THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO A.S. No. 119 of 2006 ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per NVR,J) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 02.08.2005 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Warangal, in O.S. No. 2 of 2002, granting maintenance of Rs.1,500/- p.m., which is inclusive of the previous maintenance awarded in M.C. No. 26 of 2002, and further directing the appellant to pay monthly maintenance, as awarded, from January, 2005 onwards on or before 10th of every succeeding month and further directing him to pay the court fee on the plaint. The respondent filed the O.S. as informa pauperis, seeking maintenance of Rs.3,000/- p.m. from the appellant as also the arrears of Rs.90,000/-. On contest by the appellant, the Judge, Family Court, Warangal, passed the above order, and questioning which, as noted above, the appellant filed the present appeal. This Court, by order dated 17.03.2006, while admitting the appeal, in A.S.M.P. No. 448 of 2006, granted stay of the impugned order on condition of the appellant depositing arrears of maintenance, if any, within a period of four weeks from that day and continuing to pay half of the maintenance amount awarded by the trial Court. Thereafter, this Court by orders dated 03.07.2006 passed in A.S.M.P. No. 1280 of 2006 extended time for paying the amount, as directed earlier. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant has not paid the maintenance and he produced bank statement, to show that the appellant has paid maintenance amount till 28.11.2007, and thereafter, he did not pay any amount towards maintenance to the respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant though submitted that the suit filed by the respondent itself is not maintainable, because the respondent is not the legally wedded wife of the appellant, he however, submitted that he has no instructions in the matter. Even though this Court, while admitting the appeal, granted conditional stay of the impugned order, subject to payment of maintenance and arrears of maintenance, and in spite of extending the time for making the payment, as requested by the appellant, it is reported by the learned counsel for the respondent that the appellant has not complied with the conditional order and did not pay the amount. As the appellant failed to comply with the conditional interim order passed by this Court, and the counsel appearing for him having reported no instructions, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant is not entitled to any indulgence by this Court in the present appeal. Hence, we dismiss the appeal, confirming the order under appeal. No costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA ___________________ JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO 14th February, 2011 IBL