Rajalingam, Nizamabad Dist. vs Smt. R. Radha , Gangamani , Sujatha, ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 5568 Tel

Telangana High Court

Rajalingam, Nizamabad Dist. vs Smt. R. Radha , Gangamani , Sujatha, ... on 18 September, 2025

     THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
                         AND
       THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

      CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.713 OF 2011
Sri V Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

JUDGMENT:

(Per Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. By an order dated 06.08.2025, a Co-ordinate Bench

directed this matter to be listed under the caption 'For

Dismissal'. On the subsequent dates, adjournments were

sought on behalf of the appellant.

2. Today i.e., on 18.09.2025, learned counsel appearing for

the appellant submits that the appellant has not given any

instructions to learned counsel with regard to the Appeal.

3. Although the Cause List shows that the respondent is

represented, none of the Proceeding Sheets reflect that the

respondent was represented before the Co-ordinate Bench on

any of the occasion.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that

the parties are living separately for the last seventeen years.

5. The impugned order is dated 09.12.2010 passed in

O.P.No.15 of 2010 filed by the appellant in 2010 for divorce on

the ground of cruelty and desertion under the provisions of The

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

6. By the impugned order, the Trial Court dismissed the

appellant's O.P. with costs holding that the O.P. filed by the

appellant is devoid of merits. The reason given by the Trial

Court is that the appellant failed to prove the essential aspects

of desertion and cruelty as alleged by him in the O.P.

7. Fifteen years have passed since the impugned order is

pronounced. It is evident that the parties are not interested to

pursue the Appeal. In any event, bearing in mind that the

parties are living separately for seventeen years and continue to

remain without contact with one another, we have no hesitation

in dismissing the Appeal.

8. CMA No.713 of 2011, along with all connected

applications, is accordingly dismissed. Interim orders, if any,

shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.

__________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J

_____________________________ GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

DATE: 18.09.2025 EDS