1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10077 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.613 OF 2009 Sau.Vanita w/o Manohar Sonawane .. Applicant Versus Manohar s/o Kanashi Sonawane .. Respondent Mrs Ujjwal Agrawal, Advocate holding for Mr B.R.Warma, Advocate for applicant Mr PS.Patil, Advocate for respondent No.1 CORAM : MRS MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 30th September, 2011 PER COURT 1. Application is made by original respondent-wife. In Special Civil Suit No.62 of 2005 filed by the present applicant under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act trial Court has passed the order that appellant-husband should pay sum of Rs.90,000/- towards the arrears and fixed maintenance Rs.2,500/- per month from 15.12.2005. Appellant-husband has filed this appeal challenging the said order. During pendency of the appeal, Civil Application No. 991 of 2008 was made for stay. While deciding the said application, this Court passed conditional order. This Court, by its order dated 30.3.2009 directed appellant to deposit sum of Rs.45,000/- towards the arrears within six weeks from the date of the order and further directed to deposit the remaining decretal amount in the trial Court within twelve weeks from the date of the said order. 2 2. Learned Counsel for the applicant-wife points out that though appellant-husband has deposited Rs.45,000/-, he did not deposit the remaining decretal amount till today. 3. Further, by order dated 30.3.2009 this Court has directed that the appellant-husband to pay maintenance charges Rs.1,500/- per month from the date of filing the present appeal in this Court to the respondent-wife on or before 10th day of every month and said amount to be deposited in the trial Court. Learned Counsel for applicant-wife submits that the said order is not complied with and, therefore, stay granted by the Court to the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court be vacated. Learned Counsel for appellant- husband submits that he has not received instructions from the husband since 2009. On that ground he seeks adjournment. 4. This is not a ground to grant adjournment. Breach of the order of this Court is evident. Hence, stay granted by this Court is vacated. Civil Application disposed of accordingly. ( MRS MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. ) (vvr/10077.11ca)