JUDGMENT 1. - Instant petition has been preferred under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to assail the order dated 16.03.2012 passed by the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge [Fast Track] No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, whereby the appeal instituted by petitioner was dismissed and interim maintenance/compensation awarded @ Rs. 15000/- per month by the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, No.11, Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur was upheld. 2. Facts leading to awarding of maintenance and subsequent events have been noted by this Court in its order dated 23.09.2014 and the same reads as under:- "Petitioner Dharmendra Kumar Sharma was married with respondent NO.2 Smt. Deepika Sharma as per the Hindu customs and rites at Jaipur. From the loins of the petitioner and womb of respondent No.2, son Nitin was born on 21st November, 2006. Matrimonial relations between the parties had turned sour and respondent No.2 Smt. Deepika Sharma, in the year 2011 had instituted a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women's from Domestic Violence Act, 2006 (for short 'the Act of 2006'). The Court of Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.11, Jaipur City vide order dated 24th November, 2011 awarded Rs. 15,000/- per month as interim maintenance in favour of the respondent wife. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner had filed appeal under Section 29 of the Act of 2006 in the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur who vide its judgment dated 16th March, 2012 upheld the order dated 24th November, 2011 passed by the trial court whereby interim maintenance @ Rs. 15,000/- per month was awarded in favour of respondent No.2 aggrieved wife. Resultantly, the petitioner filed the present revision petition in this Court (SB Criminal Revision Petition No. 274/2012). A coordinate Bench (Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.) had set aside the orders passed by the lower appellate court and remitted the matter to the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Japiur Metropolitan, Jaipur to decide the appeal fresh. The order passed by the coordinate Bench was assailed by the respondent aggrieved wife by filing Special Leave to Appeal Petition in the Supreme Court and the same was accepted by the Hon'ble Apex Court by passing the following order:- "Heard learned counsel for the parties. Leave granted. The order passed by the coordinate Bench was assailed by the respondent aggrieved wife by filing Special Leave to Appeal Petition in the Supreme Court and the same was accepted by the Hon'ble Apex Court by passing the following order:- "Heard learned counsel for the parties. Leave granted. By the order under appeal, High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench has allowed the S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 272 of 2012 and has set aside order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as order of learned District and Sessions Judge and has remanded the matter to the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Jaipur for fresh decision. On going through the order under appeal, it is apparent that the High Court has interfered with orders passed by the Courts below awarding maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- p.m. to the appellant under Domestic Violence Act without assigning any good reasons for such interference. In the aforesaid fact situation, we accept the submissions on behalf of the appellant and set aside the order under appeal. The High Court is required to re-hear the matter at an early date and decide S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 274 of 2012 in accordance with law after affording opportunity to hear to both the parties. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly." In compliance of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the registry had listed the matter on 18th September, 2014 before the co-ordinate Bench (Mr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.). His lordship noticing that nobody has caused appearance on behalf of the petitioner had adjourned the matter for today. Today also, on the first call there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Consequently, official of the Court was sent and Shri Deepak Asopa, Advocate was called. Shri Pankaj Sharma has caused appearance on behalf of Shri Deepak Asopa and has submitted that the petitioner has withdrawn power of attorney and hence, they have no instructions to defend the present petition. In these circumstances, this Court is constrained to issue notice to the petitioner regarding pendency of the present petitioner and the next date of hearing. Shri O.P. Mishra, counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has submitted that except payment of Rs. 50,000/- which was once paid to the aggrieved wife, petitioner has not paid any other amount to the aggrieved wife. In these circumstances, this Court is constrained to issue notice to the petitioner regarding pendency of the present petitioner and the next date of hearing. Shri O.P. Mishra, counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has submitted that except payment of Rs. 50,000/- which was once paid to the aggrieved wife, petitioner has not paid any other amount to the aggrieved wife. It is submitted that the petitioner on the one pretext or the other intend to delay the decision of this revision petition to deprive the aggrieved wife of the amount of interim maintenance awarded by the court of the Magistrate which has been upheld by the lower appellate court. To allay apprehension of counsel for respondent No.2, aggrieved wife, it is clarified that there is no stay in favour of the petitioner and hence, in execution proceedings, the executing court is free to pass appropriate orders in accordance with provisions of law for recovery of arrears of interim maintenance. Further more, mere pendency of the present petition shall not be construed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, in whose court the petition preferred by the aggrieved wife under Section 12 of the Act of 2006 is pending, as a ground not to proceed with the decision of the case. The court of the Magistrate shall take all necessary steps to conclude the proceedings pending under Section 12 of the Act of 2006 within three month from today. List for service of notice upon petitioner for 17th October, 2014. A copy of this order be conveyed to the court of Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.11, Jaipur Metropolitan by the Deputy Registrar (Judl.) forthwith. Shri Mishra also undertakes to present a certified copy of this order before the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.11, Jaipur Metropolitan within one week from today for compliance." 