APHC010685702025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3524] THURSDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM I.A.No.1 of 2026 and C.M.A. No. 50/2026 Between: 1. DONTHIREDDY POORNA REDDY, S/O BALACHANDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, HINDU, R/O D.NO.13-389/1, SEETHANAGARAM, TADEPALLI, MANGALAGIRI JURISDICTION, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER AND 1. DONTHIREDDY SANTHAKUMARI, s/o Poorna Reddy, Aged about 59 years. Housewife, R/o D.No.7-8, Tadepalli, Tadepalli Mandal, Mangalagiri Jurisdiction, Guntur District, A.P ...RESPONDENT Appeal Under Section_____against orderspleased to set aside the decree and order dated 20-01-2023 passed in H.M.O.P. No. 78 of 2020 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, and consequently allow the divorce petition by granting a decree of divorce, and 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 condone the delay of 890 days in filing the accompanying Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the Decree and Order dated 11.04.2023 in H.M.O.P. No. 78 of 2020 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. PEDDI VIJAYBHASKAR 2 Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: ORDER and JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) Heard learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner. 2. The husband appellant filed H.M.O.P.No.78 of 2020 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, seeking divorce under Section 13(1) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the same was dismissed on 11.04.2023. 3. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed with delay of 890 days. 4. I.A.No.1 of 2026 has been filed for condonation of delay supported by the affidavit. In respect of the said application, the cause for delay is stated as under: “4). I submit that after the judgment was pronounced, I was suffering from ill-health and age-related medical issues, due to which I was unable to immediately contact my counsel and take steps to file the appeal. I was under continuous medical supervision and was advised rest for a considerable period, which caused the delay in initiating appellate proceedings.” 5. We are not satisfied with the reasons mentioned without filing proof in respect of the said contents. The ground of such illness provided without filing any medical report, etc cannot be believed. 6. There is no sufficient cause to condone the delay of 890 days. 7. The I.A.No.1 of 2026 is rejected. 3 8. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed as barred by limitation. 9. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J _____________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J GVK 4 79 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.50 of 2026 Dt. 05.02.2026 GVK