Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 14233 (AP)

SMT. BANDARU PADMAVATHI v. BANDARU RAMKOTI

FCA/204/2008 · 2025-09-09

A Hari Haranadha Sarma, Battu Devanand

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010175002008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3545] WEDNESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA FAMILY COURT APPEAL (FCA) NO: 204/2008 Between: 1. SMT. BANDARU PADMAVATHI, W/O RAMAKOTI, D/O DASARI SATYANARYANA D.NO. 20-112-60 CHENGALRAOPETA, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...APPELLANT AND 1. BANDARU RAMKOTI, S/o Late Lakshmi Narayana Opp: Sivalayam, Krishna Gardens, Visakhapatnam. ...RESPONDENT Appeal under section________ against orders IA NO: 1 OF 2008(FCAMP 388 OF 2008 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 operation of the order in OP.NO. 436 of 2004 dated 29-7-08 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam pending disposal of the above appeal IA NO: 4 OF 2008(FCAMP 46901 OF 2008 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 Counsel for the Appellant: 1. K SITA RAM Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.204 of 2008 JUDGMENT:(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand) On 23.04.2025, Sri K.Sita Ram, learned counsel for the appellant, brought to the notice of the Court that he could not secure instructions from his client and he was not holding the vakalat. Accordingly, this Court directed the Registry to issue notice to the appellant. Pursuant thereto, notice was issued by the Registry, but the same was returned with the postal endorsement that “no such addressee in this door number”. Hence, it was returned to the sender. It appears that appellant has no interest to prosecute the appeal. 2. Accordingly, the Family Court Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND __________________________________ JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA Date:10.09.2025 SCS 3 63 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.204 of 2008 Dt.10.09.2025 SCS