NAGIVEEDU SUBRAHMANYAM, TAMILNADU v. NAGIVEEDU KALAIVANI @ KALAIVANI, NELLORE DIST
CMA/180/2013 · 2025-12-19
Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, Ravi Nath Tilhari
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 53418 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 53418 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010131152013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3524] SATURDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 180/2013 Between:
1. NAGIVEEDU SUBRAHMANYAM, TAMILNADU, S/O. NAGIVEEDU KHANNIVEL SAMPATH R/O. D.NO. 23 NEW KACHERI STREET PONNERI TIRUVALLURU DT. TAMILNADU
...APPELLANT AND
1. NAGIVEEDU KALAIVANI KALAIVANI NELLORE DIST, Divorcee of N. Subrahmanyam R/o. D.No. 2/46 Narsingaraopeta Gudur Nellore District
...RESPONDENT Appeal Under Section_____against ordersto allow the present appeal while modifying the order of the Principal District Court, Nellore passed in Guardian O.P.No. 945/2009 dted 01.10.2012 by declaring the appellant as guardian of the minor boy Chi. Koushik and consequently order the respondent to hand over of the minor Chi. Koushik to the appellant and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2013(CMAMP 374 OF 2013 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
order interim custody of my minor son N. Koushik forthwith pendilite of the annezed CMA on merits and pass Counsel for the Appellant:
1. K S GOPALA KRISHNAN Counsel for the Respondent:
1. The Court made the following:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 180/2013
JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)
No representation for the appellant.
2. The matter pertains to the year 2013 and is listed under the caption „old matters‟.
3. In view of the aforesaid, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed for
“want of prosecution”.
No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI,J
_____________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM,J
Dated: 20.12.2025 AG
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 180/2013
Dated: 20.12.2025 AG