APHC010259232021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3524] WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 441/2022 Between: 1. C ANITHA, @ DR.ANITHA JOHNSON WASHINGTON W/O JOSEPH ST.JOSEPH WASHINGTON AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC. DOCTOR RIO. DOOR.NO. 17/390-2-B. 4, N.V.R.STREET, MADANAPALLE TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.A.P. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT GREAT AYTON HEALTH CENTER, ROSE HILL, GREAT AYTON, MIDDLESBROUGH TS9 6BL, UNITED KINGDOM ...APPELLANT AND 1. JOSEPH, S/o George Washington Aged about 57 years, Occ. NRI Rio. Amba Nehru Nivas, Nehru Nagar, Manipal, Udupi District, Karnataka State Presently residing at 2180 Ellesmere Road, Toronto, Canada, M1G 3M4 ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1. P VASU SEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM I.A.No.1 of 2022 IN/AND CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 441/2022 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri P.Vasu Sekhar, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The appellant is the petitioner in D.O.P.No.153 of 2010. Her D.O.P under Section 10(i)(9x) and (x) of the Indian Divorce Act, 2001 for divorce, was dismissed on 07.01.2016 by the learned II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle. 3. The C.M.A. has been filed with a delay of 1801 days. I.A.No.1 of 2022 has been filed for condonation. 4. In the affidavit, the learned counsel for the appellant refers to para No.4 of the affidavit filed in support of the application as the cause for delay in filing the appeal. The same reads as under: <I submit that the delay in filing the Appeal occurred on the ground that I am residing at abroad and most of the time staying at abroad. On coming to know about the dismissal of the Divorce Petition, I instructed the 3 Counsel on Record before the Hon'ble Lower Court to obtain certified copies. Thereafter I engaged the Counsel on record for filing Appeal. That due to lock down unavoidable circumstances arose and the delay occur in filing the Appeal and also I am at abroad and some communication gap between myself and my Counsel before the court below.= 5. We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a sufficient cause to condone the delay of 1801 days. Any specific reason with particulars are not been disclosed. The general averment has been made. The date on which the petitioner came to know about the order of dismissal, the date on which she instructed the counsel to obtain the certified copies, as also the engagement of the counsel for filing the appeal have not been disclosed. The lock down was in the year 2019. The judgment is of the year 2016. Limitation expired long before the covid. 6. We are not satisfied with the cause shown. There is no sufficient cause. 7. The I.A. is rejected. 8. Consequently, the C.M.A also stands dismissed as barred by limitation. There shall be no order as to costs. 4 As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Date: 11.02.2026 Pab 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM C.M.A.NO: 441/2022 DATE: 11.02.2026 Pab