Dismissed¶28

Ommi Kondamma v. Ommi Kanaka Raju

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Oct 2025FCA/98/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati; FCA No. 98/2009; dismissal for non-prosecution; appellant absent on multiple listings (29.08.2025, 17.09.2025, 24.09.2025, 08.10.2025); impugned order and decree dated 4-12-2008 in O.P. No. 739 of 2005, Family Court, Visakhapatnam; Section 151 CPC suspension petition (IA No. 1 of 2009 / FCMP 191 of 2009); no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions closed; decided 08.10.2025; Bench: Battu Devanand & A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, JJ.; parties: Ommi Kondamma (appellant) v. Ommi Kanaka Raju (respondent); counsel: Ch. Ravinder for appellant, S.A.V. Ratnam for respondent.

What did the court decide?

The appellant has no interest to prosecute the case; accordingly, the Family Court Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution, with no order as to costs. ¶28

Ommi Kondamma Vs Ommi Kanaka Raju — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[3545]

¶2

APHC010257672009

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

¶8

FAMILY COURT APPEAL (FCA) NO: 98/2009

¶9

Between:

¶10

OMMI KONDAMMA, W/O KANAKA RAJU R/O 50-6-12, SRIHARI STREET, SEETHAMPETA,

¶11

...APPELLANT

¶12

AND

¶13

OMMI KANAKA RAJU, S/o late Sanyasi R/o Naidu Street, Seethammapeta, Visakhapatnam.

¶14

...RESPONDENT

¶15

Appeal under section________ against orders

¶16

IA NO: 1 OF 2009(FCAMP 191 OF 2009

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased suspend the order and decree dated 4-12-2008 passed in OP.NO. 739 of 2005 on the file of the Judge, Family Court at Visakhapatnam pending disposal of the above appeal

¶18

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶19

1.CH RAVINDER

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶21

1.S A V RATNAM

¶22

The Court made the following:

¶23

¶24

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

¶25

FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.98 of 2009

¶26

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand)

¶27

On 29.08.2025, there was no representation for the appellant. Accordingly, this appeal was posted to 10.09.2025 under the caption ‘for dismissal’. On that day, learned counsel for the appellant was present and sought time. Accordingly, this appeal was posted to 17.09.2025 under the caption ‘for orders’. Again on 17.09.2025, there was no representation for the appellant and the matter was posted to 24.09.2025 under the caption ‘for dismissal’. On that day also, there was no representation for the appellant and to give one more opportunity to the appellant, the matter was posted to 08.10.2025. Today also, there is no representation for the appellant. Hence, it appears that the appellant has no interest to prosecute the case.

¶28