APHC010069642011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3524] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 544/2011 Between: 1. KUKKA RAJU, S/O SOMARAJU COOLI R/O TUMMALAVA NEAR NATARAJ THEATRE, RAJAHMUNDRY, ...APPELLANT AND 1. SMT KUKKA PEKETI MANGA, W/o Raju, D/o peketi Marayya House Wife R/o D.Nio. 1-210 Yelakala Dibba, Nellipudi Village, ...RESPONDENT Appeal Under Section_____against orders Counsel for the Appellant: 1. K VENKATESH Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: 2 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) Sri K. Venkatesh, learned counsel appears for the appellant husband. 2. O.P.No.110 of 2009 filed by the husband on the file of I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, was dismissed on 26.02.2011 and challenging the same, the present appeal. 3. By an order dated 25.07.2025, the parties were referred to the mediation. As per the report dated 23.12.2025 of the mediator, notice was sent to both sides from the mediation centre, but they have not attended the mediation proceedings. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he has no instructions since long, the appellant has not been in contact with him. 5. He however, argues the matter on merits and submits that the petition has been dismissed as the appellant failed to prove the grounds i.e., divorce and cruelty. He referred to para No.14 of the judgment. 6. However, the learned counsel has not shown any document on record, other than reading para No.14 of the judgment, nor has referred to any evidence to contradict the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court. He could not point out as to how the finding suffers from any illegality or perversity. Nothing more was argued except reading the para No.14. 3 7. In the absence of any argument raised to show that the judgment suffers from any illegality or perversity. No case for interference is made out. The appeal has got no merit and is dismissed. 8. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed. ___________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J _____________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J GVK 4 119 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM C.M.A. No.544 of 2011 Dt. 22.01.2026 GVK