APHC010837402015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI I^S 0^ WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO FAMILY COURT APPEAL (FCA) NO: 83 OF 2025 Appeal under section 19 of Family Court Act, aggrieved by the decree and order in O.P.No. 1253/2012. dt. 10.5.2015 on the file of the court of Judge, Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam. Between: Seerapu Kanaka Penta Rao,S/o.Apparao, Hindu, Age: 29 Years, Permanent R/o D.No.151, Ward No.61, Via Sundaraju Colony, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, Constable 071731410, ID Card No. A22663, CISF Unit (Ministry of Home Affairs), HEP URI-II (J &K) Gantumulla Post,Baramulla District State of Jammu and Kashmeer. ...Appellant/Respondent AND Seerapu Manga, W/o.Kanaka Penta Rao, Age. 25 Years, R/o.D.No.28-52- 4/2, Kanithi, RH Colony, Vadlapudi, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. ...Respondent/Petitioner lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 r suspend the operation of the order passed in O.P.No. 1253/2012, dated 10-5-2015 on the file of the Addl. Family Court at Visakhapatnam. Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Reddy Venkata Ramana Counsel for the Respondent: Sri S V R Subrahmanyam The Court made the following Judgment: APHC010837402015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI {Special Original Jurisdiction) [3526] WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO FAMILY COURT APPEAL Between: 1. SK PENTA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM, - ...APPELLANT AND 1. SEERAPU MANGA VISAKHAPATNAM, - ...RESPONDENT Appeal under section against orders aggrieved by the decree and order in O.P.No.1253/2012, dt;10.5.2015 on the file of the court of Judge, Addl. Family Court Visakhapatnam lA NO: 1 OF 2015(FCAMP 530 OF 2015 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 to condone the delay of 92 days in filing the appeal against the order and decree passed in dt. 10-5-2015 on the file of the Addl. Family Court at Visakhapatnam in the interest and to pass lA NO: 3 OF 2015(FCAMP 34415 OF 2015 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. REDDY VENKATA RAMANA Counsel for the Respondent: 1.S V R SUBRAHMANYAM 2 The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Mr. S.V.R.Subrahmanyam, learned counsel states that despite his best efforts, he could not secure instructions from the respondent and the registered notice sent by him was returned with an endorsemenfrefused”. 3. Be that as it may, the present Appeal is preferred against the orders dated 10.5.2015 in O.P.No.1253 of 2005 on the file of the Judge, Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam. The appellant is the respondent in the said O.P., which is filed by the respondent/wife under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. Learned Judge, Additional Family Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the appeal. 4. Though the learned counsel for the appellant/husband made submissions that the order under challenge is not sustainable, we are not inclined to appreciate the same in view of the subsequent developments after filing of the appeal. Admittedly, the parties entered into a compromise and the matter was settled in the Lok Adalat, Visakhapatnam vide award dated 10.4.2019 in L.S.A.No.681/2019. One of the terms of compromise was that the parties would lead ) marital life. In terms of the said compromise, the learned counsel for the appellant states that both the appellant and respondent lived together happily for some time and thereafter the respondent lodged a complaint against the appellant for the offence under Sections.498-A, 509 and 506 IPC. In view of the award of the Lok Adalat and the subsequent events, it is clear that the parties, after filing the present appeal, continued their marital life, though it appears some disputes arose between them subsequently. In the above stated circumstances, the appeal practically 5. became infructuous and nothing survives for adjudication. Accordingly, the F.C.A. is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending 6. in this Appeal, shall stand closed. Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1. The Judge, Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 2. One CC to Sri. Reddy Venkata Ramana, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. S V R Subrahmanyam, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 5. Two CD Copies To. Stu sree \\ V.. ■■■ / ftm A HIGH COURT DATED:02/07/2025 \ 0 k AUG 2025 ^ . Current Section JUDGMENT FCA NO. 83 OF 2025 ?? X m o So DISMISSING THE FCA AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS