THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD C.M.A.NO.691 of 1996 JUDGMENT: (Per. Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Judge, Family Court, Kurnool, in O.S.No.1 of 1995 dated 30.03.1996. Appellant is the husband of the respondent herein. The respondent-wife filed the suit being O.S.No.1 of 1995 against the appellant-husband seeking maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month and also arrears of maintenance of Rs.36,000/- with interest thereon at 12% per annum. The appellant-husband contested the said suit. On a consideration of the entire material available on record, the learned Judge, Family Court, Kurnool, by his judgment dated 30.03.1996, decreed the suit with costs granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit i.e., 13.04.1993 and also Rs.36,000/- towards arrears of maintenance. However, the Court below declined to grant interest on the suit amount. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellant-husband preferred this appeal. While issuing notice to the respondent, this Court, on 07.06.1996, granted interim stay of execution of the decree in O.S.No.1 of 1995 subject to the condition of the appellant depositing the entire arrears of maintenance of Rs.36,000/- and continuing to deposit Rs.500/- per month from 10.07.1996 in addition to the sum of Rs.500/- he has to deposit pursuant to the order of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Kurnool dated 21.01.1993 in E.P.No.134 of 1992 and also suit costs. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 26.09.2007, there was no representation on behalf of the appellant and it was not known as to whether the conditional order dated 07.06.1996 has been complied with or not. Since the appellant has not taken steps to serve the notice on the respondent by paying batta on correct address of the respondent even after lapse of ten years, this Court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution and the interim stay granted on 07.06.1996 was vacated. Subsequently, on an application filed by the appellant being C.M.A.M.P No.1944 of 2007 for restoration of the appeal, this Court, by an order dated 19.03.2008, restored the appeal to its original file since the conditional order passed by this Court has been complied with. Thereafter, on 27.03.2008, since the learned Counsel for the appellant reported no instructions in the matter, this Court directed the registry to issue notice to the appellant. Again this Court by an order dated 19.06.2009 dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. Thereafter, on an application filed by the appellant, the said dismissal order was set aside and the appeal was restored to its file by an order dated 11.09.2009. As the notice was not served on the respondent, this Court, on 25.04.2011 passed the following order: “As the notice sent to the respondent returned unserved for want of correct address, this matter is put up before this Court for a direction to the appellant for payment of batta and to furnish the correct address of the respondent. But so far, the appellant neither paid batta nor furnished the correct address of the respondent. Therefore, the matter is finally adjourned by four weeks. The Registry is directed to issue notice to the respondent to his correct address, returnable in four weeks. Learned Counsel for the appellant is also permitted to take out personal notice to the correct address of the respondent through registered post with acknowledgment due and file necessary proof thereof, failing which, the appeal stands dismissed.” Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that personal notice was sent to the respondent by registered post with acknowledgment due on 30.04.2011, but it was returned unserved with an endorsement “address incomplete”. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that returns of the notice with an endorsement “address is incomplete” cannot be said that the appellant is diligent in obtaining correct postal address of the respondent. Since no proof of service is filed and the appellant was not able to serve notice on the respondent as per the aforesaid order of this Court, we are of the opinion that the appeal has to be dismissed. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________________ JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH _____________________________ JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD 08.06.2011 Gsn