1 APHC010710232025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] THURSDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 12/2026 Between: 1. KRISHNA SREENIVAS NAMALA, S/O NAMALA NAGESWARA RAO, AGED 40 YEARS, SR MANAGER, R/O.BUILDING NO 30, FLAT NO 204, H.PNAGAR, EAST HOUSING COMPPLEX, VASHINAKA, CHEMBUR EAST, MUMBAI 400074. ...PETITIONER AND 1. SIRISHA DIVYA ALIAS SIRISHA DIVYA ARLI, W/o. Krishna Sreenivas Namala, Aged 40 Years R/o At 1080 Villa Park Drive, Troy, MICHIGAN- 48085, USA. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records pertaining to HMOP No. 266 of 2023, on the file of The Senior Civil Judge, Narsaraopet and declare that the the Senior Civil Judge, Narsaraopet has no territorial Jurisdiction to entertain the same. Consequently direct the Senior Civil Judge, Narsaraopet return the bundle to the petitioner to be present before the correct court or in alternative dismiss the HMOP No. 266 of 2023, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narsaraopeta 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 2 pleased to stay all further procedings pertainning to HMOP No. 266 of 2023, on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Narasaraopet, Guntu Dist, pending disposal of CRP Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K L N SWAMY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. 3 The Court made the following order: The respondent herein had filed H.M.O.P.No.266 of 2023 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge Court, Narasaraopet for dissolution of the marriage performed between her and the petitioner herein. 2. The petitioner has moved this Court, contending that the Additional Senior Civil Judge Court, Narasaraopet would not have jurisdiction in H.M.O.P.No.266 of 2023, in as much as the respondent herself has specifically stated that the marriage was performed in Nellore and that she is presently residing in United States of America. Learned counsel would also contend that there is no averment anywhere, in the petition to show that the petitioner and the respondent lived together in Narasaraopet. He would contend that the respondent, in the jurisdiction clause, in the H.M.O.P. has falsely stated that she and petitioner herein had last resided together at Narasaraopet in the house of the great grandmother of the respondent. 3. The question of whether the statement of the respondent regarding the place where both the respondent and petitioner are said to have lived together is a question of fact which would have to be looked into by the Trial Court. Apart from this, the petitioner can very well approach the Additional Senior Civil Judge Court, Narasaraopet raising the very same grounds and the same can be adjudicated by the Additional Senior Civil Judge Court, Narasaraopet. 4 5. In this circumstances, the Civil Revision Petition is closed leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the Additional Senior Civil Judge Court, Narasaraopet for appropriate remedy. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand closed. _______________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J CMK/SSA 08.01.2026