Sri A. V. Ravindra Babu

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE :: GUNTUR.

PRESENT : A.V.Ravindra Babu,

Principal District Judge, Guntur.

Friday, this the 3rd day of December, 2021.

Transfer O.P.No.483/2018

Between: Talatala Appireddy rep.by GPA Holder Duggempudi Savitri, W/o.Subba Reddy @ Venkata Subba Reddy, Hindu, aged about 55 years, Cultivation, R/o.Challavaripalem village, Guntur Rural, Guntur.

(Plaintiff in O.S.518/2017 & Appellant in A.S.71/2013) …. Petitioner.

-And-

1. Bhavanam Venkateswara Reddy, S/o.Venkata Reddy, Hindu, aged about 60 years, Lorry Business, R/o.Challavaripalem village, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District. (1st defendant in O.S.518/2017 & 1st respondent in A.S.71/2013).

2. Bhavanam Kasturi, W/o.Bhavanam Venkateswara Reddy, Hindu, aged about 55 years, Housewife, R/o.Challavaripalem Village, Hamlet of Ankireddypalem, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District. (2nd defendant in O.S.518/2017 & 2nd respondent in A.S.71/2013)

3. Emani Venkata Reddy S/o.Audi Narayana Reddy, Hindu, aged about 47 years, Employee, R/o.D.No.7-17-369/4/1, Mallikarjunapet, Guntur. (3rd defendant in O.S.No.518/2017) …. Respondents.

In the matter of Transfer of O.S.No.518/2017 on the file of II Additional Junior

Civil Judge, Guntur to be clubbed, tried and disposed of along with the

A.S.No.71/2013 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Guntur.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL COURT : GUNTUR.

O.S.518/2017

Between: Talatala Appireddy, rep.by GPA Holder,

Duggempudi Savitri. .. Plaintiff.

And

1. Bhavanam Venkateswara Reddy.

2. Bhavanam Kasturi.

3. Emani Venkata Reddy. .. Defendants.

IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE : GUNTUR

A.S.71/2013

Talatala Appireddy, rep.by GPA Holder,

Duggempudi Savitri. .. Appellant.

And

1. Bhavanam Venkateswara Reddy.

2. Bhavanam Kasturi. .. Respondents.

This petition came up on 22.11.2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Charu Latha, Advocate for petitioner, and of Sri

A.S.R.K.Reddy, Advocate for respondents 1 and 2, and of Sri K.V.R.H.Prasad,

Advocate for the respondent No.3, and upon perusing the material placed on 2 record, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court made the following:

O R D E R

1.This is a Transfer Original Petition filed under Sec.24 of CPC on behalf of the petitioner, who is the plaintiff in OS No.518/2017 on the file of II

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, with a prayer to transfer OS

No.518/2017 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, to the court of District Judge, Guntur, to be tried along with A.S.71/2013.

2.The case of the petitioner in brief is that petitioner filed

O.S.518/2017 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, to declare

that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and consequential permanent injunction as against the defendants 1 and 2.

Petitioner also filed A.S.71/2013 on the file of District Judge, Guntur, to set aside the judgment and decree in O.S.219/2011 on the file of I Additional

Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, and for other reliefs. Both the matters are coming up for enquiry. The property involved in the two cases is one and same. It is just and necessary to club O.S.518/2017 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil

Judge, Guntur, with A.S.71/2013 and to dispose the same at one and same

time. Hence, the petition.

3.R1 got filed a counter and R2 filed adoption memo adopting the counter of R1. R3 got filed a counter.

4.The contention of R1 according to the contents of the counter is that, one Talatala Appi Reddy is the plaintiff in O.S.518/2017 before II

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. He is the appellant in A.S.71/2013

(connected to O.S.219/2011 on the file of IV Addl.District Court, Guntur). One

Duggempudi Savitri w/o.Venkata Subba Reddy, filed the above two proceedings in the capacity of G.P.A. holder on behalf of her son-in-law/

Talatal Appi Reddy. The transfer petition is a separate proceedings and

Duggempudi Savitri has no locus standi to file the T.O.P. without obtaining separate GPA and permission from the Court. It is true that the transfer petitioner filed O.S.518/2017 before the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, 3

Guntur, to declare that he is the absolute owner of the schedule property and for consequential permanent injunction. He also filed O.S.219/2011 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur against the respondent and his wife showing them as D1 and D2 for the relief of mandatory injunction and for delivery of possession of suit schedule property. It was dismissed on merits on 21.01.2013. Aggrieved by the same he filed A.S.71/2013 before IV

Additional District Court, Guntur. The suit in O.S.518/2017 is filed in the year

2017. Appeal was filed in the year 2013 long back. The appeal was relating to the suit in O.S.219/2011 which was disposed on merits. O.S.518/2017 is not matured for trial. A.S.71/2013 has to be decided by the IV Additional

District Judge, Guntur, on hearing the arguments of appellants and

respondents only. Suit in O.S.518/2017 has to be decided by recording evidence. Though the subject matter is one and same, but Sec.24 CPC does not enable the court to grant the relief. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5.The counter of R3 in substance is that A.S.71/2013 is on the file of V Additional District Judge, as against the Judgment in O.S.219/2011 passed by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. O.S.518/2017 is on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, which is in the trial stage. There is no provision to club a suit with Appeal. Petition is frivolous and it is not maintainable. Suit in O.S.219/2011 was dismissed holding that the petitioner was not in possession of the property. O.S.518/2017 was filed for declaration of title and for consequential possession. Suit in O.S.518/2017 is not valid, as there is a clear finding in O.S.219/2011 that petitioner is not in possession.

Hence, both the matters have to be decided separately. This respondent is not a party in A.S.71/2013 before District Judge Court, Guntur. Hence, O.S.

cannot be transferred to the District Court. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

6.No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of either sides.

4

7.Now, the point that arises for consideration is:

“Whether the suit bearing O.S.No.518/2017 on the file of II

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, is liable to be

transferred?”

POINT:

8.There is no dispute that O.S.219/2011 was filed by the plaintiff through his G.P.A. for mandatory injunction and to deliver the possession

before I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, which was dismissed on merits

on 21.01.2013. After dismissal of the said suit, there is no further dispute that the plaintiff through his G.P.A. filed O.S.518/2017 on the file of II

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, to declare that the plaintiff is the

absolute owner of the schedule property and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. Though there is no dispute that the property in both matters is one and same, but the thing is that when the suit in O.S.219/2011 was disposed on merits way back on 21.01.2013, the plaintiff chosen to file another suit in O.S.518/2017 in the year 2017.

9.Admittedly, the appeal in A.S.71/2013 is to be disposed by hearing the arguments. Whereas the procedure to decide O.S.518/2017 is, recording of evidence and investigating into the title etc., So, the fact remained is that the petitioner having filed a suit in O.S.219/2011 suffered with adverse findings, as such, exercised his remedy to file an appeal, as such filed appeal, now which is said to be pending on the file of District

Judge, Guntur, according to the prayer. According to the counter of R1, it is

pending on the file of IV ADJ Court. According to the counter of R3, it is pending on the file of V ADJ Court. Irrespective of where A.S.71/2013 is pending, but the fact remained is that the petitioner having filed a suit in

O.S.518/2017 in the years 2017, now cannot seek to dispose the said suit

along with appeal. A.S.71/2013 is to be decided independently, basing on the 5 material available on record in the form of oral evidence or documentary evidence.

10.There is no dispute that the plaintiff in O.S.518/2017 moulded his pleadings subsequent to dismissal of O.S.219/2011, as such, now he cannot seek to adjudicate the issues in O.S.518/2017 along with the A.S.71/2013.

Viewing from any angle the prayer of the petitioner is misconceived.

Granting any such relief would create further problems. In my considered view, the petitioner should stand on his own legs and to agitate about the findings of the trial court in O.S.219/2011, by pursuing the appeal in

A.S.71/2013. He cannot link up to get the disposal of O.S.518/2017 along

with the appeal. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed.

Point is answered accordingly.

11.In the result, the petition is dismissed, but under the circumstances without costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.I, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounce by me in the open Court, this the 3rd day of December, 2021.

(Sd/-) A.V.Ravindra Babu,

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

GUNTUR

Copy to: The V Additional District Judge, Guntur. The II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE: GUNTUR.

PRESENT: A.V.RAVINDRA BABU.

Principal District Judge, Guntur.

Thursday, this the 2nd day of December, 2021.

D.O.P.No. 1017/2018

Between: Athota Satya Syamala Devi @ Challa Syamala Devi, W/o.Challa Nana Rao @ Moses, D/o.Athota Timothi, Christian, aged about 37 years, working in PHC center, Amrathluru Presently residing at C/o.K.Ratnam, Door No.6-6-58, Christianpet, 8th Ward, Sattenapalli, Guntur District. …Petitioner.

-And-

Challa Nanarao @ Moses, S/o.Rubenu, Christian, aged about 38 years, Unemployee, R/o.Chodayapalem Village, Near Shalem Prayer House, Repalle Mandal, Guntur District. … Respondent.

This petition came up on 26.11.2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri D.Naga Babu, Advocate for petitioner, and the respondent remained exparte, and upon perusing the material placed on record, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court made following:

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under

Sec.10(1)(ix) of the Divorce Act, 1869, with a prayer to dissolve the marriage between the petitioner and respondent which was performed on 29.04.2009, on the ground of cruelty.

2.The case of the petitioner in brief is that, petitioner’s marriage was performed with the respondent on 29.04.2009 at Shalemu Pradhana

Mandiram, Chodayapalem of Repalle Mandal, Guntur District, before the respondent’s side parents. Petitioner’s parents were no more. Elders and wellwishers were present at the time of marriage. It was performed as per

Christian Rites and customs by the pastor. Prior to the marriage, the respondent and his parents demanded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and gold chain and ring worth about Rs.60,000/-, and also demanded Rs.60,000/- worth of house hold articles. The petitioner and her family members fulfilled the same. They were not blessed with any issues. Petitioner used to work as 2

L.D.Computers in medical & Health Department. Respondent completed his degree and used to do several businesses. Petitioner initially went to her marital home along with the respondent. But, she could stay only for few days due to her job. At the time of marriage, petitioner was working at

Nudurupadu of Phirangipuram Mandal, Guntur District. Petitioner requested the respondent to keep the family at Nudurupadu, but the respondent is interested to keep the family at Guntur, to do his business. Respondent initially set up the family at Ankamma Nagar in a rented house. House hold articles and furniture was provided by the family members of the petitioner.

Respondent used to torture the petitioner to get additional dowry for setting business at Guntur. Due to the harassment and torture of the respondent, family members of the petitioner presented Rs.2 lakhs to the respondent to set up business. Respondent started milk business, but on account of his bad vices he incurred loss, as such, he closed the business. Respondent used to depend upon the petitioner’s family and used to get the salary of the petitioner with force. Elders made several efforts to resolve the dispute, but in vain. Petitioner took loan and gave Rs.3 lakhs to the respondent. The respondent started ‘net center’, and again he incurred loss due to his bad vices. Respondent did not change his attitude. He subjected the petitioner to mental and physical torture. He used to pick up quarrel with the petitioner and used to beat her indiscriminately. In July-2015, he beat the petitioner and demanded Rs.10 lakhs towards additional dowry. She expressed her inability to do so. Petitioner lodged a complaint in Sattenapalli Town police station, which was registered in Cr.No.164/2018 under Sec.498A, 324 r/w.34 of IPC. Respondent deserted the petitioner from July-2015. Several mediations proved to be futile. Hence, the petition.

3.The respondent is set ex parte.

4.On behalf of the petitioner, PWs.1 and 2 are examined, and

Exs.A1 to A3 are marked.

3

5.Now, the point that arises for consideration is:

“Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce?”

POINT:

6.A perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.A1 to

A3 goes to prove the marriage between the petitioner and respondent. The evidence on record proves the averments in the petition. The evidence on record warrants this court to say that the marriage was performed between the petitioner and the respondent duly in accordance with Christian custom and rites, and the respondent subjected the petitioner to cruelty. The unchallenged evidence of Pws.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.A.1 to A3 goes to prove the case of the petitioner as set out in the petition. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to have a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

Point is answered accordingly.

7.In the result, the petition is allowed with costs, granting a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent that was performed on 29.04.2009.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.I, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounce by me in the open Court, this the 2nd day of December, 2021.

(Sd/-) A.V.Ravindra Babu,

Principal District Judge, Guntur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENT: Exparte

P.W.1: Athota Syamala Devi @ Challa Syamala Devi. P.W.2: Kodavati Ratnam.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENT: Nil

Ex.A.1 : Wedding invitation dt.29.04.2009. Ex.A.2 : Marriage Certificate issued by Church Authorities, dated 29.04.2009. Ex.A.3 : Marriage photographs (2 in number).

(Sd/-) A.V.Ravindra Babu,

Principal District Judge, Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE: GUNTUR.

PRESENT: A.V.RAVINDRA BABU.

Principal District Judge, Guntur.

Thursday, this the 2nd day of December, 2021.

D.O.P.No. 1114/2019

Between: Duggirala Anil Kumar, S/o.Devadanam, aged about 37, Christian, Private Employee, R/o.D.No.7-119, Narakoduru Village, Chebrolu Mandal, Guntur District. …Petitioner.

-And-

Duggirala Sujana W/o.Anil Kumar and D/o.T.Petar paul (late), aged about 26 years, D.No.NTR Rural 676696, Narakoduru Village, Chebrolu Mandal, Guntur District. … Respondent.

This petition came up on 29.11.2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri D.Sridhar, Advocate for petitioner, and the respondent remained exparte, and upon perusing the material placed on record, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court made following:

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under

Sec.10(1)(ix)(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869, with a prayer to dissolve the marriage between the petitioner and respondent which was performed on 17.06.2011.

2.The case of the petitioner in brief is that, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place on 17.06.2011 at the residence of the petitioner as per the Christian religious rights and customs. It was consummated immediately. Respondent joined with the petitioner to lead marital life. Respondent belonged to the village of the petitioner, and she was residing opposite to the house of the petitioner. In the year 2012, in the month of April, the petitioner shifted his family to Hyderabad. There were no issues out of wedlock. Both of them lead happy marital life for four months.

Thereafter, the respondent developed aversion towards the petitioner, and petitioner found that the respondent is temper and she used to behave irregularly. Respondent did not cooperate with the petitioner to lead marital life. She is in the habit of picking up petty quarrels for no fault of the 2 petitioner. She used to demand money for luxuries. She did not treat the petitioner as husband, as such, petitioner was put to much harassment and mental agony. She used to state that the marriage between them was performed against her will due to pressure of parents as such she accepted the marriage. Even she was not in the habit of preparing food to the petitioner to attend his job. Several times he requested the respondent to wake up early and to prepare the food, but in vain. She used to pick up quarrels with the petitioner for no fault of him. The petitioner questioned the attitude of the respondent. She disclosed that prior to marriage she got love affair with one Myla Seshu of Pedapalem village, and the marriage was performed against her will. Ultimately, on 10.1.2016, she, in the early hours, while the petitioner was in deep sleep left the house of the petitioner and her whereabouts were not known, and ultimately in the month of November 1st week, 2019, she could be found in her parents house. He sent several mediators viz., Yeddu Suresh and Kagitala Prasad, to bring the respondent to matrimonial home, but in vain. In spite of the intervention of elders, the respondent did not change her attitude. Hence, the petition.

3.The respondent is set ex parte.

4.On behalf of the petitioner, PWs.1 and 2 are examined, and

Exs.A1 to A3 are marked.

5.Now, the point that arises for consideration is:

“Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce?”

POINT:

6.PW.1, the petitioner, in his chief examination affidavit adverted to the facts as narrated in the petition. Through his examination Exs.A.1 to

A.3 are marked. Coming to the evidence of PW.2, he filed his chief examination affidavit in support of the case of the petitioner. The evidence on record goes to prove the marriage between the petitioner and respondent in accordance with the Christian rites and ceremonies. The allegations of the petitioner remained unchallenged as the respondent remained exparte. The unchallenged pleadings coupled with evidence of Pws.1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to 3

A3, goes to prove the allegations as set out in the petition against the respondent. There is no contra evidence on record to disbelieve the case of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to have a decree of divorce.

