2026:APHC:17934 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH * * * *

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI &

THE HON’BL SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 4279 of 2004 Between:

T. Ravi .....APPELLANT AND T. Lakshmi Devi ....RESPONDENT DATE OF JUDGMENT RESERVED : 10.02.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 28.04.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT UPLOADED : 28.04.2026 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI &

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No marked to Law Reporters/Journals

3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair Yes/No copy of the Judgment?

_______________________

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J ____________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI &

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM + CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 4279 of 2004 % 28.04.2026 Between:

T. Ravi .....APPELLANT AND T. Lakshmi Devi ....RESPONDENT ! Counsel for the Appellant : Sri K. A. Narasimham Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi Gist :

> Head Note:

? Cases Referred:

1. AIR 1984 SC 1562

2. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2798

3. AIR 1984 Andhra Pradesh 54

4. (1975) 2 SCC 326 5. AIR 1977 SC 2218 6. AIR 1996 Bom 85 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI &

THE HON’BL SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 4279 of 2004

JUDGMENT:

(per Hon‟ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)

Heard Sri K. A. Narasimham, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The appellant is the husband and the respondent is the wife.

3. This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 06.08.2004 in HMOP.No.64 of 2002 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, by which the HMOP filed by the appellant/husband seeking divorce under Section 13 (1A) (ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was dismissed.

4. The appellant and the respondent were married on 05.02.1992 as per the Hindu rites and customs. They have one male child. Due to some differences and disputes between them, initially the divorce OP.No.113 of 1999 was filed by the husband, whereas the wife filed OP.No.114 of 1999 for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The wife had already filed maintenance case MC No.35 of 1995 against the husband, which was allowed awarding the maintenance to the wife and also to the son. O.P.Nos.113 and 114 of 1999 were decided by the common Order dated 12.07.2001, the petition for divorce was dismissed and the petition for restitution of conjugal rights was allowed. The contention of the husband is that the wife failed to join the husband and there was no restitution of conjugal rights pursuant to the decree for restitution of conjugal rights in O.P.No.114 of 1999 for a period of one year and hence he filed HMOP No.64 of 2002 seeking divorce under Section 13 (1A) (ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

5. The wife filed the counter. The previous proceedings were not disputed. However, it was denied that she failed to join the husband. She submitted that there was no refusal on her part. She repeatedly went to the house of the husband, but he did not allow the wife inside the house. So, there was no cause of action to the husband and he was not entitled for decree of divorce on that ground under Section 13 (1A) (ii) of the Act. She also submitted that she was still ready to join the husband at any time.

6. During the enquiry, the husband examined himself as PW 1 (T. Ravi)

and marked Ex.A1, the certified copy of the common order in O.P.Nos.113/99 and 114/99 on the file of Family Court, Tirupati. The wife (T. Lakshmi Devi) examined herself as RW 1, and got examined on her behalf RW 2-Rajamma and RW 3-D.Chandramma. Any document was not marked on her behalf.

7. The learned Judge, Family Court, framed the following points for consideration:

“1) Whether the r