CR No.6423 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6423 of 2009 (O&M) Decided on : 16-12-2010 Baldev Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS Bhupinder Kaur ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Ms.Sonia G Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.S.Cheema, Advocate for respondent MAHESH GROVER, J The respondent has filed an application under Order 33 Rule 1 and 2 CPC praying for grant of maintenance. The said application was allowed by a Court decree dated 9.12.2002. The petitioner then moved an application for setting aside ex parte decree as he was resident of Canada and was thus unable to participate in the proceedings. By virtue of the decree dated 9.12.2002, a charge has been created on the property of the petitioner. His application for setting aside ex parte proceedings was dismissed and an appeal against the same was also dismissed. Before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the charge has been erroneously created on the property of the petitioner and that in any eventuality he is prepared to make arrangements for the respondent which shall ensure minimum monthly return of an amount which is equivalent to the amount of maintenance granted by virtue of decree of 2002. Today when the matter was taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a photo copy of a Fixed Deposit Receipt which has been created in favour of the respondent which CR No.6423 of 2009 (O&M) 2 will ensure the requisite maintenance as determined vide the impugned order till the time the Fixed Deposit Receipt subsists and the same is taken on record. The original FDR has been handed over to the learned counsel for the respondent who has undertaken that the same shall be disbursed to the respondent. Having regard to the aforesaid, learned counsel for the respondent states that this is a satisfactory arrangement and that his grievance in the application under Order 33 Rule 1 and 2 CPC stands redressed. The revision petition is thus disposed of with a direction that this amount of Fixed Deposit Receipt in the name of the respondent shall not be disbursed without the permission of this Court. After the expiry of the term of the Fixed Deposit Receipt, the Bank is directed to re-validate the same for a period which fetches the maximum interest. The exercise shall be repeated by the Bank after expiry of each term of the Fixed Deposit Receipt. The respondent shall be entitled to the interest accruing thereon. She may in her discretion use the interest either equivalent to the amount granted by the Court subsequent to the provisions of Order 33 Rule 1 and 2 or in variation thereof but as observed earlier she will not be able to disturb the Fixed Deposit Receipt without express permission of this Court and the property of the petitioner shall be released from the charge which has been created. Disposed of. December 16 , 2010 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge