Delhi District Court
Pankaj Verma vs . Preeti Verma on 31 August, 2013
Pankaj Verma Vs. Preeti Verma
&
Preeti Verma vs. Pankaj Verma & Others
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN KUMAR JAIN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01 ( CENTRAL), THC: DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2013
ID No. 02401R0569222011
Date of Institution : 08.12.2011
Date of Transferred to this Court: 08.03.2013
PANKAJ VERMA
S/o Sh. Pratap Singh Verma,
R/o H. No. A-19, East Baldev Park,
Delhi-110051.
.........Appellant
Versus
RREETI VERMA
W/o Sh. Pankaj Verma,
D/o Sh. Ram Kumar Verma,
R/o H. No. 441 Aawas Vikas Colony,
Roorkee, Haridwar.
.......Respondent
AND
Criminal Appeal No. 32/2013
ID No. 02401R0160372012
Date of Institution : 10.04.2012
Date of Transferred to this Court: 08.03.2013
PREETI VERMA
W/o Sh. Pankaj Verma
D/o Sh. Ram Kumar Verma
Permanent Resident of
House No. 441, Awas Vikas Colony,
Roopkee, District Haridwar,
Uttrakhand.
.........Appellant
CA No. 33/13 & CA No. 32/13 Page No. 1 of 16
Pankaj Verma Vs. Preeti Verma
&
Preeti Verma vs. Pankaj Verma & Others
Versus
1 PANKAJ VERMA (Husband)
S/o Sh. Pratap Singh Verma
2. SH. PRATAP SINGH VERMA (Father-in-law)
S/o Sh. Gulab Singh Verma
3. BRIJ BALA (Mother-in-law)
W/o Sh. Pratap Singh Verma
4. SH. RAVI KANT VERMA (Brother-in-law)
S/o Sh. Pratap Singh Verma
All Resident of A-19,
East Baldev Park,
Delhi-110051.
..........Respondents
Date of order reserved : 14.08.2013
Date of order : 31.08.2013
Present: Sh. M.Z. Chaudhary, Advocate, counsel for appellant
(Pankaj Verma & Others)
Sh. T.K. Ganju, Sr. Advocate with Aqib Ali, Advocate
counsel for respondent (Preeti Verma)
O R D E R:
1. Criminal Appeal No. 33/13 & 32/13 are the subject matter of the present order.
2. Both the criminal appeals arose from the impugned order dated November 11, 2011 passed by the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate CA No. 33/13 & CA No. 32/13 Page No. 2 of 16 Pankaj Verma Vs. Preeti Verma & Preeti Verma vs. Pankaj Verma & Others whereby learned Trial Court directed the husband i.e. appellant (Pankaj Verma in criminal No. 33/13) to pay maintenance to the respondent i.e. wife (Preeti Verma) @ ` 20,000/- per month and ` 25,000/- each per month to both the minor children of the parties from the date of filing of Petition i.e. January 22, 2011 till the disposal of Petition filed by the petitioner i.e. wife.
3. Appellant Pankaj Verma (husband) filed the Criminal Appeal No. 33/13 to set aside the impugned order whereas respondent Smt. Preeti Verma (wife) filed the Criminal Appeal No. 32/2013 with a prayer to enhance the maintenance.
4. Necessary facts to dispose of the above two criminal appeals are that the marriage between Pankaj Verma & Preeti Verma was solemnized on November 30, 2001 in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies and two kids namely Master Tijil and Baby Nihal were born from the said wedlock. After solemnization of marriage couple started residing at H. No. A-19, East Baldev Park, Delhi. Smt. Preeti Verma filed a petition under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 alleging certain allegations of harassment for dowry and criminal breach of trust and domestic violence. Since the said allegations are not necessary for disposal of present criminal appeals, same are not enumerated herein. At the time of filing the petition, Smt. Preeti Verma also made a request for interim maintenance alleging that her husband Pankaj Verma was working as Deputy General Manager (Networking services) with Idea Cellular, Mohan Co-operative Okhla, Delhi and was getting monthly salary of ` 2.61 lac besides other benefits and he was also getting rental income @ ` 10,000/- per month from property bearing No. A-3, East Baldev Park, Delhi. It was further alleged that her husband Pankaj Verma has been maintaining three cars and having multiple bank accounts, credit cards and also acquired property i.e flat at Faridabad worth of ` 1 crore and having equity shares, debentures etc. On the other CA No. 33/13 & CA No. 32/13 Page No. 3 of 16 Pankaj Verma Vs. Preeti Verma & Preeti Verma vs. Pankaj Verma & Others hand, Pankaj Verma took the plea that he had resigned from the said company and is unemployed w.e.f May 16, 2011. Though he was making efforts to get a job but he failed to get any suitable job. It was further alleged that in order to save his matrimonial life, he had executed Sale Deed of property bearing No. A-3, East Baldev Park, Delhi in favour of his wife Preeti Verma, thus denied that he is getting any rental income from the said property. Besides that he also took the plea that he was ready to reside with his wife Preeti Verma and children and he had sent a legal notice in this regard. In addition to that he took the plea that his wife Preeti Verma is a highly qualified lady as she passed MCA after marriage and she was doing a job of Computer teacher, thus earing between ` 25,000/- to ` 30,000/- per month. It was further stated that his wife Preeti Verma also getting rental income from the said premises (A-3, Baldev Park) as the same stood in her name.
5. During the course of arguments, counsel for respondent (Preeti Verma) filed a copy of detail of TDS after downloading the information from the site of Income Tax Department and on the basis of said document, it was argued that appellant Pankaj Verma had joined M/s Alcatel Lucent Manged Solutions India Private Limited after resigning from M/s Idea Cellular. Since, this fact was denied by the appellant (Pankaj Verma) in his pleading and even during the course of arguments, he was directed to file an affidavit vide order dated July 18, 2013. Accordingly, Pankaj Verma filed an affidavit in Criminal Appeal No. 32/13 admitting that he was working with M/s Alcatel Lucent Manged Solutions India Private Limited during the period June 2011 to September 2012 as Deputy General Manager but presently he is not working with the said company and further admitted that the said company had deducted TDS from his salary during the said period.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant Pankaj Verma CA No. 33/13 & CA No. 32/13 Page No. 4 of 16 Pankaj Verma Vs. Preeti Verma & Preeti Verma vs. Pankaj Verma & Others vehemently contended that learned Trial Court had not considered the pre- condition of Section 23 of the Domestic Violence Act before passing the impugned order. It was argued that before passing the interim order under Section 23 of the Act, learned Trial Court was bound to record finding that prima-facie there is evidence to hold that appellant (Pankaj Verma) had committed an act of domestic violence or there was likelihood that he would commit an act of domestic violence but no such finding was given by the learned Trial Court. Though initially counsel for the appellant (Pankaj Verma) contended that appellant was unemployed, thus the appellant had no capacity to pay the maintenance and learned Trial Court had not considered this fact, however, when appellant had filed the affidavit, learned counsel contended that since presently appellant is nor working anywhere, appellant has no capacity to pay maintenance. It was further argued that the learned Trial Court failed to consider the qualification and capability of the respondent i.e. wife (Preeti Verma) before fixing the quantum of maintenance. It was further contended that since husband has already transfered the property bearing No. A-3, East Baldev Park, Delhi in the name of his wife Preeti Verma, there is no question for the appellant to take rent from tenants. It was submitted that respondent Preeti Verma has a regular income of ` 10,000/- from the said premises. At last, it was argued that the Criminal Appeal filed by the wife is not maintainable as there is a delay of four months in filing the criminal appeal and no reasonable explanation has been furnished to condone the delay.
7. Per contra, counsel appearing for the Preeti Verma (respondent) contended that appellant (Pankaj Verma) was earlier working with M/s Idea Cellular company and after resigning from the said company, he had joined M/s Alcatel Lucent Manged Solutions India Private Limited. Despite that he took a false plea that he was unemployed with dishonest intention to deprive his wife Preeti Verma and children from their lawful right of maintenance. It CA No. 33/13 & CA No. 32/13 Page No. 5 of 16 Pankaj Verma Vs. Preeti Verma & Preeti Verma vs. Pankaj Verma & Others was argued that Section 23 of the Domestic Violence Act is in two parts. If the Court passes an ex-parte order on the basis of affidavit filed by aggrieved person, Court is bound to satisfy itself that the application prima-facie discloses that respondent had committed an act of violence or there is every likelihood that respondent may commit the domestic violence. But where Court has not passed ex-parte order and passed the order after giving proper notice to respondent, no such finding is required.
8. It was further contended that respondent (Preeti Verma) had moved an application requesting to condone the delay stating that she could not file the appeal as she was busy in study of her minor children and she was residing with her parents at Roorkee and she could not contact her counsel to file the appeal
9. I have heard rival submissions advanced by counsel for both the parties, perused the record carefully and gave my thoughtful consideration to their contentions.
10. First question emerges from the submissions advanced by counsel for both the parties is as to whether learned Trial Court was bound to record his satisfaction that the application moved by respondent (Preeti Verma) disclosed prima-facie that her husband Pankaj Verma had committed an act of domestic violence before passing the impugned order for interim maintenance under Section 23 of the Act or not?
11. Section 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 read as under:
23. Power to grant interim and ex parte orders - (1) In any CA No. 33/13 & CA No. 32/13 Page No. 6 of 16 Pankaj Verma Vs. Preeti Verma & Preeti Verma vs. Pankaj Verma & Others proceeding before him under this Act, the Magistrate may pass such interim order as he deems just and proper.
(2) If the Magistrate is satisfied that an application prima-facie discloses that the respondent is committing, or has committed an act of domestic violence or that there is a likelihood that the respondent may commit an act of domestic violence, he may grant an ex parte order of on the basis of the affidavit in such form, as may be prescribed, of the aggrieved person under Section 18, Section 19, Section 20, Section 21 or, as the case may be, Section 22 against the respondent.
(emphasis supplied)
12. Bare perusal of Section 23 of the Act reveals that the same is in two parts. Under sub-section 2 to Section 23 Magistrate has power to pass an ex parte order on the basis of an affidavit filed by the petitioner. Under sub- section 2 to Section 23 whenever Magistrate passes an ex parte order on the basis of an affidavit, Magistrate is bound to record his satisfaction that the application moved by the petitioner prima-facie discloses that the respondent is committing or has committed an act of domestic violence or that there is a likelihood that respondent may commit an act of domestic violence. If Court is satisfied so, Magistrate may pass an ex parte order in favour of the aggrieved person. However, such satisfaction is not required to be recorded when the ex parte order is not passed.
13. Indisputably, in the instant case, learned Trial Court had not passed any ex parte order in favour of the petitioner i.e. wife Smt. Preeti Verma. On the contrary, the impugned order had been passed after giving notice to the appellant (Pankaj Verma) and after considering his pleadings and hearing arguments advanced on his behalf. In fact, the impugned order CA No. 33/13 & CA No. 32/13 Page No. 7 of 16 Pankaj Verma Vs. Preeti Verma & Preeti Verma vs. Pankaj Verma & Others was passed under sub-section 1 to Section 23 and not under sub-section 2 to Section 23 and there is no requirement under sub-section 1 to Section 23 of the Act that Magistrate has to record his satisfaction that application prima- facie disclosed that the appellant (husband) is committing or has committed an act of domestic violence. Under sub-section 1 to Section 23, Magistrate has discretion to pass an interim order as he deems fit and proper. In the instant case, learned Trial Court had passed impugned order not only after considering the pleadings of both the parties but also considering the submissions advanced by counsel for both the parties. Thus, it cannot be said that the learned Trial Court had passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner. Moreover, it is undisputed fact that the respondent (Preeti Verma) is residing separately along with her two kids from the appellant (Pankaj Verma) and she has not sufficient means to sustain herself and to bring up her kids, thus this fact is itself sufficient to pass an interim order as deems just and proper by the learned Trial Court.
14. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that there is no substance in the contention raised by counsel for appellant (Pankaj Verma)
15. Second question emerges from the submissions advanced by counsel for both the parties is as to whether appellant (Pankaj Verma) has capacity to pay maintenance or not?
16. It is undisputed fact that appellant (Pankaj Verma) was working as Deputy General Manager with M/s Idea Cellular Phone, Mohan Cooperative, Okhla, New Delhi. But in his pleading, he took the plea that he had resigned from the said company with effect from May 16, 2011 and claimed that since then he was unemployed. However, when he was directed to file an affidavit vide order dated July 18, 2013, he admitted that he was working with M/s Alcatel Lucent Managed Solutions India Private Limited CA No. 33/13 & CA No. 32/13 Page No. 8 of 16 Pankaj Verma Vs. Preeti Verma & Preeti Verma vs. Pankaj Verma & Others during the period June 2011 to September 2012 as Deputy General Manager. He further admitted that during the said period he had served the said company as an employee and company had deducted TDS from his salary. Thus, it becomes clear that after resigning from M/s Idea Cellular Phone, appellant (Pankaj Verma) had joined M/s Alcatel Lucent Managed Solutions India Private Limited in the month of June 2011 and as per the version of appellant he worked there till September 2012. It is undisputed fact that the marriage was solemnised between both the parties on November 30, 2001 and the petition was filed under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act on January 22, 2011. It means that appellant (Pankaj Verma) had capacity to maintain his wife at the time of marriage as well as when she had filed a petition for maintenance under Domestic Violence Act. Mere fact that he stopped doing service later on without any sufficient cause is not suffice to hold that appellant becomes incapable to maintain his wife and kids. If husband is permitted to take such a plea, then every husband would start to take the plea that since he had resigned from the service he is incapable to pay maintenance to his wife and kids. Acceptance of such plea would amount to deprive wife and destitute kids from their lawful right of maintenance, thus, such plea cannot be accepted. It is pertinent to mention here that appellant (Pankaj Verma) has failed to disclose how he ceased to be the employee of M/s Alcatel Lucent Managed Solutions India Private Limited. In his affidavit, he has not disclosed whether he had resigned from the said company or his service was terminated by the company. There is nothing on record which may suggest that after September 2012, appellant became physically incapable to serve M/s Alcatel Lucent Managed Solutions India Private Limited. In the absence of any cogent evidence, the plea taken by the appellant does not inspire any confidence. On the contrary, there are sufficient material on record to cull out that appellant was not only capable to maintain his wife at the time of marriage but also capable to maintain his family at the time of filing of the petition and subsequent thereto.
CA No. 33/13 & CA No. 32/13 Page No. 9 of 16Pankaj Verma Vs. Preeti Verma & Preeti Verma vs. Pankaj Verma & Others
17. Third question arises for adjudication is what was the approximate income of the appellant at the time of filing the petition?
18. It is admitted case of the appellant (Pankaj Verma) that he was working with M/s Idea Cellular Phone and he worked there till May 2011. As per the certificate of TDS, the salary of appellant in the month of January 2011 was ` 2,21,600/-. It further reveals that the salary of appellant was not fixed but it was variable and variation was from ` 1,87,415/- to ` 3,40,718/-. As per the TDS certificate, the total salary was paid to him from January 2011 to May 31, 2011 ` 11,33,586/-. Similarly, with effect from June 2011 to March 2012, he started getting salary between ` 2,13,467/- to ` 2,99,848/-. During the said period total gross salary was ` 23,06,842/-. From the TDS certificate, it is also clear that during January 2011 to May 2011, he had paid income tax to the tune of ` 2,05,938/-. Similarly, during the period June 2011 to March 31, 2012, he had paid TDS to the tune of ` 5,60,374/-. After deducting the TDS, his total salary during the period January 2011 to May 2011 was ` 9,27,648/- and from June 2011 to March 31, 2012 was ` 17,46,468/-.
19. Though during the course of arguments, counsel appearing for respondent (Preeti Verma) claimed that appellant (Pankaj Verma) is also having a rental income @ ` 10,000/- per month from the property A-3, East Baldev Park. However, appellant (Pankaj Verma) has filed a sale deed dated November 17, 2006 on record, which was executed in favour of Smt. Preeti Verma by the appellant qua said property. The said deed is a registered document. Thus, with effect from November 17, 2006, respondent (Preeti Verma) became the owner of the said property, thus she is entitled to enjoy the rental income from the said property if any. There is nothing on record which may suggest that tenants are paying rent to Pankaj Verma. In the absence of any cogent evidence, I do not find any substance in the contention raised by counsel for respondent (Preeti Verma).
CA No. 33/13 & CA No. 32/13 Page No. 10 of 16Pankaj Verma Vs. Preeti Verma & Preeti Verma vs. Pankaj Verma & Others
20. Now question arises as to whether the appellant (Preeti Verma) is capable to earn and whether she has any source of income?
21. It is admitted case of the respondent (Preeti Verma) that she passed MCA and admitted that at the time of getting admission of her kids in East Light Public Junior High School, Roorkee, she professed that she was working as a teacher. Counsel for appellant also argued that respondent (Preeti Verma) was working as computer teacher and she was earning between ` 25,000/- to ` 30,000/- per month.
22. However, counsel appearing for the respondent (Preeti Verma) contended that Preeti Verma had furnished false information at the time of getting her kids admitted in the said school as the school used to give some additional points to the working parents. In other words, counsel for respondent contended that Preeti Verma was not working anywhere and in order to secure admission of her kids in the said school, she had falsely declared in the form that she was working as a teacher. In other words, respondent intends to say that she had secured admission of her kids on the basis of false information furnished by her to the school. Parents send their children to school to make them educated and gentlemen and here mother furnished false information to the school just to get admission in a particular school. Thus, respondent is trying to make future of her children on the basis of false information furnished to the school. Admittedly, till date the respondent has not informed the school that she had furnished the false information to the school just to secure admission of her children and she is regretted for her conduct. As on date, there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the information furnished by the respondent to the school. Mere, now by saying that respondent is unemployed cannot be accepted. If this plea can be accepted on behalf of the respondent, why the same cannot be accepted qua appellant (Pankaj Verma) who also claims that he is CA No. 33/13 & CA No. 32/13 Page No. 11 of 16 Pankaj Verma Vs. Preeti Verma & Preeti Verma vs. Pankaj Verma & Others unemployed. But Court has discarded the plea of appellant. In the absence of any cogent evidence, there is no reason to believe the plea of the respondent that she was not working as a teacher. Since, as per documentary evidence available on record, respondent was working as a teacher, hence Court can presume that she must be earning between ` 25,000/- to ` 30,000/- per month. For the purpose calculation of maintenance, her monthly income is considered as ` 25,000/-.
23. From the record, it is established that the property No. A-3, East Baldev Park stands in the name of respondent (Preeti Verma) and it is admitted case of the respondent that appellant is earning monthly rental income from the said property @ ` 10,000/-. Since, property stands in the name of respondent, only respondent is entitled to receive rent from the tenant if any. However, since it is not clear whether property is occupied by the any tenant as on date or not, thus, it cannot be said that there is any rental income either to the appellant or respondent from the said property.
24. Now, question arises as to whether the criminal appeal filed by the respondent (Preeti Verma) is barred by the period of limitation, if yes, whether respondent has furnished sufficient ground for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
25. Admittedly, the impugned order was passed on November 11, 2011 and in terms of Section 29 of Act, criminal appeal was to be filed within 30 days. But criminal appeal was filed on April 10, 2012, thus, there is a delay in filing the present criminal appeal. However, respondent (Preeti Verma) has also moved an application for seeking condonation of delay in filing the criminal appeal. During the course of arguments, counsel submits that respondent (Preeti Verma) has been residing at Roorkee and she was busy in preparation of examination of her both kids, thus, she could not contact her CA No. 33/13 & CA No. 32/13 Page No. 12 of 16 Pankaj Verma Vs. Preeti Verma & Preeti Verma vs. Pankaj Verma & Others Advocate to file an appeal against the impugned order. The reason furnished for seeking condonation of delay appears to be quite genuine, thus, the delay in filing the present appeal stands condoned.
26. Now question arises how the amount of maintenance will be determined?
27. In case Annurita Vohra vs. Sandeep Vohra, 110 (2004) DLT 454, it was held that statutory deductions are to be deducted at the time of assessing the paying capacity of the husband, however voluntary deductions shall not be considered. Same view was taken in Chandni Sharma vs. Gopal Dutt Sharma, 2011 V AD (Delhi) 493 wherein it was held that income tax can be excluded, however voluntarily deductions such as house building allowance cannot be excluded. Similarly, in Pratibha Dinesh Kumar Vania & another vs. State of Gujarat, 2007 (3) G.L.H 396, it was held that festival loan, PF are voluntarily deductions, thus same should not be excluded at the time of determining the maintenance.
28. In case Annurita Vohra (supra), it was held that :
"In other words the Court must first arrive at the net disposable income of the husband or the dominant earning spouse. If the other spouse is also working, these earnings must be kept in mind. This would constitute the Family Resource Cake which would then be cut up and distributed amongst the member of the family. The apportionment of the cake must be in consonance with the financial requirements of the family members, which is exactly what happens when the spouses are one homogeneous unit.
---------In my view, a satisfactory approach would be to divide the Family Resource Cake in two portions to the husband since he has to incur extra expenses in the course of making his earning, and one share each to other members."CA No. 33/13 & CA No. 32/13 Page No. 13 of 16
Pankaj Verma Vs. Preeti Verma & Preeti Verma vs. Pankaj Verma & Others
29. Same view was taken in S.S. Bindra Vs. Tarvinder Kaur, 112 (2004) DLT 813.
30. In view of the above settled preposition of law, appellant is entitled to claim deduction towards the income tax.
31. As per TDS detail of the appellant, he earned ` 11,33,586/- during the period from January 2011 to May 2011. Thus, his average monthly pay was ` 2,26,717.20. However, during the said period, he had also paid TDS to the tune of ` 2,05,938/ and after deducting the said amount from his salary, his net salary comes to the tune of ` 9,27,648/- and his average monthly salary comes to the tune of ` 1,85,529.60. Similarly, during the period June 2011 to March 2012, he got total salary to the tune of ` 23,06,842, thus his average monthly salary comes to the tune of ` 2,30,684/-but during the said period he had also paid TDS to the tune of ` 5,60,374/-, thus after deducting the tax his total salary comes to the tune of ` 17,46,468/-. In other words, his average monthly salary comes to the tune of ` 1,74,646/-.
32. Now we have approximate income of appellant as well as of respondent.
33. In order to determine the quantum of maintenance, the average month income of appellant (Pankaj Verma) is be divided in five equal parts and two parts will be given to the appellant and one portion will go to the respondent and remaining two portion will go to their kids. The total monthly average income of the appellant during the period January 2011 to May 2011 was ` 1,85,529.60. If we divide the said income into five equal parts, it will come to the tune of ` 37,105.80. Thus, respondent (Preeti Verma) and her two kids shall be entitled to take maintenance @ ` 37,105/- each during the period January 2011 to May 2011. Since, the respondent was also capable to earn @ ` 25,000/- per month as a teacher, her salary shall also be divided CA No. 33/13 & CA No. 32/13 Page No. 14 of 16 Pankaj Verma Vs. Preeti Verma & Preeti Verma vs. Pankaj Verma & Others into five equal parts and two share will be given to the respondent and one share will be given to the appellant and if we deduct the share of appellant from the said maintenance amount, respondent (Preeti Verma) shall be entitled to claim maintenance ` 32,105/- (` 37,105 - ` 5000) whereas two kids shall be entitled to continue to claim maintenance @ ` 37,105/- each.
34. Similarly, during the period June 2011 to March 2012 average monthly salary of appellant is ` 1,74,646/- and if we divide salary in five equal parts, respondent (Preeti Verma) and her kids would get ` 34,929/- each. After deducting the share of the appellant from the income of respondent, respondent would get ` 29929/- (` 34,929 - ` 5000) while their kids would get ` 34,929/- each per month.
35. Since the appellant failed to disclose his income after March 2012, Court presumes that appellant will be in a position to continue to earn at least the amount which he was earning during the said period, thus, after March 2012 respondent and kids shall continue to claim maintenance at the aforesaid rate.
36. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the maintenance of respondent (Preeti Verma) is fixed @ ` 32,105/- during the period from January 22, 2011 to May 2011 and with effect from June 01, 2011 till the final disposal of the petition @ ` 29,929/-. Their kids shall be entitled for maintenance @ ` 37,105/- each with effect from January 22, 2011 to May 2011 and with effect from June 01, 2011 @ ` 34929/- till the final disposal of the petition.
37. Appellant shall pay the arrears of maintenance after adjusting the amount already paid within 15 days from today before the learned Trial Court through pay order. However, the arrears of maintenance towards the CA No. 33/13 & CA No. 32/13 Page No. 15 of 16 Pankaj Verma Vs. Preeti Verma & Preeti Verma vs. Pankaj Verma & Others kids shall be in the form of FDR for a period of five years. The said amount shall be released to the kids on attaining the age of majority and with the permission of the learned Trial Court, if amount is required prior to that.
38. For future maintenance, respondent shall furnish particulars of her bank account to the learned Trial Court within seven days from today and appellant shall deposit maintenance in the said account by 10th day of every month.
39. In view of the aforesaid discussion, criminal appeal filed by the Pankaj Verma stands dismissed and criminal appeal filed by respondent Preeti Verma stands allowed.
40. Copy of order be sent to the learned Trial Court.
41. Copy of order be placed in criminal appeal No. 32/13.
42. Criminal appeal files be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court On this 31st day of August 2013 [PAWAN KUMAR JAIN] ASJ-01/CENTRAL/DELHI 31.08.2013 CA No. 33/13 & CA No. 32/13 Page No. 16 of 16