Smt A.Bharathi

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, PRAKASAM

AT ONGOLE

PRESENT: Smt. A.Bharathi,

Principal District Judge, Ongole.

Monday, on this the Twenty Fourth (24th) Day of November, 2025

LAOP.No.05/2021

Between:

Ministry of Road Transport and Highway, Rep. By its Regional Officer, Vijayawada…. Petitioner

AND

1.Kandi Ravi Sankar, S/o. Mohana Rao, age: 58 years, R/o. Chadalawada Village, NG Padu Mandal, Praksam District-523183.

2.The Arbitrator and The Collector, Prakasam at Ongole

3.Competent Authority for LA NH-216 & Addl. Joint Collector, Prakasam District. …. Respondents

This petition is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.Srinivasa Raju, Counsel for Petitioner; Sri PL

Govindaiah, Counsel for 1st Respondent; and learned Government

Pleader for Respondents 2 and 3, on hearing both the counsels, upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:-

ORDER

1.This petition is filed U/Sec.34 of Arbitrator and Conciliation Act, 1996 by petitioner, seeking to set-aside the impugned Award, 2

Dt.30.04.2021 passed in Rc.G1/NH-216/3968/2014 by the learned

Arbitrator and District Collector, Prakasam District and confirm the award passed by the Competent Authority Land Acquisition.

2.Brief averments of petition are that, Competent Authority Land

Acquisition (CALA) and Additional Joint Collector, Prakasam District, on behalf of MORTH (Ministry of Road Transport and Highways) acquired land of 19,227 square meters in various survey numbers of

Chadalawada Village of NG Padu Mandal under National Highways Act, 1956 and passed Award No.09/2016/NH-2016, Dt.28.10.2016 and also acquired another land of 5,082 square meters in various survey numbers of Chadalawada Village of NG Padu Mandal under National

Highways Act, 1956 and passed award No.15/2016/NH-2016,

Dt.16.03.2017. Further, an extent of 5075 square meters in survey

No.358/2 and another extent of 875 square meters in the same survey number of 1st Respondent was acquired, Competent Authority Land

Acquisition passed Award No.09/2016/NH-2016, Dt.28.10.2016 granting compensation @ Rs.172.92 paise per square meter along with other statutory benefits. Likewise, Competent Authority Land

Acquisition passed award No.15/2016/NH-2016, Dt.16.03.2017 granting compensation @ Rs.172.92 paise per square meter along with other statutory benefits. Thereafter, 1st Respondent made an 3 application before the Arbitrator/District Collector, Prakasam District, against those awards and accordingly learned Arbitrator passed the impugned award in Rc.G1/NH-216/3968/2014, Dt.30.04.2021 enhancing the compensation amount to Rs.592.82 paise per square meter.

3.Being aggrieved with the findings recorded by the learned

Arbitrator/District Collector, Prakasam at Ongole, the Petitioner chose to prefer this petition on the following grounds that, the impugned award passed by the learned Collector/Sole Arbitrator, Prakasam

District is against the law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. The learned Collector/Sole Arbitrator passed the award without following the basic principles and one-sidedly enhanced the compensation amount in favour of 1st Respondent/Kandi Ravi Sankar.

Further, the learned Arbitrator failed to observe the Limitation Act is applicable to the above matter, the petition before the learned Arbitrator is not within time and it is barred by limitation, thereby the learned

Arbitrator ought to have dismissed the petition on the point of limitation. The very award passed by learned Arbitrator is in conflict with the public policy of India and is liable to be set-aside. The learned

Arbitrator/Collector enhanced the compensation amount without application of mind enhancing the market value of land from 4

Rs.7,00,000/- per acre to Rs.24,20,000/- per acre. The learned

Arbitrator failed to observe that the Competent Authority Land

Acquisition has rightly fixed the compensation amount @ Rs.7,00,000/- per acre as per rules in vogue and in accordance with Sec.3G of

National Highways Act.

4.It is further contended that, the lands proposed for acquisition are meant for formation of road widening and extension of NH-216 and all the lands are being used for agricultural purpose only, but the

Arbitrator did not observe this point and straight away enhanced the compensation. It is further contended that, the learned Arbitrator ought to have observed that the Respondents/Petitioners have solely focused on the value of their own land only. However, while fixing the value of lands during awards, the value of each and every small bits of land cannot be taken into consideration, when a larger interest is involved in the acquisition proceedings. As per rules and as per practice in vogue, the Competent Authority Land Acquisition has passed the award taking into consideration the total notified extent. While categorizing the land such as dry land, wet land, land abutting NH, land fit for house sites etc., the rates of relevant categories need to be applied and not to the basic value of individual registered survey numbers.

Further, the learned Arbitrator ought to have observed that, because of 5 the land belongs to Chadalawada Village is adjacent to National

Highway-216, the CALA and Additional Joint Collector, has fixed the highest amount for compensation @ Rs.7,00,000/- per acre in both the awards. Further, Competent Authority Land Acquisition has rightly fixed the compensation amount, multiplication factor and 100% solatium and 12% additional market value after taken into consideration of all the points. It is further contended that, the land has been recorded as agricultural land in the CALA awards and the

CALA has not recorded anything about the purported land conversion.

As per the instructions of MORTH, utility of the land as on the date of notification need to be taken into consideration. In this case, the land put to use for agriculture purpose only as on the date of 3A notification and as such, treating the land under non-agriculture category is contrary to rules. It is further contended that, the learned Arbitrator enhanced the compensation amount without there being any basis and justification. Further, the reasons assigned in the Arbitration award are not true and correct. Hence, this petition is filed to set-aside the impugned award passed by learned Arbitrator/District Collector,

Prakasam District, Dt.30.04.2021.

5.Learned counsel for 1st Respondent and Government Pleader for

Respondents 2 and 3 submitted their arguments that, the impugned 6 award passed by learned Arbitrator/District Collector, Prakasam at

Ongole, is in right perspective and there are no valid and tenable grounds to interfere with the findings recorded by learned

Arbitrator/Collector, thereby the petition is liable to be dismissed with costs.

6.Heard both counsels and perused the written arguments submitted on behalf of Petitioner.

7.Now, the point for determination is:-

Whether there are any valid and tenable grounds to interfere with the findings recorded in the impugned Award passed by the learned

Arbitrator/District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole?

Point:-

8.Having regard to the submissions of both counsels on record and on going through the recitals of record, the substantial factor before this Court is, whether the learned Arbitrator/District Collector,

Prakasam at Ongole, has substantial grounds to enhance the compensation for acquisition of land of 1st Respondent from

Rs.7,00,000/- to Rs.24,20,000/- or not?

9.On going through the recitals of record, it transpires that, after passing of two awards passed by Competent Authority Land 7

Acquisition/ Joint Collector, Prakasam, 1st Respondent chose to prefer case before learned Arbitrator/District Collector, Prakasam at Ongole, in turn, learned Arbitrator/District Collector addressed a letter to The

Sub-Registrar, Ammanabrolu, Prakasam District, Ongole, in

Rc.LA/G1/NH-2016/3968/2014, Dt.10.07.2019, that the land in survey

Nos.358/2 of Chadalawada Village of NG Padu Mandal has been acquired for formation of National Highway-216 under notification U/Sec.3A published on 24.07.2015 for payment of compensation to the land owners, the market value of the lands have to be fixed basing on the basic value of the land as on the date of 3A notification i.e., 24.07.2015 and registration statistics for three years period prior to the notification and as per the registration statistics obtained from the office of Sub-Registrar,

Ammanabrolu, the basic value of dry lands and wet lands per acre is

Rs.5,00,000/-, lands abutting to NH, SH is Rs.7,00,000/- and agricultural lands fit for house site is Rs.24,20,000/- per acre as on 24.07.2015 and accordingly award passed fixing the market value of the lands including the land in survey Nos.358/2 at Rs.7,00,000/- per acre and compensation paid and subsequently, the land owners in survey Nos.358/2 filed application

before the District Collector, stating that the basic value of their lands in

8 the said survey number is Rs.29,04,000/- per acre and requested to pay compensation accordingly. Further, they have also produced a certificate obtained from the office of Sub-Registrar, Ammanabrolu, on 08.08.2018 showing that the market value of the land in survey No.358/2 is

Rs.29,04,000/-. Hence, requested the Sub-Registrar, Ammanabrolu, to submit the details of market value of the lands in survey Nos.358/2, 359, 371, 372, 373, 331, 343, 344 of Chadalawada Village as on 24.07.2015 and on what grounds market value of the land in survey No.358/2 is fixed at

Rs.24,20,000/- per acre.

