Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRP/846/2026 of KALAGARA SRINIVASA RAO Vs TRASULA (KALAGARA) SANGEETHA on 1 April 2026
C.R.P.No.846 of 2026) APHC010117272026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3299] THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 846/2026 Between: 1.
(RNT,J
C.R.P.No.846 of 2026)
APHC010117272026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 846/2026
Between:
1. KALAGARA SRINIVASA RAO, SON OF BRAHMAM, HINDU, AGED 50 YEARS, RETIRED ARMY EMPLOYEE,PRESENTLY
WORKING
AS
NAD
LAMINATION
CENTER,
BHEEMUNIPATNAM, RESIDING AT D.NO.9-4-304/11, KRISHNA
NAGAR,
JOGAVANIPALEM,HIGH
SCHOOL
ROAD
VISAKHAPATNAM,
AADHAR
NO.447212294981
CELL
903250146
...PETITIONER
AND
1. TRASULA KALAGARA SANGEETHA, W/o Srinivasa Rao, D/o Trasula Kondala Rao (Gold smith), house wife, Hindu, aged about 38 years, residing at Ward no.3,Post office road, NAC, Koraput, Koraput District, Odisha. Aadhaar No.809655191848, Cell No.0917854121
...RESPONDENT
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased please to set a side the orders dated 20- 12-2025 passed in IA 1373/2024 in FCOP 2217/2023 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026
(RNT,J
C.R.P.No.846 of 2026)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased please to stay the proceedings in FCOP
2217/2023 still disposal of the above petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. NAGARAJU PUTCHALA
Counsel for the Respondent:
1.
The Court made the following:
(RNT,J
C.R.P.No.846 of 2026)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER :
This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the order dated 20.12.2025 passed in I.A. No.1373 of 2024 in F.C.O.P. No.2217 of 2023 on the file of the Judge, Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam.
2. Heard Sri Nagaraju Putchala, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the material available on record.
3. The petitioner is the husband. He filed F.C.O.P. No.2217 of 2023 on the file of the Judge, Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam, seeking divorce from the respondent/wife. When the matter was called on 23.10.2024, there was no representation for the respondent/wife and consequently, the learned Family Court passed an ex parte order dated 23.10.2024. As the right of the respondent/wife to file the written statement was forfeited, the wife filed I.A.No.1373 of 2024 under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, with a prayer to set aside the ex parte order dated 23.10.2024 and to afford her an opportunity to proceed with the matter. The petitioner/husband did not file any counter affidavit.
4. On consideration of the matter, the learned Family Court allowed the aforesaid application vide order dated 20.12.2025. The
(RNT,J C.R.P.No.846 of 2026)
learned Family Court allowed the application on the ground that the same was filed on the very same day on which the ex parte order was passed and further observed that if the order forfeiting the right of filing written statement is not set aside, grave prejudice would be caused to the respondent/wife. In view thereof, the learned Family Court was inclined to allow the petition filed by the wife.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/husband submits that in the application filed by the wife, the prayer was not properly worded to set aside the ex parte order dated 23.10.2024. He submits that the order was not ex parte, but to forfeit the right to file the written statement, and consequently, the prayer to set aside the ex parte order was not correct and the order dated 23.10.2024 could not have been set aside.
6. The said submission cannot be accepted. The reason is obvious firstly, that the application was filed on the very same day on which the impugned order dated 23.10.2024 was passed. Secondly, though the aforesaid order was for forfeiture of the right to file written statement, but the same was passed as the respondent was absent. So the order dated 23.10.2024 was an ex parte order. Consequently, the prayer was rightly construed as one to set aside the ex parte order dated 23.10.2024.
(RNT,J C.R.P.No.846 of 2026)
7. There is no force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. That apart, restoring the opportunity to file written statement is towards providing opportunity of hearing. The learned Family Court has exercised its discretion judiciously in granting an opportunity to the respondent. The matter relating to dissolution of marriage, has serious civil consequences. When an opportunity is granted to contest the matter on merits, which advances the cause of substantial justice, this Court do not find any reason, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is not inclined to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the learned Family Court.
8. I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.
9. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J
Date : 02.04.2026.
RPD.
(RNT,J
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
(DISMISSED)
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 846 OF 2026
Date : 02.04.2026
RPD.