K. Babu v. P.Gomathi @ Ammu

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Mar 2026CMA/479/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CMA 479/2011, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, decided 03.03.2026; dismissal of appeal for want of prosecution / non-prosecution; counsel without instructions (Mohammed Sayeeduddin for appellant); failed Lok Adalat settlement due to absence of parties; H.M.O.P. for divorce under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (as recorded); K. Babu v. P Gomathi Ammu; no order as to costs; interlocutory applications closed; Bench: Ravi Nath Tilhari, J. (author) and Balaji Medamalli, J.

What did the court decide?

It appears that the appellant has lost interest in prosecuting the appeal. ¶26

K. Babu Vs P.Gomathi @ Ammu — Matrimonial and Divorce | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010362442011

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3572] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI

¶7

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 479/2011

¶8

Between:

¶9

K. BABU, S/O. KRISHNA, EMPLOYEE, R/O. 27-624, JANKARAPALLE CHITTOOR TOWN AND DISTRICT.

¶10

...APPELLANT

¶11

AND

¶12

P GOMATHI AMMU, W/o. K.Babu, C/o. P.K. Parthasaradhy, D.No. 10-8, 9th Street, Rajaji Nagar Villivakkam Chennai-49, Tamilnadu

¶13

...RESPONDENT

¶14

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶15

1.NUTHALAPATI KRISHNA MURTHY

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶17

1.SHARAD SANGHI

¶18

The Court made the following:

¶19

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI

¶21

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 479/2011

¶22

JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)

¶23

The H.M.O.P filed by the appellant/husband seeking divorce under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, was dismissed.

¶24

The matter could not be settled in the Lok Adalat on account of absence of the parties.

¶25

Sri Mohammed Sayeeduddin, learned counsel appearing for the appellant’s counsel on record, submits that he has no instructions from the appellant and, consequently, he is not able to advance the arguments.

¶26

Considering the nature of the dispute, the afflux of time, and the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, it appears that the appellant has lost interest in prosecuting the appeal.

¶27