HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3175 of 2003 Date: 01-12-2010 Between B.Vykunta Vasu … Appellant/Respondent No.1 and 1. B.Krishna Kumari and 2 others … Respondents/Petitioners in IA 4. The Manager, (I.R.), I.D.L. Chemicals Limited, Moosapet, Kukatpally, Hyderabad … Respondent/Respondent in IA HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3175 of 2003 Judgment: None represented for the appellant. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against the order and decretal order dated 04-7-2003 in I.A.No.1098 of 2003 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy district at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad prohibiting the 4th respondent herein from making any payment of retirement benefits to the appellant herein. 4. The appellant also filed I.A.No.1179 of 2003 to vacate the interim order dated 06-5-2003 passed in I.A.No.1098 of 2003. Admittedly, the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge passed an interim order on 06-5-2003 prohibiting the 4th respondent herein from making any payments of retirement benefits to the appellant. The learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge passed common order dated 04-7-2003 in both the interlocutory applications making the interim order dated 06-5-2003 absolute and dismissed I.A.No.1179 of 2003 filed by the appellant to vacate the interim order. The appellant did not choose to file any appeal against the order passed in I.A.No.1179 of 2003. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the respondents 1 to 3 who are the wife and children of the appellant, filed the suit O.S.No.501 of 2003 for past and future maintenance from the appellant and the said suit is still pending. It is further submitted that if the 4th respondent herein is allowed to pay the retirement benefits to the appellant, the respondents 1 to 3 who filed the suit will suffer irreparable loss and that even if the suit is ultimately decreed, the respondents cannot realize the decree amount as the appellant is not having any property except the retirement benefits. 6. Since there was no representation on behalf of the appellant on the last occasion i.e., on 22-11-2010 though the matter is posted to today “FOR DISMISSAL”, there is no representation for the appellant, the appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed for default. 7. At this stage, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 that the appellant took voluntary retirement on 05-5- 2003 and the retirement benefits are still lying with the 4th respondent and the suit is pending at present with the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy district at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. 8. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. The Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy district at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad is directed to dispose of the suit O.S.No.501 of 2003 within 6 (six) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ___________________________ JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO 01st December, 2010. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3175 of 2003 01st December, 2010.