Andhra Pradesh High Court
CMA/79/2015 of K RANGANATHAM, ANANTHAPUR DIST Vs CHAKALI SHOBHA RANI @ SHOBHA, HYDERABAD on 16 February 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3572] TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:
APHC010586982015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 79/2015
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 RANGANATHAM, ANANTHAPUR DIST, S/O. CHAKALI BALA RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCC: SINECURE, R/O. GORANTLA VILLAGE & MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT
...APPELLANT AND
1. CHAKALI SHOBHA RANI SHOBHA HYDERABAD, W/o. K.Ranganatham, D/o Chakali Sreeramulu, aged about 24 years, R/ o. Pedda Kottalapalli Village, Vidapanakal Mandal, Presently working as Teacher, Bhashyam Public School, Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:
1. G SRAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent:
1. The Court made the following:
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 79 OF 2015 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) The Guardian O.P. filed by the respondent/wife seeking custody of the minor child, was allowed. Challenging the same, the appellant/husband has filed this appeal.
2. On 06.01.2026 and 03.02.2026, the following orders were passed: “06.01.2026: At request made on behalf of learned counsel for the appellant, post after four(04) weeks.” 03.02.2026: At the request made by the learned counsel for the appellant, post after two weeks, so as to enable him to get latest instructions.”
3. Today, there is no representation for the appellant.
4. 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: 17.02.2026 Pab
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 79 OF 2015 DATE: 17.02.2026
Pab