be the daughter of the respondent-Shri Bansilal K. Shah, who is Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax at Ahmedabad. As the misfortune would have been the married and family life of the parties of this proceedings have gone on rock and appears to have been ruined, without any prospects of reunion in the near future, save and except by some unexpected happy "u" turn of events taking place in their lives, reconciling the situation. The respondent-Bansilal married scat. Champaben, mother of the present petitioner many years back and have in all five children out of their lawful wedlock, that is, four daughters and one son, out of which, two daughters came to be married after the separation. As the misfortune would have been, Smt. Champaben and her minor children allegedly came to be deserted by the respondent and under the circumstances, they were constrained to initiate the maintenance proceedings under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the same being Misc. Criminal application No. 31 of 1984, before the learned Magistrate, wherein the respondent was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 400. 00 to Smt. Champaben and Rs. 100. 00 each to the two children every month. In course of time, on petitioner attending her majority on 25-9