1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.1122 OF 2010 Kiran W/o. Ashok Jadhav, Age-33 years, Occu-Household, R/o.Wasanwadi, Tq. And Dist. Beed APPELLANT VERSUS Ashok S/o.Anna Jadhav, Age-38 years, Occu-Teacher, R/o.Tandalwadi u/v Kamkheda, Tq. and Dist. Beed RESPONDENT Mr.N.P.Bangar, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr.S.K.Naikwade, learned counsel for respondent. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 08/11/2011 PER COURT : 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, S.D. Beed in Special Civil Suit No.19/2009, dated 01/01/2010. The said suit was filed by the appellant herein for enhancement of the maintenance amount alongwith rejection of the claim of past maintenance. It further appears that after the appeal was filed by the appellant/wife before this Court, there was some mutual understanding between the parties and accordingly some terms of compromise were reduced into writing, which terms were not accepted by this Court. Then the learned counsels for the parties 2 seek some time to keep the parties present before this Court. Thereafter the parties did not turn to this Court, but their learned counsels continuously remain present before this Court. Thereafter, the notices were issued to the appellants herein on court motion, which were duly served, but the appellant preferred not to remain present before this Court in response to the notice issued on court motion. Today, when again the appeal came up for hearing, it is informed across the bar that as decided by the parties, the petition for divorce by mutual consent was filed by the parties before the Civil Judge, S.D. Beed and accordingly decree of divorce by mutual consent was passed by the learned Civil Judge, S.D. on 21/07/2011. The parties have also withdrawn the amount deposited before the Court below, so also deposited before this Court. Thus, it appears that the parties are now not interested to proceed further with this appeal and not ready to give instructions to their learned counsels. It appears that the learned counsels also became helpless as they are not receiving proper instructions from their respective clients whether to proceed further or not in the present appeal. In the light of this, as the appellant is not responding the Court notice, to remain present before this Court, it is to be inferred that the appellant has lost his interest in the present appeal. In view of this, appeal stands dismissed. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/NOV.2011/fa1122-10