APHC010290522005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Between: Donthireddy Pravallika, W/o.Donthireddy Veera Reddy, D/o.Yerram Sambireddy, Aged about 26 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o.5 Guntur District. Donthireddy Veera Reddy, S/o.Lakshmi Reddy, Aged about 30 years, R/o.Peddareddypalem Village, Narasaraopeta Mandal, Palnadu District. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): Mr.Burla Siva Rama Krishna Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.K.H.V.SIVA KUMAR 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No: 555 of 2025 Donthireddy Pravallika, W/o.Donthireddy Veera Reddy, D/o.Yerram Sambireddy, Aged about 26 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o.5th lane, RTC Colony, Guntur Town, ...Appellant / Respondent AND Donthireddy Veera Reddy, S/o.Lakshmi Reddy, Aged about 30 years, R/o.Peddareddypalem Village, Narasaraopeta Mandal, Palnadu District. ….Respondent / Petitioner Counsel for the Petitioner(S): .Burla Siva Rama Krishna Counsel for the Respondent: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3549] DAY OF SEPTEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Appellant / Respondent pondent / Petitioner 2 The Court made the following Order: (Per Hon’ble NJS, J) Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The present appeal has been preferred against an order dated 25.04.2025 in I.A.No.24 of 2024 in H.M.O.P.No.117 of 2023 on the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narasaraopeta. 3. The appellant is the respondent in the said O.P. Seeking a decree for divorce, the respondent herein filed the said O.P., under Section 13 (1) (ia) (iii) of Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of mental disorder and cruelty. 4. On 18.08.2023, the learned Trial Court granted an ex parte decree and seeking to set aside the same, the appellant filed I.A.No.24 of 2025. As there is a delay in making the application, I.A.No.23 of 2024 is filed seeking to condone the delay of 94 days. Both the applications came to be dismissed by a common order dated 25.04.2025. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant made submissions with reference to the material on record inter alia to the effect that during the relevant point of time, the appellant was suffering with severe health issues and unfortunately the relevant material was not filed along with the I.A. He submits that as the delay in seeking to set aside the ex parte decree is caused due to serious ill health of the appellant and the said delay is only 94 days, the learned Trial Court should have taken a lenient view in the matter, more particularly as it is a matrimonial issue. 3 6. Drawing the attention of this Court to the relevant material on record, learned counsel for the appellant seeks to allow the appeal by setting aside the order under challenge. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand made submissions to sustain the impugned order. It is his contention that as no material is placed to substantiate the reasons assigned by the appellant, the learned Trial Court had rightly dismissed the application and no interference is called for. 8. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. From a reading of the order under challenge, it would appear that the appellant initially had not taken proper care to defend the matter by engaging an Advocate. Be that as it may. For whatever the reason might be, after suffering an ex parte decree, she filed applications seeking to set aside the same, by condoning the delay. No doubt the appellant had not filed the relevant material along with the I.As., but in the appeal, the material is filed which goes to show that the appellant was having serious health issues and that apart, she sustained serious burn injuries. Though the learned counsel for the respondent made submissions in support of the order under challenge, no counter-affidavit is filed disputing the material placed before this Court. Be that as it may. As it is an issue pertaining to divorce and the delay is only 94 days, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Trial Court should have adopted a pragmatic approach rather than pedantic in the interest of parties, set aside the ex parte order, by condoning the delay. 4 9. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, order in I.A.No.24 of 2024 in HMOP No.117 of 2023 is set aside and the said I.A., stands allowed. No order as to costs. Consequently, all pending applications shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA _____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA BLV Dt. 22.09.2025 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 555 of 2025 (Per Ninala Jayasurya, J) Date: 22.09.2025 BLV