APHC010052362011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3603] MONDAY, THE 20th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 281 OF 2011 Between: 1. ANNEM NARENDRA REDDY, S/O.NAGA PRABHAKARA REDDY, HINDU R/O.H.NO.1-4-50, S.V.PLACE STREET, ALLAGADDA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. ANNEM LAXMI DASARI LAXMI, D/o.Dasari Ramachandra Reddy, Hindu Hosuewife R/o.H.No.2/556, Sastri Nagar, Proddutur Town, Kadapa District. ...RESPONDENT Appeal Under Section_____against orders IA NO: 1 OF 2011(CMAMP 559 OF 2011 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 expedite the hearing of CMA Counsel for the Appellant: 1. KARRI MURALI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. K G KRISHNA MURTHY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 281 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Ramesh) The present appeal is filed aggrieved by the order and decree dated 14.03.2011 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda, Kurnool District, in M.O.P. No. 9 of 2009. The appellant herein, who is the husband, filed the said petition under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondent by a decree of divorce. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 24.06.1999 at Proddatur, Kadapa District. 2. While considering the question of territorial jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the trial Court held that no part of the cause of action had arisen within its territorial jurisdiction and, therefore, it had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Accordingly, the trial Court returned the petition with a liberty to the petitioner to present the same before the Court having competent jurisdiction, namely, the Additional District Judge, Proddatur. 3. The principal contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that, in terms of clause (iii) of Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda, has territorial jurisdiction, as the parties had last resided together at Allagadda. However, upon appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court rightly held that the petitioner failed to establish that the parties had last resided together at Allagadda so as to attract clause (iii) of Section 19 of the Act. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on Exs.P-3 and P-4. However, the Court below has duly considered the said documents along with the other evidence on record and rightly concluded that the learned Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda, has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition. 5. Upon consideration of the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that no ground is made out to interfere with the well-reasoned findings recorded by the trial Court. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, granting liberty to the appellant to approach the Court having territorial jurisdiction, if so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Appeal shall stand closed. ____________ D.RAMESH, J ____________________ ALAPATI GIRIDHAR, J Dated : 20.07.2026 TJN 70 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 281 OF 2011 Dated: 20.07.2026 TJN HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AT AMARAVATI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 281 OF 2011 PROCEEDING SHEET SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE 20.7.2026 DR, J & AGD, J The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. (Vide Separate Judgment) _______ DR, J _______ AGD, J TJN