APHC010290522005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 555 of 2025
Between:
Donthireddy Pravallika,
... Appellant / Respondent
AND
Donthireddy Veera Reddy,
... Respondent / Petitioner
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Burla Siva Rama Krishna
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. K.H.V. Siva Kumar
JUDGMENT
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya)
HEADNOTES
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Sections 13(1)(ia) & (iii) — Ex parte decree of divorce — Application to set aside ex parte decree — Delay of 94 days — Condonation of delay — Liberal approach in matrimonial cases — Principles reiterated.
Where the wife suffered serious burn injuries and health issues and failed to contest the H.M.O.P., resulting in an ex parte decree of divorce, and she filed an application to set aside the decree along with one seeking condonation of delay of 94 days, the trial court dismissed both applications. The High Court, on appeal, held that in matrimonial matters, the Court should adopt a pragmatic rather than pedantic approach when the delay is short and supported by bona fide reasons, particularly where medical evidence is subsequently produced to substantiate illness.
Held:
Considering the short delay and medical reasons, the order of the trial court dismissing the application was unsustainable. Delay of 94 days condoned; ex parte decree set aside; matter remitted for fresh consideration.
SUMMARY OF FACTS
-
The respondent-husband filed H.M.O.P. No.117 of 2023 under Section 13(1)(ia) and (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narasaraopeta, seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and mental disorder.
-
The wife, Donthireddy Pravallika, did not appear before the trial court, allegedly due to serious health issues and burn injuries, leading to an ex parte decree of divorce on 18.08.2023.
-
She subsequently filed I.A. No. 24 of 2024 under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree, accompanied by I.A. No. 23 of 2024 to condone the delay of 94 days in filing the application.
-
The trial court dismissed both applications by common order dated 25.04.2025, holding that the petitioner failed to file any medical records or convincing evidence along with the applications to explain the delay.
-
Aggrieved, she filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 555 of 2025 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
COURT’S REASONING
-
The Division Bench heard Mr. Burla Siva Rama Krishna for the appellant-wife and Mr. K.H.V. Siva Kumar for the respondent-husband.
-
The appellant contended that the delay occurred solely due to serious illness and burn injuries, which prevented her from approaching counsel earlier. Although such material was not filed before the trial court, the same was now placed on record in the appeal.
-
The respondent’s counsel opposed the appeal, supporting the trial court’s view that no sufficient cause was established before the lower court.
-
Upon examining the record, the Bench noted that while the appellant had indeed failed to contest the original proceedings properly, the new material placed before the appellate court established her bona fide incapacity during the relevant period.
-
The Court emphasized that in matrimonial cases, courts must lean towards substantial justice and adopt a pragmatic approach, especially when the delay is short and the rights of the parties are personal in nature, not commercial.
-
The Bench further observed that no counter-affidavit was filed by the husband disputing the medical material placed on record in appeal.
CONCLUSION / OPERATIVE ORDER
“As it is an issue pertaining to divorce and the delay is only 94 days, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Trial Court should have adopted a pragmatic approach rather than a pedantic one in the interest of parties.
In the aforesaid view of the matter, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. The order in I.A. No.24 of 2024 in H.M.O.P. No.117 of 2023 is set aside, and the said I.A. stands allowed.
No order as to costs. Consequently, all pending applications shall stand closed.”
— Ninala Jayasurya, J.
— Tuhin Kumar Gedela, J.
Date: 22.09.2025
ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY
This judgment reinforces a liberal and equitable approach in matrimonial litigation, aligning with consistent precedents of the Supreme Court and High Courts holding that technicalities should not defeat substantive justice between spouses.
By condoning a brief delay of 94 days, the Court prioritized conciliation and adjudication on merits over strict procedural compliance. The Bench notably underscored that in such personal disputes, a pragmatic approach must prevail over a pedantic one, reflecting the judicial philosophy in family law where human considerations outweigh procedural lapses.
FINAL DISPOSITION
-
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 555 of 2025 — Allowed.
-
Order in I.A. No.24 of 2024 in H.M.O.P. No.117 of 2023 — Set aside.
-
Delay of 94 days — Condoned.
-
Ex parte decree of divorce — Set aside.
-
No order as to costs.
-
All pending miscellaneous petitions — Closed.