ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. The impugned order rejects the request made by the appellant-Pankaj Rana for release of his passport to travel and work, inspite of the fact that he is an officer in the merchant navy. 3. We have examined the complaint. 4. In our opinion, the High Court was wrong in not accepting the request for release of the passport to the appellant – Pankaj Rana, who is an officer in the Merchant Navy, and for his employment and to earn money/livelihood he should be allowed to join the ship and travel. Accordingly, we direct that the passport will be released to the appellant– Pankaj Rana and he will be allowed to travel abroad. 5. However, the appellant – Pankaj Rana will furnish the following details to the trial court and make the following compliances:- 1. The appellant will disclose the name and details of the shipping company in which he is employed along with the period during which he will be working on board in the ship. Each time he leaves India, these details will be furnished. The period of stay abroad will be extended by the trial court, if required and necessary. 2. The appellant shall furnish a Fixed Deposit Receipt 1 [For short, “FDR”.] for Rs.20 lakhs which will be remain with the trial court. The FDR will have auto renewal clause. The FDR will be in the name of the appellant – Pankaj Rana. In case the appellant – Pankaj Rana absconds and does not return to India, the trial court will be entitled to encash the said FDR. In addition, the court would be entitled to proceed against the surety. 3. The appellant shall furnish the details of the phone number on which he can be contacted by the police authority/officers, while he is travelling abroad. 4. It will be open to the appellant – Pankaj Rana to file an application for exemption from personal appearance under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which will be allowed, subject to the conditions we have referred above. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent states that the appellant – Pankaj Rana is not paying maintenance to the respondent no. 2 – Ranjana Chaudhary. This is denied, and it is stated that the respondent no. 2 is working. We have not made any comments in this regard. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent states that the appellant – Pankaj Rana is not paying maintenance to the respondent no. 2 – Ranjana Chaudhary. This is denied, and it is stated that the respondent no. 2 is working. We have not made any comments in this regard. However, it is observed that it will be open to the respondent no. 2 – Ranjana Chaudhary to raise this plea before the family court. 7. Recording the aforesaid, the impugned order/judgment is set aside and the appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. 8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.