Andhra Pradesh High Court
CMA/479/2011 of K. BABU Vs P.GOMATHI @ AMMU on 2 March 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3572] TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 479/2011
APHC010362442011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 479/2011
Between:
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.
1. K. BABU, S/O. KRISHNA, EMPLOYEE, R/O. 27-624, JANKARAPALLE CHITTOOR TOWN AND DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT AND
1. P GOMATHI AMMU, W/o. K.Babu, C/o. P.K. Parthasaradhy, D.No. 10-8, 9th Street, Rajaji Nagar Villivakkam Chennai-49, Tamilnadu
...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:
1. NUTHALAPATI KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent:
1. SHARAD SANGHI The Court made the following:
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 479/2011
JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) The H.M.O.P filed by the appellant/husband seeking divorce under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, was dismissed.
2. The matter could not be settled in the Lok Adalat on account of absence of the parties.
3. Sri Mohammed Sayeeduddin, learned counsel appearing for the appellant’s counsel on record, submits that he has no instructions from the appellant and, consequently, he is not able to advance the arguments.
4. Considering the nature of the dispute, the afflux of time, and the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, it appears that the appellant has lost interest in prosecuting the appeal.
5. The C.M.A. is dismissed for want of prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J
_____________________ BALAJI MEDAMALLI, J Date: 03.03.2026 Pab
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 479 OF 2011 DATE: 03.03.2026
Pab