3. Shri V.R. Bajwa, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the Courts below have not taken into consideration the fact that during pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner had obtained voluntarily retirement and now he is receiving pension. 4. Suffice it to say, on 24.11.2011 when the impugned order was passed, petitioner was in service and was drawing salary of Rs. 33,000/-. 4. Suffice it to say, on 24.11.2011 when the impugned order was passed, petitioner was in service and was drawing salary of Rs. 33,000/-. The Court had also taken into consideration a visiting card of Bhardwaj, Retailer & Property Consultant along with an advertisement issued to hold that the fact that the petitioner is having income from other source cannot be denied. 5. Similarly, the order passed by the Lower Appellate Court has also not noticed the factum of voluntarily retirement and has held that the voluntarily deduction made by the petitioner towards General Provident Fund cannot be construed to detriment of the respondent-wife. 6. Subsequent event that the petitioner has taken a voluntarily retirement can always be brought on record by the petitioner by leading evidence before the Courts below when the final amount of maintenance is to be adjudicated. 7. To controvert, Mr. O. P. Mishra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant No.2, has submitted that as on today, total arrears of maintenance to be paid by the petitioner amounts to Rs. 6,60,0000/-. Counsel further submitted that the petitioner is having income from other sources also. 8. At this stage, this Court shall refrain to adjudicate the quantum of interim maintenance, as this Court in its order dated 23.09.2014 had issued a direction to the trial Court to conclude the proceedings within three months initiated under Section 12 of the Protection of Women's From Domestic Violence Act, 2006 by the respondent-wife. 9. The Court of Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, No.11, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur taking into consideration the evidence to be led by the parties, including subsequent events shall be in a better position to determine the entitlement and quantum of maintenance to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent-wife. 10. In case, final amount of maintenance is determined in the higher side, petitioner shall be liable to pay arrear. However, in case, the amount of maintenance is determined on the Lower side, the amount already paid to the respondent-wife shall be adjusted towards future maintenance. 11. So far as payment of arrears of maintenance till today is concerned, Mr. Bajwa, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has handed over the Pay Order of Rs. 1,50,000/- drawn in favour of respondent-wife. 12. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that besides amount of Rs. 11. So far as payment of arrears of maintenance till today is concerned, Mr. Bajwa, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has handed over the Pay Order of Rs. 1,50,000/- drawn in favour of respondent-wife. 12. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that besides amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-, which has been paid as on today by way of the Pay Order, the petitioner has also been paid Rs. 1,00,000/- in two installments of Rs. 50,000/- each. 13. Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that due to pending litigation, petitioner has not been paid gratuity amount and the amount of commuted leave/pension. 14. In support of this contention, learned counsel has placed on record Photostat copy of the Order No.340 dated 29.02.2012 and the same reads as under:- " dk;kZy; vkns'k la[;k 340 fnukad 29-02-2012 iz/kku egkys[kkdkj ( ys[kk o gd ) us Jh /kesUnz dqekj 'kekZ o0ys0 fi0ua0 2813 ftudh fu;qfDr frfFk 28-01-1991 gS] dk muds izkFkZuk i= fnukad 3-1-2012 ds }kjk ljdkjh lsok esa LoSPNk ls lsokfuo'fRr gksus dk vuqjks/k djus ij dsUnzh; flfoy lsok ( isa'ku ) fu;ekoyh] 1972 ds fu;e 28&, ds vUrxZr fnukad 1-3-2012 ( iwokZUg ) ls LoSfPNd lsokfuo'Rr gksus dh vuqefr iznku dh gSA Jh /kesUnz dqekj 'kekZ viuh isa'ku dk 40 izfr'kr Hkkx dk lkjka'khdj.k fnukad 2-4-2012 ds ckn yfEcr U;kf;d izdj.k ds vfUre fu.kZ; ds i'pkr~ gh djok ldsaxs rFkk xzsP;qVh dk Hkqxrku Hkh U;kf;d izdj.k ds vfUre fu.kZ; ds i'pkr~ fu;ekuqlkj ns; gksxkA Jh /kesaUnz dqekj 'kekZ o0 ys[kkdkj yfEcr U;kf;d izdj.k ds vfUre fu.kZ; gksus dh fLFkfr esa rqjUr foHkkx dks fu.kZ; dh izekf.kr izfrfyfi miyC/k djk;saxs rkfd rnuqlkj isa'ku] xzsP;qVh ,oa dE;wVs'ku dk vfUre Hkqxrku fd;k tk ldsA Sd/- miegkys[kkdkj ( iz'kklu ) 15. Since legitimate dues of the petitioner have been retained by the Government due to pendency of litigation, this Court can safely infer that the same can be disbursed to the respondent-wife, after present litigation come to an end. 16. Thus, earlier direction given to the Court below to conclude the proceedings finally under Section 12 of the Act, 2006 within a period of three months commencing from the date of order dated 23.09.2014 is reiterated and it is, hereby, ordered that further coercive action for recovery of arrears of maintenance shall be kept in abeyance till decision of the proceedings as per directions issued herein above. 17. 17. With the directions issued herein above, the present petition stands disposed of. 18. Upon disposal of main petition, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive; the same is also disposed of.Petition disposed of. *******