IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 498 OF 2006 Maruti Baburao Mulik ...... ...... ...... Appellant V/s Sou.Balabai Maruti Mulik...... ...... ...... Respondent. Mr.Pratap Patil, Adv. For the appellant. CORAM: R.V. MORE, J. 19th NOVEMBER, 2008. PC: Heard Mr.Pratap Patil, Advocate for the appellant. The appellant who is original defendant is challenging the decree granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month to the respondent under section 18 of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956. Both the courts below on the basis of evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 concurrently held that the respondent- plaintiff married with the appellant-respondent in the year 1972. This finding of fact after appreciating the evidence of witnesses cannot be said to be perverse. Be that as it may, by an order dated 24.6.08 the appellant was directed to deposit the decretal amount within a period of four weeks. As the amount was not deposited within stipulated time again by an order dated 12.11.2008 appellant was granted two weeks time to take instructions. It seems till today nothing has been 1 deposited towards arrears of maintenance. The appellant has failed to follow the mandatory orders of the Court. On this ground also the second appeal is liable to be dismissed. Hence second appeal stands dismissed. 19.11.08 (R.V. MORE, J.) 2