APHC010368532018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 745/2018 Between: Gudimella Sandhya Gudimella Lakshmi Narasimha Venkata Raghavan Counsel for the Appellant: 1. P PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1. YASWANTH GADE The Court made the following: JUDGMENT:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) Heard Sri P.Prabhakar Rao Sri K.Prudhvi Raj, learned counsel representing Sri Yaswanth Gade, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/ aggrieved from the order 1 (RNT,J & C.M.A.NO.7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 745/2018 ...APPELLANT AND Gudimella Lakshmi Narasimha Venkata Raghavan ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: P PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent: YASWANTH GADE The Court made the following: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) P.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and K.Prudhvi Raj, learned counsel representing Sri Yaswanth Gade, learned counsel for the respondent. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/wife aggrieved from the order of dissolution of marriage, under Section (RNT,J & CGR,J 745 OF 2018) IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3509] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CHALLA GUNARANJAN ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT , learned counsel for the appellant and K.Prudhvi Raj, learned counsel representing Sri Yaswanth Gade, wife, being under Section 2 (RNT,J & CGR,J C.M.A.NO.745 OF 2018) 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (in short ‘the Act’). dated 17.10.2017 passed in H.M.O.P.No.83 of 2017 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru. 3. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent took place on 19.05.1996 at Rice Millers Convent, Palakol, West Godavari District as per Hindu Rites and Customs. 4. The appellant/wife had filed the petition for decree of divorce. 5. During pendency of H.M.O.P., the parties entered into settlement out of the Court in the presence of the elders. The same was brought to the notice of the Court and considering the submissions advanced before the learned Court, though such agreement was not filed before the Court, the learned Court passed the decree for divorce, by dissolving the marriage. 6. The order records in para-10, that the appellant received an amount of Rs.22,50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- from the respondent/husband in the presence of elders and she also reported that she had no objection to give divorce. The respondent/husband also reported to the Court that he had no objection for divorce, as per the settlement between the parties. 3 (RNT,J & CGR,J C.M.A.NO.745 OF 2018) 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that terms and conditions of the agreement at page-28 of the appeal memo, are not complied with. 8. By the orders passed previously, the respondent was asked to file the affidavit. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that an affidavit has been filed, inter-alia submitting that the condition Nos.2, 5 & 6 of the agreement, dated 18.04.2017 said to have been not complied, because those conditions were dependent on the compliance of certain conditions by the wife, which she did not comply. The wife/appellant had to withdraw the cases filed by her against the husband/respondent, but those cases are still pending. The respondent has also remarried after the decree of divorce, on 26.11.2018. 10. The appellant has filed the reply affidavit, inter-alia denying the contents of the affidavit of the respondent. 11. On consideration of the submissions and on perusal of the record, we are of the view that the petition for divorce was filed by the appellant/wife. The same was decreed, based on the submissions advanced before the learned Court. Some compromise was entered between the parties out of the Court. However, the compromise was not filed before the Court in the proceedings. Any verification of the 4 (RNT,J & CGR,J C.M.A.NO.745 OF 2018) compromise did not take place. The wife however, received some benefit of Rs.23,00,000/-. Consequently we are of the view that filing of the appeal to set aside the divorce decree alleging the violation of some of the terms and conditions of the agreement/compromise cannot be maintainable. The learned counsel for the appellant has not advanced any argument so as to challenging the decree on merits. The entire effort of the wife is to get compliance of the said agreement/compromise, out of Court, of the allegedly violated conditions. In other words, the appeal appears to have been filed for implementation of the compromise, not even brought before the learned Court. It is not so permissible in this appeal. 12. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, however, leaving it open for the appellant to seek such other relief, as may be open, before the appropriate forum of law. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J _______________________ CHALLA GUNARANJAN,J Date : 02.01.2025. RPD. 5 (RNT,J & CGR,J C.M.A.NO.745 OF 2018) 240 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN (DISMISSED) CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 745 of 2018 Date: 02.01.2025 RPD