JUDGMENT 1. - We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant was directed by this court on November 6, 1979 to pay to the respondent Re. 330 as lawyers's fee for opposing the appeal and Re. 120 as incidental expenses, total Rs. 450/- and one mouth's time was granted to the appellant for making the payment. The aforesaid amount has not been paid though the case was adjourned more than once to enable the appellant to comply with the aforesaid order of the court. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appeal may be heard and the respondent may be directed to take out execution of order of this court regarding grant of expenses. In the alternative it is submitted that further proceedings in the appeal may be ordered to be stayed till the order is complied with. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on Malkan Rani v. Krishan Kumar (A.I.R. 1961 Punjab 42) , Smt. Anita v. Birendra Chandra (A.I.R. 1962 Calcutta, 88) Ram Chandra Rao, v. Kowsalya, (A.I.R. 1969 Mysore, 76) and Anuradha v. Santosh Nath (A.I.R. 1976 Delhi, page 246.) 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has urged that the appellant is not entitled to be heard, In support of his appeal, when he is wilfully and deliberately flouting the order of this court dated November 6, 1979 directing payment of Re. 450 to the respondent. He has also submitted that stay of appeal would only result in prolonged agony to the respondent, and looking to the attitude of the appellant an order of stay would only result in prolonging the matter indefinitely. It is urged that in order to prevent abuse of the process of the court, in a matter like this, the proper course would be to dismiss the appeal In support of his contention he has relied upon Ram Swaroop v. Janak (A.I.R. 1973 Punjab, 40) and Jai Singh v. Khimi Bhiklu (A.I.R. 1478 Himachal Pradesh 45) . 5. Having regard to the circumstances of the case we are inclined to think that no useful purpose will be served by directing stay of hearing of the appeal on the ground or non compliance with the order of this Court. 5. Having regard to the circumstances of the case we are inclined to think that no useful purpose will be served by directing stay of hearing of the appeal on the ground or non compliance with the order of this Court. The intention of the Legislature behind enacting Sec 24 is clear and it is this that if one of the spouses deserves to be awarded necessary expenses for defending a matrimonial matter the court should make an order to that effect so that the effected spouse may plead its case effectively. We are consequently of opinion that the only just and proper course would be to grant one more opportunity to the appellant in the Interest of justice to comply with the order of this Court and make it the last opportunity on the pain of dismissal of the appeal in case the order is not complied with. 6. Accordingly we hereby direct that the appellant shall deposit in court of pay to the respondent against her receipt a sum of be. 450 (Rupees four Hundred Fifty) as ordered by this court on November 6, 1979 on or before Tuesday, the 15th April, 1980 failing which the appeal shall stand dismissed.Put up the case on April 16, 1980.Order accordingly. *******