JUDGMENT : 1. Through the medium of instant petition, petitioners seek quashing of order dated 09.06.2018 whereby the learned Munsiff (JMIC), Jammu dismissed the application filed by the petitioners seeking release of Rs.7.50 lakhs deposited by the Syndicate Bank on the directions of the learned Munsiff (JMIC), Jammu dated 04.05.2018 towards the satisfaction of the arrears of the maintenance solely for the reason that the writ petition seeking transfer of the proceedings from Jammu to Delhi is sub-judice before the Apex Court. 2. The facts of the case in nutshell are that on 02.06.2012, the petitioners filed a petition under section 488 Cr.P.C. for the grant of maintenance, against the respondent before the learned Munsiff (JMIC), Jammu being File No. 21/Cr. P.C. and interim application attached along with petition under Section 488 Cr.P.C. was disposed of by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Munsiff), Jammu, vide order dated 11.01.2017 by virtue of which respondent herein was directed to pay monthly interim maintenance of Rs.6,000/- to the petitioner No.1 and Rs.9,000/- to minor Arjunveer Singh i.e. petitioner No. 2, total amounting to Rs. 15,000/-, which is to be paid from the date of presentation of the petition in the said Court, i.e., 02.06.2012. It is the case of the petitioners that not even a single penny was paid by the respondent in terms of aforesaid order dated 11.01.2017 and instead that the respondent preferred a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu. The learned Revisional Court vide its order dated 17.04.2017 stayed the operation of the order dated 11.01.2017 subject to deposit of Rs. 5.00 lakhs. It is further submitted in the petition that in the meantime the petitioner No.1 received information under RTI from the employer bank of the respondent, i.e., Syndicate Bank, vide Ref. No. HO:PD:PAD:0087: RTI:2017061 dated 30.08.2017, wherein it was divulged that the respondent is on deputation as Manager, Syndicate Bank Muscat (Sultanate of Oman) and the petitioner No. 1 was also furnished the statement of salary drawn by the respondent with effect from 2010 to 2015, which shows that the respondent drawn monthly salary more than Rs.1.50 lakhs. 3. No. HO:PD:PAD:0087: RTI:2017061 dated 30.08.2017, wherein it was divulged that the respondent is on deputation as Manager, Syndicate Bank Muscat (Sultanate of Oman) and the petitioner No. 1 was also furnished the statement of salary drawn by the respondent with effect from 2010 to 2015, which shows that the respondent drawn monthly salary more than Rs.1.50 lakhs. 3. It is further submitted in the petition that the non-payment of maintenance/arrears of maintenance, which had touched more than Rs.11.00 lakhs, constrained the petitioners to move an execution application before the learned Munsiff (JMIC), Jammu seeking directions to the employer bank to deduct the amount from the service benefits of the respondent. The learned Munsiff (JMIC), Jammu vide order dated 04.05.2018 directed the Chief Manager Syndicate Bank to deduct the amount of Rs.7.50 lakhs from the account of the respondent and to deposit the same in the Court through Cheque for discharge of part of arrears of maintenance. 4. It is pointed out in the petition that the Syndicate Bank in terms of aforesaid order has already deposited an amount of Rs.7.50 lakhs before the Court below and when the matter was taken up by the learned Munsiff (JMIC), Jammu on 21.05.2018 Advocate N. N. Bain caused appearance on behalf of the respondent and produced a copy of order dated 11.05.2018 passed by the Apex Court in Writ Petition(s) (Crl) No. 99/2018 wherein notice had been issued in the writ petition as well as application for stay. The Apex Court further directed the tagging of Writ Petition(s) (Crl) No.99/2018 with S.L.P. (Crl) No. 890 of 2017 and further directed that the respondent herein is free to move before the Vacation Bench. The writ petitioner before the Apex Court has sought transfer of petition under section 488 Cr.P.C. from the Court of Munsiff (JMIC), Jammu to Delhi. It is also stated in the petition that the respondent had earlier also filed a transfer petition (criminal) No. 517 of 2012 seeking the transfer of the petition under Section 488 Cr.P.C being case No.21/Cr.P.C. dated 02.06.2012 and not only this, one more transfer petition (criminal) No.295 of 2012 was also preferred by the respondent before the Apex Court seeking the transfer of criminal complaint under Section 498-A RPC being file No.30/CrPC/2011 dated 11.06.2012 titled Tandeep Kaur vs. Satminder Singh and others. 