1 APHC010139682026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3239] TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 841/2026 Between: 1. NALLAPATI BRAHMAIAH, S/O MURALI, HINDU, AGED 32 YEARS. PRIVATE TEACHER, MITTAMIDA, VARIGONDA VILLAGE, TP GUDUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. NALLAPATI MALLEPALLI MADHAVI, W/o Bramaiah, D/o Subbaiah, Hindu, aged 27 years. House Wife 3-179, Singanamala Street, Chitvel Mandal, Rajampet, (Erstwhile Kadapa) District. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M SUGUNA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. T V P SAI VIHARI 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.841 of 2026 ORDER : Questioning the docket order dated 26.09.2025 passed in I.A. No. 86 of 2025 in H.M.O.P. No. 103 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nellore, the petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed H.M.O.P. No. 103 of 2022 seeking dissolution of marriage with the respondent on the ground of cruelty. The respondent contested the said O.P. by filing a counter. During the course of trial, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 86 of 2025 seeking to receive a pen drive containing certain video recordings allegedly depicting the behaviour of the respondent. 3. The said application was opposed by the respondent by filing a counter. The learned trial Judge, upon hearing both sides, dismissed the application by way of a docket order observing that such material is not necessary for adjudication of the matrimonial dispute. The trial Court further held that every incident in matrimonial life need not be brought on record through such electronic material and that the proposed evidence is not essential for deciding the core issue involved in the O.P. 4. Heard Smt. M. Suguna, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri T.V.P. Sai Vihari, learned counsel for the respondent. 3 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the electronic evidence sought to be produced is crucial to establish the conduct of the respondent and ought to have been received in evidence. 6. It is well settled that in matrimonial proceedings, the Court is required to adjudicate the issues based on relevant pleadings and legally admissible evidence. The trial Court has rightly observed that not every incident or allegation forming part of matrimonial discord needs to be substantiated through voluminous or intrusive material, particularly when such material is not foundationally pleaded. 7. Coming to the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the law is well settled. 8. In Waryam Singh v. Amarnath1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the power of superintendence is to be exercised sparingly to keep subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority. Similarly, in Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil2, it was held that interference under Article 227 is warranted only in cases of patent perversity, gross illegality, or failure of justice. 9. In the case on hand, the order under challenge is a discretionary interlocutory order passed by the trial Court. This Court does not find any perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error in the reasoning assigned by the trial Court warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 1 AIR 1954 SUPREME COURT 215 2 (2010) 8 SCC 329 4 There are no merits in the revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. __________________ K SURESH REDDY, J Date: 07.04.2026 Asr 5 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.841 of 2026 Date: 07.04.2026 ASR