Dommeti Parameswara Rao vs Dommeti Madhuri Anr
2024 Latest Caselaw 7847 AP

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 7847 AP
Judgement Date : 29 August, 2024

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Dommeti Parameswara Rao vs Dommeti Madhuri Anr on 29 August, 2024

 APHC010410922006
                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                    AT AMARAVATI                       [3470]
                             (Special Original Jurisdiction)

              THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST
                   TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                       PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

              THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

                 CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 127/2006

Between:

Dommeti Parameswara Rao                                          ...APPELLANT

                                        AND

Dommeti Madhuri Anr and Others                              ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Appellant:

     1. K VENKATESH

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

     1.

The Court made the following:



JUDGMENT:

(per Ravi Nath Tilhari, J)

Heard Sri K.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the appellant.

2. The appellant-husband husband filed OP.No.89 of 2003 in the Court of Senior

Civil Judge, Amalapuram, lapuram, East Godavari District for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, which was dismissed vide order dated

24.10.2002.

3. Challenging the same, the present appeal was filed.

4. The respondent No.1- wife had also filed O.P.No.60 of 2002 for

restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act.

5. By the common order dated 24.10.2002, the petition for restitution was

allowed.

6. Challenging the same, appellant-husband filed CMA.No.84 of 2006.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the matter was settled

between the parties out of the Court and in view thereof, the CMA.No.84 of

2006, was decided vide order dated 19.03.2024, as follows:

"While learned counsel for the respondent Sri G. Rama Gopal would submit that the matter was settled between the parties out of Court, learned counsel for the appellant Sri K. Venkatesh would submit that in spite of his letters, the appellant has not approached him and he is not aware about the so-called compromise and in these circumstances, having regard to the fact that this is an old matter of the year 2006, an order may be passed.

Recording the submission of learned counsel for the respondent that the matter was settled out of Court and having regard to the fact that this is an old matter of the year 2006, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.