APHC010237852009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.544 OF 2009 Between: Sammeta Sreenivasa Reddy, S/o.Tirupata Reddy, Aged about 31 years, Unemployee R/o.Bethapudi (V), Bapatla Mandal, Bapatla JCJC. ...Appellant AND Sammeeta Lakshmi Durga, W/o.Sreenivasa Reddy, 28 years, Hindu, Private School Teacher, C/o.Kollipara Ramaswamy, Nethaji Ngar, 3rd Line, D.No.14-2-21/1, Ponnur, Ponnur JCJC, Guntur District. ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant : Mr.D.Kodandarami Reddy Counsel for the Respondent : Mr.M.Sesha Talpa Sai The Court made the following JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble NJS,J) Heard Mr.G.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The present appeal is preferred against the Order and Decree dated 30.4.2005 in H.M.O.P. No.9 of 2003 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla. The appellant is the petitioner in the said O.P., filed under Section 13(1) (ia), (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, to dissolve the marriage with the respondent by granting decree of divorce and for custody of the minor male child. The learned Trial Court, after considering the matter and by recording the reasons, dismissed the O.P. 2 CMA_544_2009 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the same Criminal Revision Case No.1803 of 2004 was filed and the same was ended in compromise between the appellant and the respondent. He submits that though a copy of the said order is not readily available and his efforts to get instructions from the appellant in the present appeal proved futile, the matter may be heard on merits. 4. We have perused the order under challenge, which is well articulated. Be that as it may. It appears that in view of the compromise entered into between the parties, the appellant is not in touch with the learned counsel for the appellant and not coming forward to give suitable instructions. 5. Taking the above said aspects into consideration, we are not inclined to examine the matter on merits and the CMA is, accordingly, closed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J ____________________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA,J August 13, 2025 vasu