1 (RNT,J & BM,J CMA. NO.38 OF 2025) APHC010030262025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3572] THURSDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 38/2025 Between: 1. VEMULA @ TAMMISETTY VASANTHA, W/O. VEMULA ANIL KUMAR, D/O TAMMISETTY SRINIVASA RAO AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 6-42/A, MAKKENAVARIPALEM VILLAGE, SANTHAMAGULURU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. VEMULA ANIL KUMAR, S/o. V.Ankamma Rao, Aged about 34 years, R/o D.No. 1-19-139/1, Sattenapalli Raod, Narasaraopet Town, Mandal Guntur District. ...RESPONDENT Appeal Under Section_____against ordersAggrieved by the Order and Decreetal Order dated 02.12.2024 passed in H.M.O.P. No 02 of 2022 on the file of the court of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Narasaraopet, the above appellant herein begs IA 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 pleased to suspend the operation of Order and Decreetal Order Dt.02.12.2024 passed in H.M.O.P. No.02 of 2022 on the file of the Additional 2 (RNT,J & BM,J CMA. NO.38 OF 2025) Civil Judge (Senior Division); Narasaraopet, pending disposal of the main C.M.A. and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 pleased to permit me to withdraw the present CMA.No. 38 of 2025 and I have no objection to grant divorce to the respondent and to pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. RAMAKRISHNA AKURATHI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. KSHATRI SUNIL SINGH The Court made the following: 3 (RNT,J & BM,J CMA. NO.38 OF 2025) JUDGMENT:-(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) On 22.01.2026, a Co-ordinate Bench passed the following order : “This appeal, arises out of the decree passed for divorce/dissolution of the marriage by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narasaraopet, on 02.12.2024 in HMOP No.2 of 2022. 2. The parties were referred to the mediation centre for resolution of dispute amicably. 3. The interim report dated 04.11.2025 was received seeking further time to complete the mediation process. Time was granted. 4. The final report in ROC No.75/APHCMC/2026, dated 07.01.2026, has been received from the Mediation Centre, reporting that the matter was settled. 5. The report of the mediator dated 05.01.2026, annexed to the report of the mediation centre shows that some settlement was arrived at between the parties before the Trial Court. So, the mediator reported that the mediation proceedings could not be initiated in the mediation centre. 6. A perusal of the record shows that M.C.No.4 of 2022 was filed by the wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance. Those proceedings were closed by order dated 17.09.2025 passed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki ordering that „in the result the case is settled before the mediation and the present case is disposed as per the Settlement of Agreement dated 12.09.2025 (Annexure-D)”. Further, a connected case in C.C.No.856 of 2021 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki, registered on the complaint of wife was instituted against the husband under Sections 498A I.P.C and Sections 3 4 (RNT,J & BM,J CMA. NO.38 OF 2025) and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, was also disposed of on 17.09.2025, holding that „in the result the case is settled before the mediation and the present case is disposed as per the Settlement of Agreement dated 12.09.2025 (Annexure-D)”. 7. Copy of Annexure-D(Settlement of Agreement dated 12.09.2025) as mentioned in the aforesaid two orders in MC..No.4 of 2022 and D.V.C.No.6 of 2023 has not been brought on record. The same has not been filed neither by the parties nor the same is part of the report of the mediation. The report of the mediation proceedings is that it could not be initiated. 8. Consequently, it appears to us that there is no mediation agreement/settlement in the mediation proceedings in the present case. The basis of closing the mediation proceedings, is the settlement as referred to in the aforesaid orders passed in the two cases. 9. From perusal of para-5 of the order dated 17.09.2025 in C..CNo.856 of 2021, the terms of settlement appears to be only as under: “5. This Court received the file on 12.09.2025 along with the report of the Mediator dated 12.09.2025, wherein the De-facto complainant and the Accused have settled the matter before the Mediator and entered into the Settlement of Agreement with the following terms (Annexure-D):- The De-facto Complainant voluntarily agreed to withdrawn this case and also M.C.No.4/2022 & D.V.C.No.6/2023 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Jduge’s Court, Addanki and received an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 12.09.2025 in M.C.No.4/2022.” 10. From the aforesaid, what is evident prima facie, is that, the defacto complainant (wife) voluntarily agreed to withdraw C.C.No.856 of 2021, D.V.C.No.6 of 2023 and receiving an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 12.09.2025 in M.C.No.4 of 2022. 5 (RNT,J & BM,J CMA. NO.38 OF 2025) 11. Prima facie, there is no reference to HMOP No.2 of 2022 i.e. the divorce petition in which divorce has been granted and out of which, the present appeal has arisen. 12. Sri Battula Sanjaiah Gandhi, learned counsel appears for the appellant‟s counsel. 13. There is no representation for the respondent. 14. List on 05.02.2026. 15. Both the parties shall appear before this court on 05.02.2026. 16. The court may consider on the next date for referring the parties to the process of mediation again. 17. Let the date 05.02.2026 for appearance be communicated to the respondent and the respondent’s counsel by the Registry of this Court.” 2. The said order was passed inasmuch as the compromise/settlement, as referred to in the mediator’s report, revealed that the compromise pertained to M.C. No.4 of 2022 and D.V.C. No.6 of 2023 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Addanki. There was no reference to the divorce petition, by which divorce was granted on the petition of the respondent/husband, nor to the present appeal. 3. On 5.03.2026, this Bench passed the following order : “I.A.No.1 of 2026 has been filed by the appellant to withdraw the C.M.A. 2. The husband’s petition for divorce was allowed and challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed by the wife” 6 (RNT,J & BM,J CMA. NO.38 OF 2025) 3. Considering the detailed order passed by the Coordinate Bench on 22.01.2026, we are of the view that before passing the order in I.A.No.1 of 2026, the presence of the appellant be secured before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that on the date fixed, the appellant will appear personally. 5. Post on 12.03.2026.” 4. The appellant – Smt. Vemula @ Tammisetty Vasantha has appeared before this Court and has been identified by her learned counsel, Sri Akurathi Rama Krishna. 5. On being questioned by the Court, she categorically stated that she is aware of the consequences of withdrawing the present appeal, wherein a decree of divorce was granted. When a specific question was put to her regarding the settlement, she stated that the settlement entered into in M.C. No.4 of 2022 and D.V.C. No.6 of 2023 constitutes the final settlement between the parties. 6. Recording the aforesaid, I.A. No.1 of 2026 is allowed. 7. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is withdrawn. No order as to costs. 7 (RNT,J & BM,J CMA. NO.38 OF 2025) As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J _____________________ BALAJI MEDAMALLI,J Date :12.03.2026. RPD. 8 (RNT,J & BM,J CMA. NO.38 OF 2025) 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI (WITHDRAWN) CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 38 OF 2025 Date: 12.03.2026 RPD.