The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the stay order during the pendency of a delay condonation application and its impact on the execution of a judgment and decree.

1. This Petition was admitted on 16th July, 2010. The Roznama shows that the respondent was present on 5th April, 2011. The matter was adjourned to 27th April, 2011 so that the respondent could remain present. On 27th April, 2011, respondent appeared, his advocate was absent. Out of indulgence, time was given to the respondent to arrange for his advocate or appear in person and the petition was adjourned to 4th May, 2011. On 4th May, 2011 when the petition was taken up for final hearing, respondent was found to be absent though called out on two occasions. Thereafter, I have heard learned Counsel Mr. Salvi on behalf of the petitioner and the matter was adjourned to today to give last chance to the respondent to remain present. Today also the respondent has remained absent. I take it that the respondent is not interested in opposing this petition. It is in these circumstances, by this order the petition is being disposed of.

2. The petitioner herein filed Hindu Marriage Petition No.131 of 2000 in the Court of learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara for divorce. The said petition was decided and by judgment and decree dated 20th September, 2004 the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara decreed the said petition and dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent. The learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara also ordered the respondent to pay to the petitioner permanent alimony of Rs.2,500/- per month from the date of the said Hindu Marriage Petition No.131 of 2000. The petitioner had filed Darkhast No.52 of 2005 to get maintenance as per the decree.

3. The respondent was aggrieved by the aforesaid decree dated 20th September, 2004 and that is how he filed an Appeal in the District Court at Satara. As he noticed that the institution of the said appeal was beyond the period of limitation, it became necessary for him to file an application for condonation of delay in filing the said appeal. The respondent, therefore, filed delay Application No.12 of 2006 praying that the delay occasioned in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 20th September, 2004 be condoned. In this Delay Application No.12 of 2006 the respondent filed an application at Exh.5 praying for stay of the judgment and decree dated 20th September, 2004. That application was decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Satara by his order dated 30th June, 2006 and the learned District Judge directed that the execution of the judgment and decree dated 20th September, 2004 should be stayed till the disposal of the delay application. That delay Application No.12 of 2006 was decided by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Satara by his order dated 23rd August, 2006 and delay in filing the appeal was condoned and it was ordered that the appeal should be registered and numbered. It is the positive case of the petitioner that till today he has not received any notice from the appellate Court and according to him the order thereby staying the execution of the judgment and decree dated 20th September, 2004 passed on 13th July, 2006 came to an end on account of passing of order dated 23rd August, 2006. In view of this, the petitioner filed an Application at Exh.21 in the Court of learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara being executing Court for execution of judgment and decree dated 20th September, 2004 praying that the execution of the judgment and decree dated 20th September, 2004 be taken up and appropriate orders as regards recovery of amount of maintenance from the salary of the respondent be passed. That application at Exh.21 was rejected by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara by his order dated 21st October, 2008.

4. It is noted that the petitioner waited for some orders to be received from the Appellate Court in regard to the Appeal which was filed by the respondent till about January, 2009. As the petitioner did not receive any orders from the A