ORDER : Anand Byrareddy, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is said to be the wife of the first respondent and has filed this petition in the backdrop of the Court below having rejected her interim prayer seeking protection of her right to reside in her matrimonial home, after having secured an order for restitution of conjugal rights. 3. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the respondents that it is true that the petitioner has sought for such protection order, which has been rejected by the Trial Court and also by the Lower Appellate Court, which have consistently found that the petitioner has taken a lion's share of the terminal benefits of the first respondent who was medically terminated by his employer on account of respondent No.1 having turned partially blind and it is in that background that the Courts below have rejected her claim. 4. In any event, the main petition filed by her is in an advanced stage of trial and it is likely to reach finality in due course and therefore, the learned Counsel would submit that the present petition which is preferred only challenging an interim order in the pending proceedings, would be superfluous and a mere surplusage and therefore, seeks that the petition be disposed of subject to the final result of the proceedings pending before the Court below. The petition is accordingly disposed of. The disposal of this petition is without prejudice to the pending proceedings.