IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1439 OF 2025 % Dated 19.02.2026 # Vaduguri Venkata Upendra Rao s/o late Venkateswarlu, aged 73 years, r/o near Police Quarters, R.O.B Side Road, Perala Village, Chirala Mandal Bapatla District ….. Petitioner Versus Vaduguri dhanalakshmi @ Bokkasam Dhanalakshmi w/o v.v. Upendra Rao r/o Vetapalem Village, Chirala Mandal presently r/o Yandrapati Venkateswarlu, Sai Maharaju Apartments, Housing Board Colony, Near KMS School, Ongole, Prakasam District …. Respondent JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 19.02.2026 VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments?

Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment?

+ HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1439 OF 2025 % Dated 19.02.2026 # Vaduguri Venkata Upendra Rao s/o late Venkateswarlu, aged 73 years, r/o near Police Quarters, R.O.B Side Road, Perala Village, Chirala Mandal Bapatla District ….. Petitioner Versus Vaduguri dhanalakshmi @ Bokkasam Dhanalakshmi w/o v.v. Upendra Rao r/o Vetapalem Village, Chirala Mandal presently r/o Yandrapati Venkateswarlu, Sai Maharaju Apartments, Housing Board Colony, Near KMS School, Ongole, Prakasam District …. Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Nalluri Madhava Rao Counsel for Respondent : -

GIST:

> HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1439 OF 2025

ORDER:

1. This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed challenging the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Chirala in I.A.No.1192 of 2023 in H.M.O.P No.120 of 2022 dated

07.04.2025.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, I.A.No.1192 of 2025 was filed before the Court below under Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C, praying for rejection of H.M.O.P No.120 of 2022 as not maintainable, in view of the operation of principle of res judicata.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/husband is that, earlier, he got filed O.P.No.43 of 2004 for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Prior to that, the respondent got registered a report against the petitioner and his mother before the III Town Police Station, Tenali. Subsequently, C.C.No.462 of 2004 and HMOP No.43 of 2004 were ended in compromise with the presence of elders and finally by way of settlement before the Lok Adalat, Tenali. The respondent also agreed and received an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- by way of cheque towards full and final settlement in lieu of maintenance of the respondent. Once the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was dissolved on 31.12.2005 by way of “Decree of divorce” through Lok Adalat Award, thereafter there was no relationship of wife and husband in existence between both parties herein. The respondent also claimed the family pension from the Railway Authorities as a divorcee daughter and also as a legal heir of her deceased father, who worked in Railway Department, based on the Lok Adalat Award, as such, this O.P is not maintainable and same is liable to be rejected under Principle of Doctrine of Res Judicata.

4. Before the Trial Court, learned counsel for the respondent/wife contended that the earlier decree of divorce granted in H.M.O.P.No.43 of 2004 dated 31.12.2005 is passed by Lok Adalat Court. Based on the said decree, respondent made a representation dated 23.04.2022 to the South Central Railway, Vijayawada for sanction of secondary family pension on the status of divorcee daughter. The Railway Authorities took objection that the award of Lok Adalat or Decree is not valid and advised to obtain decree of divorce from the jurisdiction of Family Court of Civil Courts, since Lok Adalat Decree is not valid.

5. Upon considering submissions of both the counsel, the Trial Court dismi