APHC010532612025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: Between: 1. KESAVAN.G, S/o.GOPALAN PILLAI, AGED 42 YEARS, R/o. AT D.No.67/3, 1 TIRUTHANI, TIRUVALLURU DISTRICT, TAMILANADU. 1. SMT. K. BHARGHAVI, W/o. G.KESAVAN, AGED 36 YEARS, R/O. AT CHITTOOR PRESENTLY D.N0.27 CHITTOOR. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Mr.V.ESWARAIAH CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent: -None- 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 2644 of 2025 S/o.GOPALAN PILLAI, AGED 42 YEARS, R/o. AT D.No.67/3, 1ST STREET, PERIYAR NAGAR, TIRUTHANI, TIRUVALLURU DISTRICT, TAMILANADU. ...PETITIONER AND BHARGHAVI, W/o. G.KESAVAN, AGED 36 YEARS, R/O. AT D.No.10-173, GANDHIROAD EXTENSION, CHITTOOR PRESENTLY D.N0.27-131/3B, RAMNAGAR COLONY, ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.V.ESWARAIAH CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3209] FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA 2644 of 2025 S/o.GOPALAN PILLAI, AGED 42 YEARS, STREET, PERIYAR NAGAR, TIRUTHANI, TIRUVALLURU DISTRICT, TAMILANADU. ...PETITIONER GANDHIROAD EXTENSION, 131/3B, RAMNAGAR COLONY, ...RESPONDENT 2 The Court made the following order: The present Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 29.08.2025 in I.A.No.268 of 2025 in H.M.O.P.No.65 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chittoor. 2. The respondent herein filed the said O.P., under Section 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, seeking dissolution of the marriage dated 02.02.2006 with the petitioner herein. 3. Resisting the O.P., the petitioner herein filed a detailed counter. He filed the above I.A., under Order XIII Rule 10 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking to summon the records / documents mentioned in Para No.5 of the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. The respondent herein filed counter and after considering the matter, the learned Trial Court dismissed the I.A., in question. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions to impress upon this Court about the circumstances under which the petitioner was compelled to file the above referred I.A. He submits that the learned Trial Court ought to have appreciated the matter in the correct perspective, but erroneously dismissed the application in question. He submits that by calling for the records, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent and further it would aid the Court in examining the matter in detail and arrive at a just conclusion. Making the said submissions, he seeks to allow the Revision Petition by setting aside the order in question. 3 5. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. At the outset, it may be pertinent to note that in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., in question, the documents to which a reference was made in the Para No.8 of the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., appears to be a part of the record in D.V.C.No.73 of 2012 on the file of the court of III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chittoor. It appears that prior to filing of the application in question, the petitioner filed I.A.No.42 of 2024 seeking to summon and call for the records marked in D.V.C.No.73 of 2012 and the same was disposed of by an order dated 05.12.2024 with a direction to the petitioner herein to file the certified copies of the required documents. Notwithstanding with the same, the present application is filed. 6. That apart, it also appears that against the orders in D.V.C.No.73 of 2012, Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2021 was filed. In the order under revision, the learned Trial Court taking note of the orders in I.A.No.42 of 2024 and opining that the relief sought for in D.V.C., and the relief filed in the O.P., was entirely different, that the petitioner did not mention in his affidavit as to why the voluminous documents are material to the present proceedings, held that there is no need to call for the voluminous documents since the certified copies of the orders in Appeal i.e., Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2021 were already filed. The said conclusions arrived at by the learned Trial Court with reference to the material on record, cannot be treated as improper exercise of jurisdiction vested in it. The reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court are 4 well founded and this Court see no illegality or perversity, warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, all pending applications shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Dt. 20.02.2026 BLV 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 2644 of 2025 Date: 20.02.2026 BLV