In a case involving judicial separation under the Hindu Marriage Act, the High Court dismissed a civil miscellaneous appeal for want of prosecution. No representation was filed by either party at the hearing.
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 534 of 2008 was dismissed for want of prosecution.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
I '
i'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MONDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 534 OF 2008
Between:
...APPELLANT
AND
...RESPONDENT
*u Under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act against ordersetaside oo 'Judge Court. Amalapuram. dated 22.11.2007 passed in OP No.43 of 2004 in the interest of justice
Counsel for the Appellant(s):SRI. GULLAPALLI RADHAKRISHNAN
The Court made the following: JUDGMENT
V
APHC010153902008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
[3470]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 534/2008
\ \
Between:
Petta Chandrakala
...APPELLANT
AND
Petta Venkateswara Rao
...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellant:
1.GULLAPALLI RADHAKRISHNAN
Counsel for the Respondent:
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT: (per Ravi Nath Tilhari, J)
The present respondent filed O.P.No.43 of 2004 underSection 10 of Hindu Marriage Act for judicial separation between the present appellant and the respondent which was decreed on 22.11.2007 by theCourtoftheSenior
Civil Judge, Amalapuram.
- There is no representation on either side and thereisnointerimorder.
/
- The matter pertains to the year 2008 and has been listed under the caption ‘specially identified cases’.
No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
//TRUE COPY//
SD/- E KAMESWARA RAO DEPUTY FjgpiSTRAR SECTION OFFICER
To,
PNM
HIGH COURT
DATED:08/07/2024
ORDER
CMA.No.534 of 2008
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a civil miscellaneous appeal under the Hindu Marriage Act should be decided on merits or dismissed for want of prosecution.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petta Chandrakala
Petta Venkateswara Rao
Ravi Nath Tilhari
Nyapathy Vijay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