Point is answered accordingly.

7.In the result, the petition is allowed with costs, granting a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent that was performed on 17.06.2011.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.I, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounce by me in the open Court, this the 2nd day of December, 2021.

(Sd/-) A.V.Ravindra Babu,

Principal District Judge, Guntur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENT: Exparte

P.W.1: Duggirala Anil Kumar. P.W.2: Thumati Nagaratnam.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENT: Nil

Ex.A.1 : Attested copy of Marriage certificate dated 17.06.2011. Ex.A.2 : Wedding Card dated 17.06.2011. Ex.A.3 : Marriage photographs (3 in number).

(Sd/-) A.V.Ravindra Babu,

Principal District Judge, Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE: GUNTUR.

PRESENT: A.V.RAVINDRA BABU.

Principal District Judge, Guntur.

Wednesday, this the 1st day of December, 2021.

D.O.P.No. 334/2020

Between: Sanam @ Neelam Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o.Sanam Sunny Babu, D/o.Neelam Rama Rao, Christian, aged about 23 years, presently residing at Door No.6- 591, Main Road, Pathamallayapalem village, Prathipadu Mandal, Guntur District, within the Jurisdiction of JCJC, Guntur. …Petitioner.

-And-

Sanam Sunny Babu, S/o.Srinivasa Rao, Christian, aged about 24 years, R/o.Door No.6-32, Idupulapadu village, Inkollu mandal, Prakasam District, within the jurisdiction of JCJC, Parchuru. … Respondent.

This petition came up on 23.11.2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Vanukuri Venkata Subba Reddy, Advocate for petitioner, and the respondent remained exparte, and upon perusing the material placed on record, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court made following:

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under

Sec.10(1)(ix) of the Divorce Act, 1869, with a prayer to dissolve the marriage between the petitioner and respondent which was performed on 28.04.2018, on the ground of cruelty.

2.The case of the petitioner in brief is that, her marriage was performed with the respondent on 28.04.2018 at the house of the respondent as per the Christian tradition and custom in the presence of elders. It was performed by P.V.Raja Kumar, Chirala, Prakasam District. It was consummated immediately. Petitioner joined with respondent to lead marital life. They could live happily for 10 days at the respondent’s village.

There were no issues. The parents presented Rs.1 lakh cash and 5 sovereigns of gold to the respondent towards dowry according to the demand. After the marriage the respondent shown his true colours and harassed the petitioner physically and mentally. He was addicted to bad 2 vices like drinking, gambling and debauchering, and spent the entire dowry to meet his vices. After that he demanded the petitioner to get the additional dowry. The petitioner informed the same to the parents of the respondent, but they failed to resist the respondent. Respondent beat the petitioner indiscriminately. On 30.05.2018, the respondent and his parents created galata and beat the petitioner and necked out. Having no other go, she went to her parents’ house. The efforts made by the mediators to resolve the dispute proved to be futile. Since July-2018, petitioner and respondent are living separately. Hence, the petition.

3.The respondent is set ex parte.

4.On behalf of the petitioner, PWs.1 to 4 are examined, and Exs.A1 to A4 are marked.

5.Now, the point that arises for consideration is:

“Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce?”

POINT:

6.A perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 coupled with Exs.A1 to

A4 proves the factum of marriage between the petitioner and respondent.

The respondent remained exparte. The unchallenged evidence of Pws.1 to 4 coupled with Exs.A.1 to A4, proves the fact that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was performed on 28.04.2018. Their evidence further goes to prove the allegations as set out in the petition. There is no contra evidence on record to disbelieve the case of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to have a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

Point is answered accordingly.

7.In the result, the petition is allowed with costs, granting a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent that was performed on 28.04.2018.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.I, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounce by me in the open Court, this the 1st day of December, 2021.

(Sd/-) A.V.Ravindra Babu,

Principal District Judge, Guntur.

3

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENT: Exparte

P.W.1: Sanam @ Neelam Vijaya Lakshmi. P.W.2: Karra Narendra Kumar. P.W.3: Poopuri Ashok Kumar. P.W.4: Pullagura Vijaya Raja Kumar.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENT: Nil

Ex.A.1 : Wedding Card dt.28.04.2018. Ex.A.2 : Marriage Photographs (2 in number). Ex.A.3 : Marriage Certificate issued by Church Authorities dt.28.04.2018. Ex.A.4 : Residence certificate issued by Panchayat Secretary, Patha Mallayapalem village, dt.20.08.2020.

(Sd/-) A.V.Ravindra Babu,

Principal District Judge, Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE: GUNTUR.

PRESENT: A.V.RAVINDRA BABU.

Principal District Judge, Guntur.

Thursday, this the 2nd day of December, 2021.

D.O.P.No. 484/2020

Between:

1.Kommu Ashok @ Ashok Kumar, S/o.late Sundara Rao, Christian, aged 40 years, Pvt., Employee, Sattenapalli Town & Mandal, Sattenapalli DMC.

2.Kommu @ Kondabattula Prabha Priyadarshini W/o.Kommu Ashok @ Ashok Kumar, D/o.Prabhakara Rao, Christian, aged 35 years, R/o.Near Padma Theater, Buttaigudem Road, Jangareddygudem town & Mandal, West Godavari District, Jangareddy Gudem DMC. …Petitioners.

-And-

– Nil - … Respondent.

This petition came up on 24.10.2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Guntupalli Sai Vara Prasad, Advocate for petitioners and upon perusing the material placed on record, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed on behalf of the petitioners under

Sec.10(A) of Divorce Act, 1869, with a prayer to grant a decree of divorce by mutual consent.

2.The case of the petitioners is that first petitioner is the husband of second petitioner and their marriage was performed on 07.05.2008 in the presence of both relatives and elders at Shekina Church, Sattenapalli, as per

Christian rites and customs. Second petitioner joined with the first petitioner to lead marital life. One female child was born viz., Prasastha, now aged 8 years, and that both the petitioners lived happily for four years, and subsequently disputes arose. They are unable to live together. On 16.10.2012 the second petitioner left the matrimonial home and came to her parents house along with her minor child and has been living there. At the intervention of mediators both petitioners settled the disputes and agreed to dissolve the marriage on mutual consent. Both of them came to a conclusion that they are not able to live together and as such the marriage should be dissolved. Hence, the petition.

2

3.On behalf of the petitioners, Pws.1 and 2 are examined, and

Exs.A1 to A5 are marked.

4.Now, the point that arises for consideration is:

“Whether the petitioners are entitled to a decree of divorce by mutual consent?”

5.P.W.1 and PW.2 during the course of evidence adverted to the facts in accordance with pleadings. Evidence on record goes to prove that they are not able to reside together and they have been living separately since more than two years prior to the presentation of the petition. Apart from this, the evidence on record warrants this court to assume that their approaching the court is voluntary. Hence, I am of the considered view, that the petitioners are entitled to a decree of divorce by mutual consent.

Point is answered accordingly.

6.In the result, the petition is allowed, granting a decree of divorce by way of mutual consent, dissolving the marriage between the petitioners which was performed on 07.05.2008.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.I, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounce by me in the open Court, this the 2nd day of December, 2021.

(Sd/-) A.V.Ravindra Babu,

Principal District Judge,

Guntur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS: FOR RESPONDENT: NIL

P.W.1: Kommu Ashok @ Ashok Kumar. P.W.2: Kommu @ Kondabattula Prabha Priyadarshini.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS: FOR RESPONDENT: Nil

Ex.A.1 : Wedding Card, dated 7.5.2008. Ex.A.2 : Marriage Photos (4 in number). Ex.A.3 : Marriage Certificate, dated 7.5.2008 (Torn condition). Ex.A.4 : Attested copy of Aadhar card of the first petitioner. Ex.A.5 : Attested copy of Aadhar card of the second petitioner.

(Sd/-) A.V.Ravindra Babu,

Principal District Judge,

Guntur.