IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH (8TH) DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.6285 of 2009 Between: Smt Sabera Begum … Petitioner And: Habeeb UZ Zama Khan & 2 others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.6285 of 2009 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 20.10.2009 in IA No.799 of 2009 in OS No.156 of 2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC for attachment of the retirement benefits of the first respondent lying with the respondents 2 and 3 herein, before judgment, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein is the legally wedded wife of the first respondent, the marriage having taken place on 13.03.1976. During the wedlock, five children were born. According to the petitioner, the first respondent neglected and refused to maintain the petitioner and her children and on the other hand, he was showing more interest towards his second wife-Tahera Begum, who was working as School Assistant. The petitioner filed suit for recovery of Rs.10,00,000/- from the first respondent, which according to the petitioner, first respondent promised to pay from out of the terminal benefits, but failed to do so. She filed IA No.799 of 2009 seeking attachment before judgment of the service terminal benefits of the first respondent, lying with the respondents 2 and 3. It is not disputed that the first respondent retired from service on 30.06.2009 as Assistant Engineer, PWD, Irrigation Department, Nizamabad. 4. The first respondent filed counter denying that he ever made any promise of paying ten lakhs to the petitioner towards expenses for maintenance of herself and her children. According to him, petitioner also retired as a teacher in Government School and she too received retirement benefits. He also claims that he is maintaining children and meeting their educational and other expenses and he performed the marriages of his daughters. 5. The claim of the petitioner is based on an alleged promise by the first respondent to pay ten lakhs to her, which is categorically denied by the first respondent. The alleged claim of the petitioner is yet to be established during the course of trial. Prima-facie at this stage, there is no material on record to show that the first respondent owes any amount to the petitioner. 6. Learned Government Pleader on instructions stated that the pension papers are still pending with the AG’s Office and no amount has been paid to the first respondent so far. As per Section 60(g) CPC, stipends and gratuities allowed to pensioners of the Government or of a local authority, are exempted from attachment. When the terminal benefits due and payable to the first respondent are yet to be determined and the said process is still under way, the relief sought by the petitioner seeking attachment by way of prohibitory order to an extent of ten lakhs is not only vague but also pre-mature. The trial court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner and the same does not call for any interference. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 08.06.2011 bss