5. 5. It is further stated that the respondent also filed a petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act titled Satminder Singh vs. Dr. Tandeep Kaur being HMA No.344 of 2012 before the Additional District Court, Tis Hazari, Delhi and the petitioner No.1 filed Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 977 of 2012 seeking transfer of aforementioned case No. 344 of 2012 from Delhi to Jammu. The Apex Court on 30.03.2015 passed a common order/judgment in all the three transfer petitions referred herein above and directed that the case being HMA No.344 of 2012 pending before the Additional District Court, Tis Hazari, Delhi be transferred to Principal Judge, Family Court, Pathankot (Punjab) and it was also directed that the case shall be dealt by the Principal Judge Family Court himself. It was further directed that the Principal Judge shall dispose of the matter within a period of three months from the date of commencement of the first hearing and till the transferred case is finalized, there shall be stay of further proceedings in Criminal Complaint File No.30/Cr.P.C./2011 dated 11.06.2012 titled as Dr.Tandeep Kour vs. S. Satminder Singh and others and case File No. 21/Cr.P.C. dated 02.06.2012 titled as Dr.Tandeep Kour and Anr. vs. S. Satminder Singh both pending in the Court of learned Munsiff Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jammu and accordingly, all the transfer petitions were disposed of. 6. It is further averred in the petition that after the disposal of all the three transfer petitions vide order dated 30.03.2015 by the Apex Court, the proceedings under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act were commenced in the Family Court of Smt. Ramesh Kumari, District Judge, Pathankot, but the respondent did not choose to appear before the Court even on a single fixed date and accordingly after conducting the trial for three months the Family Court, Pathankot, dismissed the aforesaid petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act filed by the respondent vide Judgment dated 29.01.2016 . 7. 7. It is further stated in the petition that as per the order dated 30.03.2015 passed by the Apex Court, after the dismissal of the aforementioned petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the criminal complaint No.30/CrPC dated 11.06.2012 and petition under Section 488 CrPC being case file No.21/CrPC dated 02.06.2012 got revived before the trial Court at Jammu along with interim order dated 11.01.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Munsiff) Jammu, in interim application attached with the petition under Section 488 Cr.P.C. directing the respondent herein to pay monthly interim maintenance of Rs.6000/- to the petitioner No.1 and Rs.9000/- to minor Arjunveer Singh, i.e., petitioner No. 2, which is to be paid from the date of presentation of the petition in the Court, i.e., 02.06.2012. It is further stated in the petition that it was the duty of the respondent to inform the Apex Court about the previous litigation which concluded on 30.03.2015 involving similar facts and circumstances and concealment of these facts go to the root of this case and all these facts will be brought to the notice of the Apex Court when the writ petition seeking transfer of the proceedings is listed for consideration. It is further stated that it was on 23.05.2018 the petitioners moved an application in the court of learned Munsiff (JMIC) Jammu seeking release of Rs.7.50 lakhs which had been deposited by the Syndicate Bank in terms of order dated 04.05.2018 passed by the learned Munsiff, Jammu. It is further stated that in the said application the petitioners specifically pleaded that in the application for grant of ex parte stay before the Apex Court there was a specific prayer for ad-interim stay of further proceedings in criminal case being file No.21/CrPC dated 02.06.2012 titled, Dr. Tandeep Kaur Dutta and anr. vs. S. Satminder Singh and it was on 09.06.2018 the learned Munsiff (JMIC) Jammu dismissed the said application solely on the ground that matter is sub-judice before the Supreme Court and the court of Munsiff (JMIC) Jammu is seized to exercise its discretion and it would be appropriate to wait for the final opinion of the Supreme Court. 8. vs. S. Satminder Singh and it was on 09.06.2018 the learned Munsiff (JMIC) Jammu dismissed the said application solely on the ground that matter is sub-judice before the Supreme Court and the court of Munsiff (JMIC) Jammu is seized to exercise its discretion and it would be appropriate to wait for the final opinion of the Supreme Court. 8. The petitioners are aggrieved of the impugned order dated 09.06.2018 and assailed the same on the following grounds:- (a) “The impugned order has resulted in miscarriage of Justice as the court below dismissed the application of the petitioners solely for the reasons that the Hon’ble Supreme Court is seized of the matter wherein the transfer of the proceedings have been sought. The petitioners vehemently argued before the trial court that there is no stay order/interim directions from the Apex Court regarding the stay of the proceedings but even then the trial court dismissed the application. It is settled law that unless and until there is no stay of the proceedings from the higher court the trial courts are not precluded from proceeding further in the matter. Moreover, in the instant case where the respondent has been escaping from his liability to pay the arrears of maintenance touched up to Rs. 11.00 lakhs and it is only after the execution petition the trial court directed the Syndicate Bank to deposit Rs. 7.50 lakhs out of the service benefits of the respondent. Here it is relevant to point out that since June, 2012 the petitioners are striving for maintenance and have seen several rounds of litigation in the High Court as well as in the Apex Court and at Matrimonial Court Pathankote. The mere filing of the writ petition before Apex Court is not a ground to debar the petitioners from the fruit of litigation particularly when there is no restraint order from the Apex Court for the trial court. However, the court below rejected the application solely for the reason that the Hon’ble Apex Court is seized of the matter. This approach of the trial court is contrary to the well established proposition of law and if this principle is allowed to stand then mere filing of proceedings before the higher forums will act as a bar for the lower courts to proceed further in the matter. This approach of the trial court is contrary to the well established proposition of law and if this principle is allowed to stand then mere filing of proceedings before the higher forums will act as a bar for the lower courts to proceed further in the matter. Moreover, the trial court was seeking the execution of the orders earlier passed regarding the interim maintenance and in the said execution petition the petitioners moved an application seeking release of the amount deposited by the employer bank of the respondent but solely for the notice issued by the Apex Court the trial court precluded itself from proceeding further in the matter and dismissed the application. The impugned order as such is liable to be set aside. Here it is relevant to point out that the petitioners had drawn the attention of the trial court to the judgment of the Apex Court reported as 2005 (1) SCC 705 titled, Atma Ram properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd. wherein the Apex Court held on the basis of Order 41 Rule 5 CPC that mere preferring of an appeal does not operate as stay and petitioners on the same principle impressed upon the trial court that mere filing of the writ petition will not operate as a bar for the trial court not to exercise its jurisdiction in the application seeking release of money unless and until there is a specific interim order staying the proceedings by the Apex Court before the trial court. However, the learned Munsiff Jammu did not appreciate the contentions of the petitioners and the law laid down by the Apex Court as such the impugned order deserves to be set aside. (b) That the impugned order is also liable to be set aside because the respondent is guilty of suppression of material facts as before filing the above referred writ petition in the Apex Court seeking transfer of proceedings the respondent had also approached the Apex Court earlier for the same relief and vide common order Apex Court disposed of all the three transfer applications and the said fact has been concealed in the instant writ petition sub-judice before the Apex Court and all these facts established the malafide intention of the respondent who is getting Rs. 1.50 lakhs salary per month but is reluctant to pay arrears of maintenance amounting upto Rs. 11.00 lakhs. 