BALDEV SINGH Vs. BHUPINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Respondent has filed an application under Order 33 Rule 1 and 2 Code of Code of Civil Procedure 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.

(2.) 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 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.

(3.) 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.