10.In obedience to the above said letter, Joint Sub-Registrar-168,

Ammanabrolu, Prakasam District submitted letter to the learned

Collector and District Magistrate, in letter No.Nil/2019, Dt.17.07.2019, disclosing survey numbers and its market value in the form of table as referred infra:-

Sl.NSurveyValue of landValue of landValue of landValue of land o.No.per acre asper acre as onper acre as onper acre as on on01.08.201301.08.201501.08.2017 01.08.2010

1.358/2Rs.5,00,000/Rs.24,20,000/-Rs.24,20,000/Rs.29,04,000/- --

2.359Rs.75,000/-Rs.3,00,000/-Rs.5,00,000/- Rs.8,00,000/- 9

3.371Rs.75,000/-Rs.3,00,000/-Rs.5,00,000/- Rs.6,00,000/-

4.372Rs.75,000/-Rs.24,00,000/-Rs.24,20,000/- Rs.29,04,000/-

5.373Rs.75,000/-Rs.3,00,000/-Rs.5,00,000/- Rs.8,00,000/-

6.331Rs.75,000/-Rs.3,00,000/-Rs.5,00,000/- Rs.8,00,000/-

7.343Rs.5,00,000/Rs.6,00,000/-Rs.5,00,000/- Rs.8,00,000/- -

8.344Rs.75,000/-Rs.6,00,000/-Rs.7,00,000/- Rs.8,00,000/-

Note:- Market value of land per acre in survey Nos.344/1, 344/2, 344/3 is Rs.2,42,000/- as on 24.07.2017 and now it is Rs.29,04,000/-

11.Likewise, learned Arbitrator/The Collector & District Magistrate,

Prakasam District, Ongole, addressed a letter to Revenue Divisional

Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District, in Rc.LA/G1/NH-216/3968/2014,

Dt.20.08.2019 that, an extent of Ac.1.48 cents in Sy.Nos.358/2 of

Chadalawada village has been acquired for formation of NH-216 as per the notification published U/Sec.3A(1) of NH-Act, 1956. As per the report received from the Joint Sub-Registrar, Ammanabrolu in the reference cited, the basic value of the lands in Survey Nos.358/2, 372, 343/2 and 344/1,3,4 of Chadalawada Village is Rs.29,04,000/- per acre with effect from 01.08.2017. Hence, he request the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, to inspect the land in Sy.No.358/2 of Chadalavada Village and report on 10 what basis, basic value is assigned on higher side when compared with other similar survey numbers located near the NH road assignment. What are the special features that are prevailing in Sy.No.358/2 for higher market value fixed by the Stamps & Registration Department.

12.In response, Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, addressed a letter to the Collector & District Magistrate, Prakasam District, Ongole, in Lr.Rc.G/4181/2018, Dt.30.08.2019, wherein he submitted that that, he has inspected the land of Ac.1.48 cents in Sy.No.358/2 of Chadalawada

Village of NG Padu Mandal along with the Tahsildar, NG Padu, Mandal

Surveyor, Mandal Revenue Inspector and VRO, Chadalawada and their inspection reveals that the total extent of land in Sy.No.358 of

Chadalawada village is Ac.13.23 cents as per RSR of Chadalawada Village.

This land of Ac.13.23 cents was purchased by the following individuals as noted against their names.

Sl.Name of the individualSy.Extent of landRegd.Doc.No. And Date No.No.purchased

1.Smt.Kandi Priyadarsini358Ac.5.00 cents No.229of2007, Dt.26.06.2007 of Sub- Registar, Ammanabrolu

2.Sri Kandi Ravi Sankar358Ac.8.23 centsNo.228of2007, Dt.26.06.2007 of Sub- 11

Registar, Ammanabrolu

TotalAc.13.23 cents Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, has further submitted that the entire land of Ac.13.23 cents in Sy.No.358 of Chadalawava was converted from Agricultural into Non-Agricultural purpose by the competent authority i.e., Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole,as follows:-

Sl.Conversion made inSy.Extent of landProcds.No. And date of No.favour of No.convertedthe competent authority i.e., RDO, Ongole

1.SriKandiRavi358 Ac.8.23 cents D.Dis.No.D/2258/2011, SankarDt.29.07.2011

2.SriKandi358 Ac.5.00 centsD.Dis.No.D/2155/2011, PriyadarsiniDt.29.07.2011

TotalAc.13.23 cents The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, further submitted that after conversion of the above land of Ac.13.23 cents of Chadalawada village from agricultural to Non-Agricultural purpose, it was sub-divided as follows during Land Acquisition process to assign an extent of Ac.1.47 cents in survey No.358/2 of Chadalawada Vilage:-

Sy. No.Extent in Ac.

358/111.60 358/21.47 358/30.16

Total13.23 12

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, has further submitted that the land in survey No.358/2 of Chadalawada Village is abutting to NH-216 road in the village limits of Chadalawada and that the individuals whose lands were converted into Non-Agricultural purpose have made certain land as House site plots in their converted lands for Non-Agricultural plurpose and sold away in square yard basis. Hence, the basic value enhanced in respect of Sy.No.358/2 of Chadalawada Village considering the value fo the land into square yards basis.

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, submitted that the Basic

Value of the land in Chadalawada Village for Sy.No.358/2 as on 01.08.2010, 01.08.2013, 01.08.2015 and 01.08.2017 as furnished by the Joint Registrar- 168, Ammanabrolu is shown below:-

Sl.NSurveyValue of landValue of landValue of landValue of land per o.No.per acre as onper acre as onper acre as onacreason 01.08.201001.08.201301.08.201501.08.2017

1.358/2Rs.5,00,000/-Rs.24,20,000/- Rs.24,20,000/- Rs.29,04,000/-

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, has further submitted that the above said land was converted from agricultural into non-agricultural purpose on 29.07.2011 as shown in Table No.1 and the Basic Value is 13

Rs.5,00,000/- as on the date of conversion i.e., 29.07.2011. After conversion of the above said land, the individuals whose lands were converted have made house site plots in their certain land in Sy.No.358/2 of Chadalawada Village and sold away to certain individuals in square yard basis. Hence, the basic value of the land enhanced by Registration

Department taking the value of the land in square yard basis and fixed the

Basic Value of the land in Sy.No.358/2 as on 01.08.2013 is Rs.24,20,000/- per acre and the basic value is also Rs.24,20,000/- per acre as on 01.08.2015 and after revision the basic value in Sy.No.358/2 is

Rs.29,04,000/- per acre as on 01.08.2017. More over the land in

Sy.No.358/2 is within the village limits of Chadalawada.

13.Likewise, in response to the letter of learned Collector & District

Magistrate, Prakasam District, Ongole, the District Registrar, Ongole,

also addressed a letter to The Collector & District Magistrate, Ongole, letter No.MV/1477/2019, Dt.30.08.2019 and submitted that, Market value in respect of rural areas are revised by the committee constituted under Rule.4(2)(c) of AP Revision of Market Value Guidelines Rules, 1998 as per G.O.Ms.No.301, Revenue (Registration-I), Dt.04.05.1998. The 14

Committee so constituted for this Market Value Revision in Rural Areas consists of Revenue Divisional Officer as Chariman, Tahsildar and MPDO concerned and District Registrar/Sub Registrar (Market Value & Audit) concerned as Members and Sub-Registrar concerned as Convenor. Further, certain guidelines have been issued by the government from time to time to revise the existing Market Values. The growth areas/developmental activities, new coming areas of industries, projects and real estate activities shall be taken into consideration for revising the existing Market

Values. The market values are also revised basing on the distance of the property from the main roads, utility of the lands and potentiality of the lands for development shall also be taken into consideration. Besides the above registration statistics are also criteria for revision of Market Values.

Further, in respect of the S.No.358 of Chadalawada Village a value of

Rs.29,04,000/-per acre was fixed under classification of agriculture land fit for house site with effect from 01.08.2017 (Market Value Revision 2017). The survey numbers 358/2, 372, 343/2, 344/1, 344/3 & 344/4 of

Chadalawada Village are abutting to State Highway of Ongole to Digamarru.

The said survey numbers are located near to Chadalawada Village proper.

As per the registration statistics several documents were registered in the 15 above survey numbers as house sites/square yard basis. It also submitted that since 2013 the survey numbers are found to be included in the list of the properties meant for agriculture land fit for house sites. Therefore, it is submitted that the Market Value revision committee have taken the above factors of abutting the survey numbers to the State Highway, their nearness to Village and registration particulars into consideration and fixed a value of Rs.29,04,000/- per Acre to the S.No.358/2, 372, 343/2, 344/3 & 344/4 of Chadalawada Village.

14.In such backdrop, all the factual aspects referred supra, clearly denotes that, learned Arbitrator/District Collector, Prakasam at Ongole, had taken up certain diligent exercise to enahnce the compensation amount from Rs.7,00,000/- to Rs.24,20,000/- by extracting information from Sub-Registrar, Ammanabrolu, District Registrar, Ongole, in regard to existence of value of the concerned land situated in survey No.358/2 of Chadalawada Village, NG Padu Mandal and also directing the

Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, to visit the concerned land to ascertain the information submitted by Sub-Registrar, Ammanabrolu and District Registrar, Ongole, in turn, Revenue Divisional Officer,

Ongole, along with Tahsildar, NG Padu Mandal, Mandal Revenue

Inspector, Mandal Surveyor and VRO inspected the said land and gave 16 report in consonance with the recitals of information submitted by Sub-

Registrar, Ammanabrolu and District Registrar, Ongole. Further, the information provided by concerned officers clearly denotes that, the land in question is converted from agricultural to non-agricultural land and the same was divided into house plots and also sold away the same on square meters basis to individuals and the said land is within the limits of Chadalawada Village limits. Thus, the contention put forth by learned counsel for Petitioner that, the learned Arbitrator failed to enquire with regard to the particulars of land and abruptly enchanced compensation from Rs.7,00,000/- to Rs.24,20,000/- per acre is not at all sustainable in the eye of law. On the other hand, there is ample evidence available on record through the report of Revenue Divisional

Officer, Ongole, manifesting that the land in question is converted from agricultural to non-agricultal, divided the same into house plots and sold away to other individuals. In such circumstances, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for Petitioner in WP

No.38881/2014, Dt.14.07.2023 on the file of Hon’ble High Court of

Andhra Pradesh, to direct the District Collector & Arbitrator to conduct a de novo enquiry, is not at all applicable to the facts of the case on hand as the learned Arbitrator and Collector & District Magistrate followed due procedure as contemplated under law before passing award and gave reasoned order on evaluation of information submitted to him 17 from concerned revenue authorities. In such circumstances, with great respect it can be said that the decision rendered by learned counsel for

Petitioner is not applicable to the case on hand.

15.Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted arguments that, as per provisions under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, if any one of party aggrieved with the findings recorded in the impugned award passed by Competent Authority Land Acquisition, has to prefer that case within 30 days of that award, but therein, the 1st Respondent chose to refer the matter to learned Arbitrator/Collector & District Magistrate belatedly, thereby the award passed by learned Arbitrator is not valid in the eye of law. In fact, on going through the recitals of impugned award passed by learned Arbitrator, there is no recital manifesting that, the

Petitioner has taken such plea before learned Arbitrator, hence, the

Petitioner cannot be permitted to take such plea before Court of law as per his convenience.

16.Another contention of learned counsel for Petitioner is that, there is no development of layouts physically as per the norms, specifications and standards of DTCP, except got approval of conversion order there is no development of land such as black top roads, electrical lines, drainage system, drinking water connections etc., Further, as per the clause (7) of AP Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and 18

Building) Rules, 2002, the permission for layout shall remain valid for two years during which time the layout works shall be completed, but it is not completed and the permission for layout shall be revalidated on application subject to the rules in force and payment of 10% of the fees and charges. Further, as per Rule.8(1) every year in the Fasli year, the

District Collector or any Officer designated for this purpose, shall verify the Non-Agricultural Lands in the Village Record and certificate in all cases where the lands that have been converted for Non-Agricultural purpose are being used for the intended purpose and records have been changed to Non-Agricultural purpose in respect of extent converted.

17.In fact, all the factual aspects pointed by learned counsel for

Petitioner is technical aspects and trivial in nature because the substantiave factor before this Court is, whether the land in question is converted into from Agricultural to Non-Agricultural land and whether there is sanctity to the rate fixed in award for acquisition of land in survey No.358/2 of Chadalawada village by the learned

Arbitrator/Collector & District Magistrate, Prakasam at Ongole and those factual aspects could substantially proved by the 1st Respondent in all material aspects.

18.In view of aforementioned discussion, this Court is of the considered view that, there are no valid and tenable grounds to interfere 19 with the findings recorded in the impunged award, Dt.30.04.2021 passed by learned Arbitrator/Colector & District Magistrate, Prakasam at Ongole, consequently, the petition is liable to be dismissed. This point is answered accordingly.

19.In the result, this petition is dismissed by confirming the impugned award in Rc.G1/NH-216/3968/2014, Dt.30.04.2021 passed by learned Arbitrator/Collector & District Magistrate, Prakasam at

Ongole.

Typed to my dictation by my Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 24 th Day of November,

2025.

Sd/-A.Bharathi

Principal District Judge,

Prakasam at Ongole

Appendix of Evidence

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side

Sd/-AB

PDJ, Ongole 20 //True Copy//

Principal District Judge,

Prakasam at Ongole

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

PRAKASAM AT ONGOLE

PRESENT: Smt. A.Bharathi,

Principal District Judge, Ongole.

Monday, on this the Twenty Fourth (24th) Day of November, 2025

LAOP.No.05/2021

Between:

Ministry of Road Transport and Highway, Rep. By its Regional Officer, Vijayawada…. Petitioner

AND

1.Kandi Ravi Sankar, S/o. Mohana Rao, age: 58 years, R/o. Chadalawada Village, NG Padu Mandal, Praksam District-523183.

2.The Arbitrator and The Collector, Prakasam at Ongole

3.Competent Authority for LA NH-216 & Addl. Joint Collector, Prakasam District. …. Respondents

This petition is filed U/Sec.34 of Arbitrator and Conciliation Act, 1996 by petitioner, seeking to set-aside the impugned Award,

Dt.30.04.2021 passed in Rc.G1/NH-216/3968/2014 by the learned

Arbitrator and District Collector, Prakasam District and confirm the award passed by the Competent Authority Land Acquisition.

Petition presented on: 13.09.2021

Petition filed on : 18.09.2021

Valuation and Court Fee:- The difference of the amount payable to 1st

Respondent is Rs.66,84,588/- (Rs.57,18,450/- + Rs.9,66,138/-) on which a court fee of Rs.1,000/- is payable U/Sch.II Art.11(m)(c) of APCF & SV Act, but paid Rs.1500/- by depositing cash in SBI, DCC Branch,

Ongole.

Cause of action and jurisdiction:- Cause of action for filing this petition arose on 30.04.2021 when the Arbitrator and Collector,

Prakasam, Ongole, passed impugned Arbitration Award Nos.Rc.G1/NH- 2016/3968/2014, Dt.30.04.2021 and when the said award copy was served to the Petitioner/MORTH Department, Dt.21.06.2021 and when the award passed within the jurisdiction of this Court.

This petition is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.Srinivasa Raju, Counsel for Petitioner; Sri PL

Govindaiah, Counsel for 1st Respondent; and learned Government

Pleader for Respondents 2 and 3, on hearing both the counsels, upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE:- (1)that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed by confirming the impugned award in Rc.G1/NH-216/3968/2014,

Dt.30.04.2021 passed by learned Arbitrator/Collector & District

Magistrate, Prakasam at Ongole;

(2)that there be no order as to costs (No CM and FC filed on either side) (No schedule filed along with the petition)

Given under my hand and seal of this Court, this the 24 th Day of November, 2025.

Sd/-A.Bharathi

Principal District Judge,

Prakasam at Ongole

1

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL :CUM: PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, PRAKASAM AT ONGOLE

PRESENT:- Smt.A. BHARATHI, CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL:CUM:

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ONGOLE

Wednesday, on this the 25th Day of January, 2023

MVOP NO.273/2019

Between:

Kummitha Jahnavi, D/o. China Subba Reddy, age: 07 years, being minor, rep. by father China Subba Reddy, age: 30 years, R/o. Bakkireddypalem Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District. ----Petitioner

And

1.Yeddu Nanda @ Venkata Nanda, age: 14 years, R/o. Ayyaparaju Palem Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, being minor, Rep. by Guardian father Yeddu Sreenivasulu

2.Pamula Venkata Ramanaiah, S/o. Raghavulu, age: 42 years, working as RTC Driver, R/o. Ayyaparaju Palem Village, Chimakurthy Mandal---Respondents

This petition is coming before me for fnal hearing in the presence of Sri G.Nagireddy, Counsel for petitioner and of Sri

E.V.Bhaskara Rao, Counsel for Respondent No.1 and Sri C.V.Rami

Reddy, Counsel for Respondent No.2, and the same is having stood over to this day for consideration and this court upon hearing and perusing the entire material on record, this Tribunal delivered the following:

O R D E R

This Petition is fled U/Sec.166(1)(A) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 claiming of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation along with costs and interest @ 12% p.a., on account of injuries sustained by

Petitioner/Kummitha Jahnavi in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 25.08.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle bearing No.AP 02M 6749 by 1st Respondent No.1 viz., Yeddu Nanda,

S/o. Sreenivasulu.

2

2. Brief averments of the Petition are that:-

On 25.08.2017 at about 02.00 p.m., while minor daughter of petitioner viz., Kummitha Jahnavi went to the shop of

Koteswaramma to purchase chocolates, in the meantime, one motorcycle bearing No.AP 02M 6749 drove at high speed in rash and negligent manner, hit the minor girl, due to which, minor girl sustained injuries all over her body and fell unconscious.

Immediately the injured was shifted to RIMS Hospital, Ongole, for frst aid. Basing on the statement of petitioner recorded by Outpost

Police, RIMS Hospital, Ongole, on 02.09.2017 at about 11.00 hours

Police, Chimakurthy Police registered the case in Cr.No.113/2017 U/

S.337 of IPC against Respondent No.1 herein and investigated into.

3.At the time of accident, daughter of petitioner was aged about 07 years, hale and healthy and studying 03rd class. Due to the accident, she has sustained injuries on head, right eye brow, right shoulder, left wrist and after getting frst aid at RIMS Hospital,

Ongole, injured girl was shifted to Prakasam Super Specialty

Hospital, Ongole, underwent surgery, steel rods were inserted and the petitioner spent an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards treatment and medical expenditure. Due to severe nature of injuries, injured girl has sufered much physical pain, lost her academic year and still she is sufering pain and parents of the injured girl sufered much hardship, mental agony apart from monetary loss. It is further contended that Respondent No.1 is rider and Respondent

No.2 is owner of the crime vehicle. Since the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of motorcycle bearing

No.AP 02M 6740, the petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- 3 towards compensation under all heads along with costs and interest @ 12% p.a., against Respondent Nos.1 and 2 from the date of fling petition till the date of realization.

4.Respondent No.1/Rider of motorcycle bearing No.AP 02M 6749 fled counter, denying the allegations made in the petition in regard to the date, time, place, mode and manner of accident and the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. It is further contended that, this Respondent did not ride the motorcycle at any point of time as alleged in the petition and he was falsely implicated in this case due to political rivalry in their area. There is no cause of action for fling this petition. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.

5.Respondent No.2 who is alleged to be Regd.Owner of motorcycle bearing No.AP 02M 6749 fled counter, denying the material allegations in regard to involvement of crime vehicle in the alleged accident and the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. It is specifcally contended that, the alleged accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Respondent No.1 only and this petition is bad for non-joinder of Regd.Owner and insurer of motorcycle. It is further contended that, this Respondent is no way concerned with the crime vehicle and he has no joint liability to pay compensation to the petitioner along with Respondent No.1. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.

6.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:-

i)Whether the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of motorcycle bearing No.AP 27 02M 6749 by Respondent No.1?

4 ii)Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom?

Iii)To what relief?

7.During course of trial, petitioner (Kummitha China Subba

Reddy) got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to

A14 in support of their contention. Ex.A1/AC of FIR in

Cr.No.113/2017 of Chimakurthy PS., Ex.A2/AC of Charge Sheet;

Ex.A3/AC of Wound Certifcate of injured girl Jahnavi issued by

Prakasam Hospital, Ongole; Ex.A4/X-ray frm (marked subject to fling of Radiologist Report); Ex.A5/Critical Care Flow Charts –h two in number; Ex.A6/ECG and Brain Map Analysis, Dt.25.08.2017;

Ex.A7/ECG and Brain Map Analysis, Dt.28.08.2017; Ex.A8/Discharge

Summary,Dt.13.09.2017;Ex.A9/EmergencyCertifcate,

Dt.13.09.2017; Ex.A10/IP Final Bill for Rs.53,700/- for the period from 25.08.2017 to 30.09.2017; Ex.A11/IP Final Bill for Rs.15,000/- from 08.09.2017 to 13.09.2017; Ex.A12/Essential Certifcate for

Rs.81,553/- Dt.25.08.2017 to 03.09.2017; Ex.A13/Essential

Certifcate for Rs.25,047/- Dt.08.09.2017 to 13.09.2017; and

Ex.A14/CT Brain (Plain Study) Report, Dt.28.08.2017. Respondent

No.2 was examined as RW.1 but no documentary evidence is adduced on his behalf.

8.Heard both counsels and perused the evidence on record.

9.ISSUE No.1:

(a).In order to prove the mode and manner of accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of motorcycle bearing No. AP 02M 6749 by Respondent No.1, petitioner got examined himself as 5

PW.1 and asserted on oath in regard to the date, time, place, mode and manner of accident as mentioned in the claim petition. In support of said contention, PW.1 placed reliance upon documentary evidence i.e., Ex.A1/AC of FIR in Cr.No.113/2017 of Chimakurthy

PS., Ex.A2/AC of Charge Sheet; Ex.A3/Wound certifcate of injured girl issued by Prakasam Hospital, Ongole. In cross-examination

PW.1 admitted that he is not eye witness to the accident.

(b). As can be seen from Ex.A1/FIR along with statement of PW.1, it is evident that on 02.09.2017 at about 11.00 a.m., the Police,

Chimakurthy registered the case in Cr.No.113/2017 against

Respondent No.1/rider of Motorcycle bearing No.AP 07M 6749.

Further the recitals of Ex.A3/wound certifcate issued by Prakasam

Hospital, Ongole, it is evident that injured viz., Kummitha Jahnavi has sustained injuries due to the negligent driving of motorcycle bearing No.AP 02M 6749. As per recitals of Ex.A2/Charge Sheet fled before II-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-

Juvenile Justice Board, Ongole, clearly discloses that on 25.08.2017 at about 02.00 p.m., Respondent No.1/Yeddu Nanda, S/o.

Sreenivasulu of Ayyapureddypalem, aged about 14 years, was held responsible for causing grievous injuries to the minor girl viz.,

Jahnavi near Puli Koteswaramma Shop in Bakkireddypalem Village as he drove the motorcycle bearing No.AP 02M 6749 in a rash and negligent manner. In the absence of rebuttal evidence from the

Respondents side, this Tribunal holds that on 25.08.2017 at about 02.00 p.m., minor girl Jahnavi met with accident and sustained injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of motorcycle bearing

No.AP 02M 6749 driven by Respondent No.1 herein. This issue is decided accordingly in favour of the Petitioner.

6

10.ISSUE No. 2:

(a).Another contention of Petitioner is that, injured girl was aged about 07 years, hale and healthy and was studying 3rd class at the time of accident and due to the accident, she sufered grievous nature of injuries on the forehead above right eye, right shoulder, left wrist, she took frst aid at RIMS Hospital, Ongole, and thereafter she was admitted to Prakasam Super Specialty Hospital, Ongole, for better treatment, wherein underwent surgery and they spent an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards treatment and medicines and his minor daughter is not completely recovered. To substantiate the said contention, PW.1 placed reliance on Ex.A3/Wound Certifcate issued by Prakasam Super Specialty Hospital, Ongole; Exs.A4 to A7 and A14/Investigation Reports; Ex.A8/Discharge Summary;

Ex.A9/Emergency Certifcate; Exs.A10 and A11/In Patient Final Bills for Rs.68,700/- from 25.08.2017 to 13.09.2017 issued by Prakasam

Super Specialty Hospital, Ongole, As seen from Ex.A3/Wound

Certifcate issued by Prakasam Super Specialty Hospital, Ongole, it appears that the minor girl sustained laceration over right parietal, frontal region, injuries on the right side of forehead, scalp and CT

Brain Scan Report shows shaft tissue swelling along with right tempero parietal bones with perspected edema of right eye and both injuries are grievous in nature. As seen from Ex.A8/Discharge

Summary, Ex.A9/Emergency Certifcate, Exs.A10 and A11/Final Bills issued by Prakasam Super Specialty Hospital, Ongole, it appears that the minor girl was treated as in patient from 08.09.2013 to 13.09.2013 in the said hospital and spent an amount of Rs.68,700/-.

However, petitioner failed to examine the concerned doctors to prove the nature of treatment given to the minor girl. In such circumstances, on evaluating oral and documentary evidence available on record, this Tribunal deems just and reasonable to 7 award an amount of Rs.,30,000/- towards injuries (Rs.15,000x2).

The petitioner is further awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards shock, pain and sufering, Rs.68,700/- towards treatment and medicines at Prakasam Super Specialty Hospital, Ongole,

Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.5000/- towards transportation and Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges. Thus, in all the minor injured girl is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,38,700/- which can be rounded up to Rs.1,39,000/- towards compensation under all heads.

(b). The contention of learned counsel for Respondent No.2 is that, admittedly the petitioner has failed to prove that the crime vehicle i.e., motorcycle bearing No.AP 02M 6749 belongs to

Respondent No.2 viz., Pamula Venkata Ramanaiah who is an RTC

Driver and he had no knowledge in regard to the alleged accident and he is no way concerned with the crime vehicle and not related to Respondent No.1, hence Respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. In that connection, Respondent

No.2 (Pamula Venkata Ramanaiah, S/o. Raghavulu, R/o.

Ayyaparajupalem Village) fled his chief-examination afdavit as

RW.1, contending that he is not the owner of motorcycle bearing

No.AP 02M 6749 which was involved in the accident occurred on 25.08.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of Respondent

No.1/Minor Boy viz., Yeddu Nanda, S/o. Sreenivasulu. RW.1 further testifed that, he has no knowledge in regard to the alleged accident and his name was falsely implicated in this case though he is no way concerned with the alleged accident and Respondent No.1 is neither his relative nor any connection with him. As seen from cross-examination of PW.1, he clearly admitted that he has not 8 submitted any documentary proof to show that Respondent No.2 is

Regd.Owner of the crime vehicle i.e., motorcycle bearing No.AP 02M 6749. Further, Ex.A2/Charge Sheet fled by Sub-Inspectr of Police,

Chimakurthy PS., Dt.22.02.2018 on the fle of II-Additional JMFC- cum- Juvenile Justice Board, Ongole, also does not disclose the name and particulars of Regd.Owner of crime vehicle except mentioning that separate charge sheet is to be fled against the owner of the crime vehicle, not even mentioning the name and address of the Regd.Owner. In the absence of name and details of

Regd. Owner of the crime vehicle from the petitioner’s side, this

Tribunal is of the considered opinion that Respondent No.2 cannot be held liable for payment of aforementioned compensation to the petitioner. Hence, petition against Respondent No.2 is dismissed.

In view of fndings recorded in issue No.1, it is proved that

Respondent No.1 minor boy viz., Yeddu Nanda held responsible for the injuries caused to the minor girl viz., Kummitha Jahanvi, daughter of petitioner, therefore petitioner is at liberty to proceed against Yeddu Srinivasulu, who is father of Yeddu Nanda/Juvenile

Conflict with law by way of fling Execution Petition for realization of award amount. This issue is answered accordingly.

11. ISSUE No.3:

In the result, this petition is partly allowed, directing Yeddu

Sreenivasulu, father of Respondent No.1 to satisfy compensation amount of Rs.1,39,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Thirty Nine

Thbousand Only) awarded to Kummitha Jahnavi, minor daughter of petitioner along with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of fling petition till the date of realization. The entire amount shall be deposited in the Court within thirty days 9 from the date of this order. On such deposit, the petitioner is at liberty to withdraw the same. Rest of the claim of the petitioner is dismissed. Petition is dismissed against Respondent No.2. Advocate fee is fxed at Rs.5,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 25 th Day of January,

2023.

Sd/-A.Bharathi

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal.District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS: PW.1 : Kummitha China Subba ReddyRW.1: Pamula Venkata Ramanaiah

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PETITIONER: Ex.A1 :AC of FIR in Cr.No.113/2017 of Chimakurthy PS., Ex.A2 :AC of Charge Sheet Ex.A3 :AC of Wound Certifcate of Jahnavi issued by Prakasam Hospital, Ongole Ex.A4 :X-ray frm (marked subject to fling of Radiologist Report) Ex.A5 :Critical Care Flow Charts –h two in number Ex.A6:ECG and Brain Map Analysis, Dt.25.08.2017 Ex.A7 :ECG and Brain Map Analysis, Dt.28.08.2017 Ex.A8 : Discharge Summary, Dt.13.09.2017 Ex.A9 : Emergency Certifcate, Dt.13.09.2017 Ex.A10:IP Final Bill for Rs.53,700/- for the period from 25.08.2017 to 30.09.2017 Ex.A11: IP Final Bill for Rs.15,000/- from 08.09.2017 to 13.09.2017 Ex.A12: Essential Certifcate for Rs.81,553/-Dt.25.08.2017 to 03.09.2017 Ex.A13: Essential Certifcate for Rs.25,047/- Dt.08.09.2017 to 13.09.2017 Ex.A14: CT Brain (Plain Study) Report, Dt.28.08.2017.

RESPONDENTS: Nil

Sd/-ABH

PDJ, Ongole

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL :CUM: PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, PRAKASAM AT ONGOLE

PRESENT:- Smt.A. BHARATHI, CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL:CUM:

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ONGOLE

Wednesday, on this the 25th Day of January, 2023

MVOP NO.273/2019

Between:

Kummitha Jahnavi, D/o. China Subba Reddy, age: 07 years, being minor, rep. by father China Subba Reddy, age: 30 years, R/o. Bakkireddypalem Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District. ----Petitioner

And

1.Yeddu Nanda @ Venkata Nanda, age: 14 years, R/o. Ayyaparaju Palem Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, being minor, Rep. by Guardian father Yeddu Sreenivasulu

2.Pamula Venkata Ramanaiah, S/o. Raghavulu, age: 42 years, working as RTC Driver, R/o. Ayyaparaju Palem Village, Chimakurthy Mandal---Respondents

This Petition is fled U/Sec.166(1)(A) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 claiming of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation along with costs and interest @ 12% p.a., on account of injuries sustained by Petitioner/Kummitha Jahnavi in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 25.08.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle bearing No.AP 02M 6749 by 1st Respondent No.1 viz., Yeddu Nanda, S/o. Sreenivasulu.

Petition presented on : 24.10.2019 Petition fled on : 06.11.2019

Court Fee:- The total claim amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on which a court fee of Rs.2,360/- is paid under Order-475 of MV Rules.

This petition is coming before me for fnal hearing in the presence of Sri G.Nagireddy, Counsel for petitioner and of Sri E.V.Bhaskara Rao, Counsel for Respondent No.1 and Sri C.V.Rami Reddy, Counsel for Respondent No.2, and the same is having stood over to this day for consideration and this court upon hearing and perusing the entire material on record, this Tribunal Doth order in partly allowing this petition and decree:- (1)that one Yeddu Srinivasulu, father of Respondent No.1 herein do pay an amount of Rs.1,39,000/- awarded to Kummitha Jahnavi, minor daughter of petitioner along with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% p.a., from the date of fling petition, till the date of realization and the said amount shall be deposited in Court within thirty days from the date of this order.

(2)that on such deposit, petitioner herein is at liberty to withdraw the same (3)that rest of the claim of the petitioner is hereby dismissed; (4)that petition is dismissed against Respondent No.2 (5)that Yeddu Srinivasulu, father of Respondent No.1 do also pay to the petitioner herein a sum of Rs.6,102/-towards costs of the petition, bearing their own costs of Rs.Nil (No CM and FC fled) towards costs of this petition. Costs of petitioner : Rs.6,102/- (CM and FC fled) Costs of Respondents: Rs.Nil/- (No CM and FC fled) (6)that advocate fee is hereby fxed at Rs.5,000/-

Given under my hand and seal of this Court, this the 25 th Day of January, 2023.

Sd/-A.Bharathi

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal.District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole

TABLE OF COSTS

For petitioner For respondents

Stamp on Vakalat Rs.2.00-No CM and FC fled- Stamp on petition Rs.750.00 Stamp on process Rs.150.00 Advocate fee Rs.5000.00 Typing chargesRs.200.00 Total Rs.6,102.00

Sd/-ABH

Chairman MACT-Cum-PDJ, Ongole

1 APPR000046572025

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, PRAKASAM AT

ONGOLE

PRESENT:- Smt A.Bharathi,

Principal District Judge, Ongole

Thursday, on this the Twentieth (20th) Day of November, 2025

D.O.P.No. 82 /2025

Between:

Patra @ Kavuri Sushma Mounika, W/o. Patra Suresh, D/o. Kavuri Mohan Rao, age: 28 years, Christian, R/o. D.No.43-13-13A, East Chritian Palem, Ongole, Prakasam District, presently residing at

her prents house in Vital Nagar, Chirala, ... Petitioner

Bapatla District

And

Patra Suresh, S/o. Late Suseela Rao, age: 36 years, Christian, R/o. D.No.43-13-13A, 2nd Line, Thurpu Christian Palem, Ongole, Prakasam District. …Respondent.

This petition is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Y.Sunil Kumar,Counsel for Petitioner and of Sri G.Praveen Kumar, Counsel for Respondent, on hearing both counsels, upon consideration of Mediation Report, Dt.17.11.2025, this Court passed the following:-

ORDER

This petition is filed U/Sec.10 (1)(vii) of Indian Divorce Act, 1869 by the Petitioner/wife, seeking dissolution of marriage held on 16.02.2017 2 with Respondent/husband by passing decree of divorce on the ground of non-consummation of marriage.

2. Brief averments of the petition are that, both the Petitioner and

Respondent are Christians and their marriage was solemnized on 16.02.2017 at the house of Petitioner in Vital Nagar, Chirala, as per

Christian rites and their caste customs before elders, relatives and both the family members and immediately after the said marriage, the

Petitioner joined the company of Respondent with a view to lead marital life, but the same was not consummated as Respondent expressed that he is not interested due to health issues, thereby failed to comply his marital obligations and the marital relationship of Petitioner and

Respondent was very unhappy and they were unable to live together and at last, the Petitioner could realize that it is not at all possible for her to live with the Respondent. For the above said reasons and due to some other reasons which are purely personal, the marital tie between the Petitioner and Respondent was irretrievably broken down and for the last eight years and two months they are living separately in spite of best efforts, they did not reconcile their differences and were not able to live together. Hence, the Petitioner is constrained to file this petition, seeking for dissolution of marriage which took place with the

Respondent on the ground of non-consummation of marriage.

3

3. Petitioner further undertakes that, there is no collusion with the

Respondent in filing this petition and there are no similar proceedings pending before any other court of law.

4.Immediately after receipt of notice, Respondent appeared before this Court, Sri GPK, Advocate filed Vakalat on behalf of Respondent and in turn, both parties filed memo before this Court with a request to refer this matter for Mediation Centre, DLSA, Ongole, enabling both the parties to settle their marital dispute amicably and accordingly both parties are directed to appear before Mediation Centre, Ongole, wherein their marital issue was settled amicably as per the terms and conditions of Mediation Report, Dt.17.11.2025 as referred infra:- (1)It is agreed by the Petitioner and Respondent that they shall live separately by obtaining decree of divorce in the above case.

(2)Both parties agreed to settle the case by way of decree of divorce of their marriage between the Petitioner and Respondent performed on 16.02.2017 took place at Vital Nagar, Chirala, as per Christian rites and caste customs.

(3)The Respondent paid an amount of Rs.9,50,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs and Fifty Thousand Only) to the Petitioner by way of cash towards 4 full and final settlement of her maintenance and permanent alimony.

(4)The Petitioner agreed not to claim any maintenance in future and any share in the properties of the Respondent as she received permanent alimony from the Respondent.

(5)Both parties agreed that they shall not interfere into the personal liberty of each other in any manner by leading their life independently as per their wish and will.

(6)Both parties agreed that they will not make any kind of comments and allegations with regard to their marital disputes by each other.

(7)Both the parties agreed that they will not file any civil or criminal cases against each other and their family members with regard to this dispute.

(8)Both parties agreed to live as per their wish and will.

(9)The Petitioner agreed to relinquish her wife status against the

Respondent.

(10)Both parties declared that they were not blessed with any children during their wedlock.

5

5.Thereafter, the Petitioner filed her additional chief-examination affidavit as PW.1 in consonance with material averments of Mediation

Report, Dt.17.11.2025 and got marked documents Exs.A1 to A4 on her behalf. In cross-examination, PW.1 categorically testified that, she and

Respondent attended before Mediation Centre, Ongole, on 17.11.2025 and both of them settled their disputes amicably as per terms agreed

before Mediator and she received an amount of Rs.9,50,000/- from the

Respondent towards towards full and final settlement of her maintenance and permanent alimony and both of them agreed for dissolution of their marriage, Dt.16.02.2017 as per the terms of their compromise and they have no claims against each other in future.

6.Respondent also filed his evidence affidavit as RW.1 in replica to the chief-examination affidavit of PW.1 in all material aspects and got marked Ex.B1/Copy of Aadhar Card of Respondent, hence, it need not be reiterated. In cross-examination, RW.1 categorically testified that, he and Petitioner attended before Mediation Centre, Ongole, on 17.11.2025, wherein both of them settled their disputes amicably as per terms agreed before Mediator and he paid an amount of Rs.9,50,000/- to the Petitioner towards full and final settlement of her maintenance and permanent alimony and both of them agreed for dissolution of their marriage, Dt.16.02.2017 as per the terms of their compromise and they have no claims against each other in future.

6

7.On going through the recitals of evidence of PW.1 and RW.1 coupled with Mediation Report, Dt.17.11.2025, it patently manifests that, the Petitioner and Respondent voluntarily agreed to settle their case by way of decree of divorce, dissolving their marriage which was solemnized on 16.02.2017 at the house of Petitioner in Vital Nagar,

Chirala. Further, the Petitioner and Respondent have settled their case amicably in terms of Mediation Report, Dt.17.11.2025 and testified in their evidence as PW.1 and RW.1 in consonance with the recitals of the said Mediation Report, thereby it can be construed that, Petitioner and

Respondent herein are entitled for decree of divorce in view of terms and conditions as stipulated in Mediation Report, Dt.17.11.2025.

8. In the result, this petition is allowed by dissolving the marriage held between the Petitioner and Respondent, Dt.16.02.2017 subject to the terms and conditions as stipulated in Mediation Report, Dt.17.11.2025.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 20 th Day of November, 2025

Sd/-A.Bharathi

Principal District Judge,

Prakasam at Ongole

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PETITIONER: PW.1 : Patra @ Kavuri Sushma Mounika

Respondent:- RW.1 : Patra Suresh 7

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PETITIONER:

Ex.A1: Original Wedding Invitation Card of Petitioner and Respondent

Ex.A2:Marriage Certificate, Dt.16.02.2017 issued by pastor Dr.M.Rathna Sekhar, ILTD Colony, Chirala, Bapatla District (AP.,)

Ex.A3:Three Marriage Photographs of Petitioner and Respondent

Ex.A4:Copy of Aadhar Card of Petitioner (verified with original)

RESPONDENT : Ex.B1:Copy of Aadhaar Card of Respondent (verified with original)

Sd/-AB

PDJ, Ongole

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, PRAKASAM AT

ONGOLE

PRESENT:- Smt A.Bharathi,

Principal District Judge, Ongole

Thursday, on this the Twentieth (20th) Day of November, 2025

D.O.P.No. 82 /2025

Between:

Patra @ Kavuri Sushma Mounika, W/o. Patra Suresh, D/o. Kavuri Mohan Rao, age: 28 years, Christian, R/o. D.No.43-13-13A, East Chritian Palem, Ongole, Prakasam District, presently residing at

her prents house in Vital Nagar, Chirala, ... Petitioner

Bapatla District

And

Patra Suresh, S/o. Late Suseela Rao, age: 36 years, Christian, R/o. D.No.43-13-13A, 2nd Line, Thurpu Christian Palem, Ongole, Prakasam District. …Respondent.

This petition is filed U/Sec.10 (1)(vii) of Indian Divorce Act, 1869 by the Petitioner/wife, seeking dissolution of marriage held on 16.02.2017 with Respondent/husband by passing decree of divorce on the ground of non-consummation of marriage.

Petition presented on: 16.10.2025 Petition filed on : 17.10.2025

Court Fee:- A fixed court fee of Rs.30/- is paid under Article-I(iii) of Schedule-II of APCF and SV Act.

Cause of action for the petition arose, when the marriage between the Petitioner and Respondent was solemnized on 16.02.2017 at the house of Petitioner in Vital Nagar, Chirala, as per Christian rites and their caste customs, when the said marriage is not duly consummated as the Respondent expressed that he is not interested for consummation due to his health issues, when the Petitioner and Respondent lived together as wife and husband for five months at East Christian Palem, Ongole, when they are living separately for the last eight years and two months, when the Petitioner and Respondent lastly resided in Ongole within the jurisdiction of this Court.

This petition is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Y.Sunil Kumar,Counsel for Petitioner and of Sri G.Praveen Kumar, Counsel for Respondent, on hearing both counsels, upon consideration of Mediation Report, Dt.17.11.2025, this Court

DOTH ORDER IN DISPOSING OF THE PETITION SUBJECT TO

TERMS OF MEDIATION SETTLEMENT REPORT, DT.17.11.2025

AND DECREE:- (1)that it is hereby agreed by the Petitioner and Respondent that they shall live separately by obtaining decree of divorce in the above case.

(2)that both parties herein be and are hereby agreed to settle the case by way of decree of divorce of their marriage between the

Petitioner and Respondent performed on 16.02.2017 took place at

Vital Nagar, Chirala, as per Christian rites and caste customs.

(3)that the Respondent herein be and is hereby paid an amount of

Rs.9,50,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs and Fifty Thousand Only) to the

Petitioner by way of cash towards full and final settlement of her maintenance and permanent alimony.

(4)that the Petitioner herein be and is hereby agreed not to claim any maintenance in future and any share in the properties of the

Respondent as she received permanent alimony from the Respondent.

(5)that both parties herein be and are hereby agreed that they shall not interfere into the personal liberty of each other in any manner by leading their life independently as per their wish and will.

(6)that both parties herein be and are hereby agreed that they will not make any kind of comments and allegations with regard to their marital disputes by each other.

(7)that both the parties herein be and are hereby agreed that they will not file any civil or criminal cases against each other and their family members with regard to this dispute.

(8)that both parties herein be and are hereby agreed to live as per their wish and will.

(9)that the Petitioner herein be and is hereby agreed to relinquish her wife status against the Respondent.

(10)that both parties herein be and are hereby declared that they were not blessed with any children during their wedlock.

(11)that there be no order as to costs. (No CM and FC filed on either side)

Given under my hand and seal of the Court, on this the 20 th Day of November, 2025.

Sd/-A.Bharathi

Principal District Judge,

Prakasam at Ongole

1 APPR000027392024

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, PRAKASAM AT

ONGOLE

PRESENT:- Smt A.Bharathi,

Principal District Judge, Ongole

Friday, on this the Twenty First (21st) Day of November, 2025

DOP No.53 of 2025

Between:-

Munga @ Gummadi Meghana, W/o. Gummadi Vijay Raj, D/o. Munga Narasimha Rao, Christian, age: 29 years, Employee, R/o. Door No.26-1-80, Ramanagar, Opp. RTC Garage, Perala Village,

Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District. .... Petitioner

And

Gummadi Vijay Raj, S/o. Raju, Christian, age: 35 years, Employee, R/o. Door No.35-4-69/A, Seetharamapuram, Near Vinayaka Temple, Ongole,

Prakasam District. ...Respondent.

This petition is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt.S.Vijaya Kumari, Counsel for Petitioner and Respondent having set ex-parte, on hearing Counsel for Petitioner, upon consideration, this Court made the following:-

ORDER

This petition is filed U/Sec.10(1)(x) of Indian Divorce Act, 1869, seeking dissolution of marriage, Dt.18.02.2023 held between the Petitioner and Respondent by passing decree of divorce on the 2 ground of cruelty.

2. Brief averments of the petition are that, both the Petitioner and

Respondent are Christians and their marriage was solemnized on 18.02.2023 in Hotel Sarovar, Dharavari Thota, Ongole, as per Christian rites and their caste customs in the presence of both family members and friends and the said marriage was duly consummated, but out of their wedlock, they were not blessed with any children. At the time of marriage, parents of Petitioner presented five sovereigns of gold ornaments and one lakh rupees to the Respondent herein. It is further contended that, from the beginning of marriage, Respondent used to harass and abuse the Petitioner stating that the Petitioner is not suitable to him and he married her only at the instance of his parents.

Further, the Respondent used to harass the Petitioner without any valid reason demanding her to severe her marital tie with him, but the

Petitioner refused to do so and keeping the same in mind, the

Respondent intensified harassment towards the Petitioner by piking up quarrels with her on flimsy grounds and subjected her to cruelty physically and mentally demanding the Petitioner to go to her parents house permanently. Even then the Petitioner bore harassment meted out in the hands of Respondent with a fond hope that there would certainly be change in his attitude, but in vain.

3

3.While so, on 18.06.2023 the Respondent and his mother sent the

Petitioner to her parents house on the pretext of ‘Aashada Masam’, then the Petitioner stated to them that she would return back to house after completion of ‘Aashada Masam’ by 20.07.2023, but the Respondent and his mother did not agree for the same. Later, the Petitioner personally went to the house of Respondent and requested him to join with her to lead marital life, but the Respondent bluntly refused to do so, stating that he has no interest to lead marital life with the Petitioner.

Thereafter, the Petitioner conciliated the said issue through elders viz.,

Dasari Vijaya and Nallagondla Hamsarani, but it proved futile to adamant attitude of Respondent. However, the Petitioner waited for considerable period under the impression that the Respondent could realize his mistake and join her conjugal fold, but in vain and in such circumstances, the Petitioner strongly felt that their marital tie is irretrievably broken down and there is no possibility for reunion, hence, she is constrained to file this petition for dissolution of marriage which took place with the Respondent on the ground of cruelty.

4.Petitioner further undertakes that, there is no collusion with the

Respondent in filing this petition and there are no similar proceedings pending before any other court of law.

5.In spite of receipt of notice, the Respondent did not evince any 4 interest to make his appearance before this Court, thereby he was set ex-parte on 24.10.2025

6.In order to substantiate the case, the petitioner herself was examined as PW.1 and got marked documents Exs.A1 to A4 on her behalf. Ex.A1 is Wedding Invitation Card of Petitioner and Respondent;

Ex.A2/Marriage Certificate, Dt.18.02.2023 issued by Pastor Rev.RMP

Prabhakar Kumar, AMC Diocese Ordination Minister, Bible Mission,

Ongole; Ex.A3/Five Marriage Photographs of Petitioner and Respondent and Ex.A4/Copy of Aadhar Card of Petitioner (verified with original).

7.Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and perused the material available on record.

8. Now, the points for determination are:

i) Whether the petitioner is entitled for decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty as prayed?

ii) To What relief?

POINT No.1:

9. The petitioner/PW.1 (Munga @ Gummadi Meghana, W/o. Vijay

Raj) filed her chief examination affidavit, asserted on oath, reiterating the averments of petition and testified that, her marriage was taken place with the Respondent on 18.02.2023 in Hotel Sarovar, Dharavari 5 Thota, Ongole, as per Christian rites and their caste customs and immediately after the said marriage, she joined the company of

Respondent with a view to lead marital life and the same was duly consummated and they lived happily for a period of two months and thereafter, the Respondent used to pick up quarrels with the Petitioner on flimsy grounds without any justifiable cause on the pretext that he is not interested to lead marital life with her and he married her only at the instance of his mother. PW.1 further testified that, on 18.06.2023 the Respondent and his mother sent her to her parents house on the pretext of ‘Aasdhada Masam’ and at that relevant time, the mother of

Respondent told to Petitioner that there is no need or necessity to come to their house stating that Respondent is not at all interested to lead marital life with her, however, after completion of ‘Aashada Masam’ she visited the house of Respondent at Ongole and requested him to take her to his conjugal fold, but the Respondent refused to do so and having no other go, she conciliated the said issue through elders, but it proved futile due to adamant attitude of Respondent and in such circumstances, she strongly felt that their marital tie is irretrievably broken down and there is no possibility for reunion, hence, she is constrained to file this petition for dissolution of marriage which took place with the Respondent on the ground of cruelty.

6

10.Unrebuttal evidence of PW.1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A3 clearly denotes that, the marriage of Petitioner and Respondent was taken place on 18.02.2023 at Hotel Sarovar in Ongole and the said marriage was duly consummated and they lived happily for a period of two months and later the Respondent developed aversion towards the

Petitioner and did not evince any interest to lead marital life with her even in spite of persistent conciliatory efforts made on the part of

Petitioner personally and through elders, thereby this Court deems just to grant decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty, dissolving the marriage held between the Petitioner and Respondent. This point is answered accordingly in favour of Petitioner.

POINT No.2:

11. In the result, this petition is allowed by dissolving the marriage held between the Petitioner and Respondent, Dt.18.02.2023 on the ground of cruelty as contemplated U/Sec.10(1)(x) of Indian Divorce Act, 1869.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 21 st Day of November, 2025

Sd/-A.Bharathi

Principal District Judge,

Ongole

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner:-For Respondent:-

PW.1 : Munga @ Gummadi Meghana-Ex-parte- 7

Documents Marked

For petitioner:-

Ex.A1:Wedding Invitation Card of Petitioner and Respondent

Ex.A2:Marriage Certificate, Dt.18.02.2023 issued by pastor Rev.RMP Prabhakar Kumar, AMC Diocese Ordination Minister, Bible Mission, Ongole

Ex.A3:Five Marriage Photographs of Petitioner and Respondent

Ex.A4:Copy of Aadhar Card of Petitioner (verified with original)

For Respondent:- Nil

Sd/-AB

PDJ, Ongole

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, PRAKASAM AT

ONGOLE

PRESENT:- Smt A.Bharathi,

Principal District Judge, Ongole

Friday, on this the Twenty First (21st) Day of November, 2025

DOP No.53 of 2025

Between:-

Munga @ Gummadi Meghana, W/o. Gummadi Vijay Raj, D/o. Munga Narasimha Rao, Christian, age: 29 years, Employee, R/o. Door No.26-1-80, Ramanagar, Opp. RTC Garage, Perala Village,

Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District. .... Petitioner

And

Gummadi Vijay Raj, S/o. Raju, Christian, age: 35 years, Employee, R/o. Door No.35-4-69/A, Seetharamapuram, Near Vinayaka Temple, Ongole,

Prakasam District. ...Respondent.

This petition is filed U/Sec.10(1)(x) of Indian Divorce Act, 1869, seeking dissolution of marriage, Dt.18.02.2023 held between the Petitioner and Respondent by passing decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

Petition presented on : 12.12.2024Petition filed on : 25.07.2025

Court Fee:- A fixed court fee of Rs.30/- is paid under Schedule-II Article-1(iii) of APCF and SV Act.

Cause of action for the petition arose, when the marriage of Petitioner and Respondent was solemnized on 18.02.2023 in Hotel Sarovar, Dharavari Thota, Ongole, as per Christian rites and their caste customs, when the said marriage was duly consummated, but they were not blessed with any children, when from the beginning of marriage, Respondent subjected the petitioner to cruelty by picking up quarrels on flimsy grounds without any justifiable cause stating that she is not suitable to him and he got married her only at the instance of his mother and sent the Petitioner to her parents on 18.06.2023 on the pretext of “Aashada Masam” and failed to take back the Petitioner to his conjugal fold, when the Petitioner conciliated the said issue through elders, but it proved futile due to adamant attitude of Respondent, when the Petitioner and Respondent lastly resided at Ongole within the jurisdiction of this Court.

This petition is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt.S.Vijaya Kumari, Counsel for Petitioner and Respondent having set ex-parte, on hearing Counsel for Petitioner, upon consideration, this Court DOTH ORDER IN ALLOWING THE PETITION AND DECREE:- (1)that the marriage of Petitioner and Respondent, Dt.18.02.2023 be and is hereby dissolved by way of decree of divorce U/Sec.10(1)

(x) of Indian Divorce Act, 1869 on the ground of cruelty; (2)that there be no order as to costs (No CM and FC filed on either side)

Given under my hand and seal of this Court, this the 21 st Day of November, 2025

Sd/-A.Bharathi

Principal District Judge,

Ongole

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, PRAKASAM AT

ONGOLE

PRESENT:- Smt A.Bharathi,

Principal District Judge, Ongole

Wednesday, on this the Twenty Fifth (25th) Day of January, 2023

DOP No.70 of 2022

Between:-

Yanamadni Rajakumari, W/o Pasumarthi Rajasekhar, D/o. Yanamadni Venkateswarlu, age: 26 years, Christian, housewife & Staf Nurse, R/o. D.No.--1, Am-edkar Colony,

Kondapi Village and Mandal, Prakasam District. .... Petitioner

And

Pasumarthi Rajasekhar, S/o. Lakshmi Narasimham, age: 26 years, Christian, unemployee, R/o. D.No.--101, Anakarlapudi Village, Kondapi Mandal,

Prakasam District. ...Respondent.

This petition is coming on today i.e., on 25.01.2023 -efore me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri A.Sudhakara Rao, Counsel

for the petitioner and Respondent having remained ex-parte, and that the

matter having -een stood over for consideration till this day, upon consideration, this Court made the following:-

ORDER

This petition is filed U/s.10 (1)(x) of Indian Divorce Act, 1869, seeking dissolution of marriage, Dt.01.11.2021 held -etween

Petitioner and Respondent -y passing decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

2. Brief averments of the petition are that:

(a).On 01.11.2021 marriage of petitioner and respondent was performed at the house of Respondent at Anakarlapudi Village, Kondapi

Mandal, according to Christian rites and customs in the presence of relatives and well wishers. At the time of marriage, parents of petitioner 2 presented one gold ring to Respondent -ut not given cash related to dowry.

Immediately after marriage, Petitioner joined company of Respondent and their marriage was duly consummated. Both petitioner and respondent lived together in Anakarlapudi Village for a period of one month and

Ponnalur Village for a period of five months and during their wedlock they were not -lessed with any children. It is further contended that, -y the time of marriage, petitioner was working as Staf Nurse at Ponnalur Village and

Mandal, Prakasam District, -ut Respondent married petitioner stating that he was doing jo- as Pharmacist, -ut in fact he had no jo- as stated. While so, in the month of Decem-er, 2021 Respondent developed dislike towards petitioner, picked up quarrels with her, a-used her in filthy language and su-jected petitioner to harassment physically and mentally demanding for

additional dowry, however, petitioner vehemently refused to get dowry

from her parents as demanded -y respondent and his parents and on that pretext, Respondent used to pick up quarrels with petitioner.

(-)It is further contended that, Respondent was addicted to vices. When

Petitioner and Respondent lastly resided at Ponnalur Village, Respondent necked out the petitioner for non-compliance of his demands and as there is no other go, in the month of May, 2022 petitioner reached her parents house at Kondapi village. Thereafter, conciliatory eforts made on the part of petitioner personally and through elders proved futile. However petitioner waited for considera-le period with a fond hope that there would certainly -e a change in the attitude of Respondent, -ut in vain. In such circumstances, as there is no hope of reunion, petitioner is constrained to file this petition for dissolution of her marriage with Respondent -y way of decree of divorce. It is further contended that there is no collusion -etween petitioner and respondent in filing the present petition. Hence, it is prayed to pass decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

3

3. Though notice was served upon the Respondent, he did not turn up -efore this Court consequently he was set ex-parte on 28.12.2022 -. During course of trial, petitioner got examined herself as PW.1 and got marked documents Exs.A1 to A- i.e., Ex.A1/Wedding Invitation Card of

Petitioner and Respondent; Ex.A2/Original Marriage Certificate issued -y

G.Michael, Shalem Prayer House, Kondepi; Ex.A3/Marriage Photographs of

Petitioner and Respondent three in num-er; and Ex.A-/Copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner (verified with original).

5.Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and perused the case record.

6. Now, points for determination are:

i) Whether petitioner is entitled for decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty against respondent as prayed?

ii) To What relief?

POINT No.1:

7. The petitioner/PW.1 (Yanamadni Raja Kumari) filed her chief examination afdavit, asserted on oath, reiterating the contents of petitionstatingthatOn01.11.2021hermarriagewas performed with Respondent at the house of Respondent at Anakarlapudi

Village, Kondapi Mandal, according to Christian rites and customs in the presence of relatives and well wishers. At the time of marriage, her parents presented one gold ring to Respondent -ut not given cash related to dowry.

Immediately after marriage, she joined company of Respondent and their marriage was duly consummated and they lived together in Anakarlapudi

Village for a period of one month and Ponnalur Village for a period of five - months and during their wedlock they had not -lessed with any children.

PW.1 further testified that -y the time of marriage, she was working as

Staf Nurse at Ponnalur Village and Mandal, Prakasam District, -ut

Respondent married her stating that he had a jo- as Pharmacist, -ut in fact he has no jo- as stated. While so, in the month of Decem-er, 2021 respondent developed dislike towards her, picked up quarrels with her, a-used her in filthy language and su-jected her to harassment physically and mentally demanding for additional dowry, however, she vehemently refused to get dowry from her parents as demanded -y respondent and his parents and on that pretext, Respondent used to pick up quarrels with her.

8.PW.1 further testified that Respondent was addicted to vices. When she and Respondent lastly resided at Ponnalur Village, Respondent necked her out from house for non-compliance of his demands and as there is no other go, in the month of May, 2022 she reached her parents house at

Kondapi village. Thereafter, conciliatory eforts made -y her personally and through elders proved futile. However she waited for considera-le period with a fond hope that there would certainly -e a change in the attitude of

Respondent, -ut in vain. In such circumstances, as there is no hope of reunion, she is constrained to file this petition for dissolution of her marriage with Respondent -y way of decree of divorce. PW.1 further testified that there is no collusion -etween she and respondent in filing the present petition.

9.One Yanamadni Venkateswarlu, S/o. China Kotaiah who is third party to the proceedings filed his evidence afdavit in consonance with the evidence afdavit of PW.1 in all the material aspects so it need not -e reiterated. In the facts and circumstances, evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.A1 to A3 clinchingly esta-lishes the case of petitioner in all 5 material aspects in a-sence of re-uttal evidence from respondent side.

10.In view of a-ove facts and circumstances, this Court has no hesitation to grant decree of divorce to petitioner -y dissolving marriage held -etween Petitioner and Respondent, Dt.01.11.2021. This point is decided accordingly in favour of Petitioner.

POINT No.2:

11. In the result, this petition is allowed -y dissolving the marriage held -etween Petitioner and Respondent, Dt.01.11.2021 on the ground of cruelty U/s.10 (1) (x) of Indian Divorce Act 1869.

Typed to my dictation -y Stenographer, corrected and pronounced -y me in open Court, this the 25 th Day of January, 2023.

Sd/-A.Bharathi

Principal District Judge,

Ongole

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner:-For Respondent:-

PW.1 :Yanamadni RajakumariEx-parte PW.2 :Yanamadni Venkateswarlu

Documents Marked

For petitioner:-

Ex.A1 : Wedding Invitation Card of Petitioner and Respondent

Ex.A2 :Original Marriage Certificate issued -y G.Michael, Shalem Prayer House, Kondepi

Ex.A3 :Marriage Photographs of Petitioner and Respondent three in num-er

Ex.A- :Copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner (verified with original).

For Respondent:- Nil

Sd/-ABH

PDJ, Ongole 6

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, PRAKASAM AT

ONGOLE

PRESENT:- Smt A.Bharathi,

Principal District Judge, Ongole

Wednesday, on this the Twenty Fifth (25th) Day of January, 2023

DOP No.70 of 2022

Between:-

Yanamadni Rajakumari, W/o Pasumarthi Rajasekhar, D/o. Yanamadni Venkateswarlu, age: 26 years, Christian, housewife & Staf Nurse, R/o. D.No.--1, Am-edkar Colony,

Kondapi Village and Mandal, Prakasam District. .... Petitioner

And

Pasumarthi Rajasekhar, S/o. Lakshmi Narasimham, age: 26 years, Christian, unemployee, R/o. D.No.--101, Anakarlapudi Village, Kondapi Mandal,

Prakasam District. ...Respondent.

This petition is filed U/s.10 (1)(x) of Indian Divorce Act, 1869, seeking dissolution of marriage, Dt.01.11.2021 held -etween

Petitioner and Respondent -y passing decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

Petition presented on : 2-.08.2022 Petition filed on : 1-.10.2022

Court Fee:- A fixed court fee of Rs.30/- is paid under Schedule-II Article- 1(iii) of APCF and SV Act.

Cause of action for the petition arose on 01.11.2021 marriage of petitioner and respondent was taken place at Anakarlapudi Village, Kondapi

Mandal, Prakasam District, as per Christian rites and usage, when the said marriage was consummated, when they have no children, when petitioner staying for a period of one month at Respondent’s house and five months at

Ponnaluru Villafge, when respondent developed dislike against petitioner and picked up unnecessary quarrels using filthy language demanding dowry, when petitioner is residing at Kondapi Village and Mandal of

Prakasam District within the jurisdiction of this Court.

This petition is coming on today i.e., on 25.01.2023 -efore me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri A.Sudhakara Rao, Counsel

for the petitioner and Respondent having remained ex-parte, and that the

matter having -een stood over for consideration till this day, upon consideration, this Court DOTH ORDER IN ALLOWING THE PETITION AND

DECREE:- (1)that the marriage of Petitioner and Respondent, Dt.01.11.2021 -e and is here-y dissolved -y way of decree of divorce; (2)that there -e no order as to costs (No CM and FC filed on either side)

Given under my hand and seal of this Court, this the 25 th Day of

January, 2023.

Sd/-A.Bharathi

Principal District Judge,

Ongole