1.50 lakhs salary per month but is reluctant to pay arrears of maintenance amounting upto Rs. 11.00 lakhs. The impugned order in the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed.” 9. I have considered the contentions of counsel for petitioner. From the perusal of impugned order, it is evident that arrears of maintenance u/s 488 Cr.P.C. to the tune of Rs.7.50 lakh has been lying in the court below. 10. Hon’ble Apex court in Transfer Application (civil) no. 977 of 2012 on 30.03.2015, disposed of the transfer application and held as under;- “This Court on 23.03.2015 had passed the following order: “Let the matter be listed on 30.03.2015. The petitioner and the respondent shall remain personally present on that day. It is hereby made clear that no adjournment shall be sought on that score.” In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner, Tandeep Kaur Dutta and the respondent, S. Satinder Singh, are personally present. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is directed that the case bearing H.M.A. No.344 of 2012 pending before the Additional District Court, Tis Hazari, Delhi be transferred to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Pathankot. The case shall be dealt by the Principal Judge, Family Court himself. It is directed that he shall dispose of the matter within a period of three months from the date of the commencement of the first hearing. Let the record of the case be transferred without delay. Till the transferred case is finalized, there shall be stay of further proceedings in Criminal Complaint File No.30/CrPC/2011 dated 11.06.2012 titled as Dr. Tandeep Kour Vs. S. Satminder Singh & Ors., and Case File No.21/CrPC dated 02.06.2012 titled as Dr. Tandeep Kour & anr. Vs. S. Satminder Singh both pending in the Court of Munsiff Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jammu. The transfer petitions are disposed of accordingly.” 11. So in terms of order dated 30.03.2015 proceedings pending before court below in Criminal Complaint File No.30/CrPC/2011 dated 11.06.2012 titled as Dr. Tandeep Kour Vs. S. Satminder Singh & Ors., and Case File No.21/CrPC dated 02.06.2012 titled as Dr. Tandeep Kour & anr. Vs. S. Satminder Singh, were stayed subject to decision of petition under HMA No.344 of 2012, which was transferred from the court of Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi to Principal Judge, Family Court at Pathankot. Tandeep Kour Vs. S. Satminder Singh & Ors., and Case File No.21/CrPC dated 02.06.2012 titled as Dr. Tandeep Kour & anr. Vs. S. Satminder Singh, were stayed subject to decision of petition under HMA No.344 of 2012, which was transferred from the court of Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi to Principal Judge, Family Court at Pathankot. Now that petition has been decided by Family court Pathankote on 29.01.2016. Thereafter, respondent has filed two more petition one Writ Petition (s)(Criminal) no.99/2018 and one SLP (Crl.) no.890 /2017 before apex court and on 11.05.2018 both petitions have been clubbed. 12. It is also admitted fact that though litigations between parties are pending before Hon’ble Apex Court; but no stay of proceeding is operating at present with regard to petition pending u/s 488 Cr.P.C. before court below. 13. In CR.APPEAL NO. 1592-1593 OF 3015 SLP CR. NO. 9374-9375 OF 2015 in case titled Usmangani Adambhai Vahora vs State Of Gujarat & Anr, DOD 08.01.2016, it is held as under:- “12.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------. The High Court could not have deduced that he should have declined to conduct the trial. This kind of observation is absolute impermissible in law, for there is no acceptable reason on the part of the learned trial judge to show his disinclination. Solely because an accused has filed an application for transfer, he is not required to express his disinclination. He is required under law to do his duty. He has to perform his duty and not to succumb to the pressure put by the accused by making callous allegations. ----------” 14. In view of above, the finding of court below that matter is sub judice before Apex Court, so the judicial integrity demands that the court should wait for the final opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court pertaining to order dated 04.05.2018 before releasing Rs.7.50 lacs which is lying deposit in the Court, is set aside. Trial court is directed to pass fresh order under law. 15. Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly.