Smt. Angadi Nirmala

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE MANCHERIAL

Present:- Smt. A.Nirmala, Prl. Senior Civil Judge-cum- Assistant Sessions Judge, Mancherial.

Friday this the 8th day of May, 2026

S.C.No.67 of 2025

(On being committed by Ms. Nirosha, II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Mancherial by her order dated 20.06.2025 in PRC

No.5/2025 in Cr.No.661/2024 of Mancherial Police Station).

Name of the Complainant :The State through the Sub Inspector of Police, PS Mancherial. Name of the Accused :A1:Aggu Ravi @ Ravinder, S/o.Lingaiah, Age: 47 years, Occ: Driver, R/o.H.No.27-484, Hamaliwada, Mancherial.

A2:Aggu Maruthi, S/o.Ravi @ Ravindhar, Age: 23 years, Occ: Car Driver,R/o.H.No.27-164, Hamaliwada, Mancherial.

A3:Sripathi Mahesh, S/o.Srinivas, Age: 21 years, Occ: Student, R/o.H.No.27-65,Hamaliwada, Mancherial.

A4:Aggu Rishi, S/o.Rajaiah, Age: 20 years, Occ: Private work, R/o.H.No.27-513/4-3, Hamaliwada, Mancherial.

A5:Kande Eshwar, S/o.Srinivas, Age: 19 years, Occ: Student, R/o.H.No.25-100/1,Hamaliwada, Mancherial, now at Road No.1, Surya Nagar, Mancherial.

A6:Aggu Pranay, S/o.Shankar, Age: 19 years, Occ: Student, R/o.Hamaliwada, Mancherial.

2 of 9SC No.67 of 2025

A7:Aggu Akshith @ Sai Akshith, S/o.Rajaiah, Age: 23 years, Occ: Privateemployee,R/o.H.No.27- 513/4-3, Hamaliwada, Mancherial.

A8:Pilli Pranav, S/o.Pilli Srinivas, Age: 19 years, Occ: Student, R/o.H.No.13-48, Chinthapanduwada, Mancherial.

A9:Seetha Shiva @ 90 wanted, S/o.Nagesh, Age: 19 years, Oc: Student, R/o.H.No.15-19, Ashok Road, Mancherial.

A10: Banda Harish, S/o.Kondaiah, Age: 36 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.25-19,Hamaliwada, Mancherial.

A11: Mohammad Sameer, S/o.Sadiq, Age: 19 years, Occ: Private employee, R/o.Road No.4, Sapthagiri Colony, Mancherial.

Offence alleged against the : Under Sec.109, 296(b), 115(2), 351(3) accusedr/w.3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

Plea of the accused :Not guilty

Finding of the Court :Not guilty

Order of sentence or acquittal :IN THE RESULT, accused No.1 to 11 are found not guilty of the offence punishable U/Sec.109,296(b), 115(2), 351(3) r/w.3(5) of BNS and accordingly they are acquitted of the said offence U/Sec.258(1) of BNSS. The bail bonds of accused persons shall be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided U/sec.481 of BNSS. The case property/MO-1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

3 of 9SC No.67 of 2025

This case coming before me on 08.05.2026 for final hearing in the presence of learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri M.Ravinder Rao, Advocate for the accused persons, and that matter having been heard, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Mancherial filed charge sheet in

Cr.No.661/2024 against accused No.1 to 11 for the offence punishable

U/Sec.109, 296(b), 115(2), 351(3) r/w.3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred as BNS).

2.The brief case of the prosecution is that on 11.10.2024 at 12.00 hours, LW10/E.Suresh, SI of Police, Mancherial received a complaint from defacto-complainant/Thota Thirupathi, in which he stated that on 10.10.2024 at 23.00 hours, his son/Thota Vishal while present at

Durga Matha Temple situated at Road No.1, Sapthagiri Colony,

Mancherial, meanwhile A1 to A10 came there under intoxication state and abused his son and also attacked on him by threatening with dire consequences, meanwhile complainant who observed the same and questioned them regarding attacking on his son, then the accused persons altogether threatened that they will kill him along with his son and attacked on him with sticks, beer bottles indiscriminately. Due to which, he sustained injuries over his left hand and left leg. Due to fear he along with his son escaped from their clutches and concealed in his brother’s home, then they also followed them and knocking the doors 4 of 9SC No.67 of 2025 by shouting that “lanjakodukullara” come to outside. Meanwhile, the wife of complainant reacehd there and asked their illegal activities, then they also beat her. Later, the accused persons left from there by creating panic situation. On the next day i.e., on 11.10.2024, he went to Government General Hospital, Mancherial for treatment, the duty doctors informed that his left hand got broken. Hence the defacto- complainant approached police and requested to take necessary action.

Basing on the above complaint, LW10 registered a case in

Cr.No.661/2024 for the offence punishable U/Sec.109, 296(b), 351(3) r/w.3(5) of BNS and issued FIR. During the course of investigation,

LW10 examined and recorded the statement of LW1, visited the scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama, drawn rought sketch and seized four broken sticks in the presence of LW5/Md. Wajid and LW6/Mohammad Khaleel. Later, he examined and recorded the statements of Lws.2 to 4. Basing on the statements of Lws.1 to 4 and evidence collected during the course of investigation, LW10 added the accused No.11 to existing accused persons. On 11.10.2024 LW10 apprehended the A2, A3, A5 and A11, on interrogation, they confessed to have committed this offence, immediately LW10 recorded their confessional statements. Thereafter LW10 brought A2, A3, A5 & A11 to

Police Station and after effecting their arrest, produced them to the court for judicial remand. Subsequently LW11/M.Praveen Kumar, SI of 5 of 9SC No.67 of 2025

Police Mancherial took up investigation, obtained medical certificate of

LW1 from LW9/Medical Officer and as per the said medical certificate

Sec.115(2) BNS has been added. During the investigation, A1, A4, A6 to

A11 surrendered before the Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions

Judge, Mancherial and released on bail. After completion of

investigation, LW11 laid charge sheet against A1 to A11.

3.Cognizance was taken for the offence U/Sec.109, 296(b), 115(2), 351(3) r/w.3(5) of BNS against accused No.1 to 11 and registered the same as P.R.C.No.5/2025. After following the procedure prescribed by law, copies of documents as contemplated under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

were furnished to the accused persons and committed the case on 20.06.2025 by an order to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Mancherial.

Later, the Hon’ble Sessions Court, in turn, registered it as

S.C.No.67/2025 and made over it to this Court for disposal according to Law.

4.After hearing both sides, accused was examined under Sec.228 of

Cr.P.C. Charges for the offence punishable under U/Sec.109, 296(b), 115(2), 351(3) r/w.3(5) of BNS framed against accused No.1 to 11, read over and explained to them in vernacular language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6 of 9SC No.67 of 2025

5.During the course of trial, prosecution examined Pws.1 to 8 and got exhibited Exs.P1 to P19 and MO1.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused No.1 to 11 examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material available against them, for which they pleaded all such evidence is false and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard both sides and perused the record.

8.Now, the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution brought home the guilt of Accused

for the offence punishable under U/Sec.109, 296(b), 115(2),

351(3) r/w.3(5) of BNS beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.POINT: In support of its case, as stated supra, prosecution got examined Pws.1 to 8 and got exhibited Exs.P1 to P19 and MO1.

10. PW1 who is the complainant/injured deposed that he do not know anything about this case. He never lodged any report with the police, at request of police he put his signature on some papers. PW1 turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. During the course of cross examination by learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, he denied to lodge report to police and also denied his Sec.161 Cr.P.C.

statement given to police and admitted that now he entered into compromise with accused.

7 of 9SC No.67 of 2025

11.PW2 & PW3/victims and PW4/eye witness deposed that they do not know anything about this case and they turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. During the course of cross examination by learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, they denied their

Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statements given to police and admitted that now they entered into compromise with accused.

12.Pws.5 and 6/panch witnesses to crime details form deposed that police never conducted any panchanama and nothing was seized in their presence and they turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. During the course of their cross examination by learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, they denied about preparation of crime details form by the police on 11.11.2024 at 13.00 hours and seizure of four broken sticks. PW7/panch witness for confession panchanama of

A2, A3, A5 and A11 deposed that police never conducted confession panchanama of A2, A3, A5 & A11 and at request of police he put his signature on some written papers, except this he do no know anything about this case and he also turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. During the course of his cross examination, he denied the preparation of confession panchanama of A2, A3, A5 and A11 by the police, in his presence.

13.In this case, the Investigating Officer/M.Praveen Kumar was examined as PW8 who deposed to the extent of investigation done by 8 of 9SC No.67 of 2025

LW10/E.Suresh, Sub Inspector of Police, PS Mancherial and filing of charge sheet by him. As the material witnesses turned hostile, this court has no evidence to proceed against the accused persons. The incriminating evidence deposed by the police who is circumstantial witness and whose evidence is pointless without corroboration, cannot establish the case of prosecution. Accordingly accused No.1 to 11 are acquitted for lacking of strong evidence. Hence this point is answered in favour of accused persons and against the prosecution.

IN THE RESULT, accused No.1 to 11 are found not guilty of the offence punishable U/Sec.109, 296(b), 115(2), 351(3) r/w.3(5) of BNS and accordingly they are acquitted of the said offence U/Sec.258(1) of

BNSS. The bail bonds of accused persons shall be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided U/sec.481 of BNSS. The case property/MO-1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 8 th day of May, 2026.

PRL.ASST.SESSIONS JUDGE

MANCHERIAL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1Thota Thirupathi/Complainant/Injured PW2Thota Vishal/Victim PW3Thota Nagarani/Victim 9 of 9SC No.67 of 2025

PW4Macharla Thirupathi/Eye witness PW5Md. Wajid/Panch witness for crime details form and seizure panchanama PW6Mohammad Khaleel/Panch witness for crime details form and seizure panchanama PW7Balikonda Sai Teja/Panch witness for confession panchanama of A2, A3, A5 & A11 PW8M.Praveen Kumar/Investigating Officer

FOR DEFENCE: -NONE-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1Signature of PW1 on report, dated: 11.10.2024 Ex.P2Signature of PW1 on First Information Report Ex.P3Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 Ex.P4Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2 Ex.P5Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3 Ex.P6Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4 Ex.P7Signature of PW5 on crime details form Ex.P8Signature of PW6 on crime details form Ex.P9 Signature of PW7 on confession panchanama of A2, A3, A5 & to A13A11 Ex.P14Report dated: 11.10.2024 Ex.P15First Information Report Ex.P16Crime details form along with Compact Disc Ex.P17Confession panchanama of A2, A3, A5 & A11 Ex.P18Medical Certificate of PW1 Ex.P19Section addition memo

FOR DEFENCE: Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO-1: (4) broken sticks

PRL.ASST.SESSIONS JUDGE

MANCHERIAL

10 of 9SC No.67 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE MANCHERIAL

Present:- Smt. A.Nirmala, Prl. Senior Civil Judge-cum- Assistant Sessions Judge, Mancherial.

Thursday this the 7th day of May, 2026

S.C.No.68 of 2023

(On being committed by Sri Ajay Ullam, Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mancherial, FAC II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial by his order dated 29.08.2023 in PRC No.25/2022 in Cr.No.24/2020 of Mancherial Police Station).

Name of the Complainant :The State through the Sub Inspector of Police, PS Mancherial. Name of the Accused :A1:Kurikyala Ramesh Yadav, S/o.Venkata Rajam, Age: 43 years, Occ: Brick business, R/o.H.No. 20-375/2, Garmilla, Mancherial.

A2:Kurikyala Aravind Yadav, S/o.Ramesh, Age: 20 years, Occ: Student,R/o.H.No.20-375/2, Garmilla, Mancherial.

Offence alleged against the : Under Sec.306 of IPC accused Plea of the accused :Not guilty

Finding of the Court :Not guilty

Order of sentence or acquittal :IN THE RESULT, accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty of the offence punishable U/Sec.306 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted of the said offence U/Sec.235(1) of Cr.PC. The bail bonds of accused persons shall be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided U/sec.437(A) Cr.P.C. No case property.

This case coming before me on 07-05-2026 for final hearing in the presence of learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri M.Ravinder Rao, Advocate for the accused, and that matter having been heard, this Court delivered the following:- 2 of 9SC No.68 of 2023

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Mancherial filed charge sheet in

Cr.No.24/2020 against accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable

U/Sec.306 of IPC.

2.The brief case of the prosecution is that on 26.10.2022, the complainant/LW1/Kurikyala Kiran Yadav came to Police Station and lodged report stating that he has two brothers and one elder sister, out of them he is the younger and his parents performed their marriages, they all are living separately, past year his mother by name Kurikyala

Ellamma was expired due to ill health, since then his father Kurikyala

Venkatarajam (deceased), aged about 74 years has been residing lonely in his own house. His elder brother by name Kurikyala Ramesh Yadav (A1) and his children used to quarrel regarding ancestral property sharing issue by claiming that entire property should be written on his name as his younger brothers are not having children. On 15.01.2020 at about 14.00 hours, his father locked his house and while getting down the steps along with luggage bags to go to Karimnagar for admitting in the old age home, mean time accused No.1 and 2 restrained his father and warned him by saying that, where are you going and do something on the property sharing issue and accused

No.1 broken the door lock, then deceased asked him as why you have broken house door lock, then he got angry and abused him in filthy 3 of 9SC No.68 of 2023 language as “Enduku Brathukuthunnavura Chachipo” and went away from there. Due to unbearable harassment of accused No.1 and 2, in the absence of inmates at 16.00 hours his father closed house doors and committed suicide by hanging with lungi to roof top of slab hook.

One Santhosh Rao who is the neighbour peeped his father through window, but he did not appear, as he opened the door and found that his father was died by hanging. The same was informed to him, on knowing that he went there and found that his father was died by hanging. As such, he requested to take necessary action against the accused persons.

Basing on the above complaint, LW11/V.Praveen Kumar, Sub-

Inspector of Police, PS Mancherial registered a case in Cr.No.24/2020 for the offences punishable U/Sec.306 of IPC and took up investigation.

During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of LW1, visited the scene of offence situated at Old Garmilla,

Mancherial, secured the presence of mediators, observed the scene, prepared crime details form and drawn rough sketch. He also got photographed the dead body of deceased with the help of LW5 and examined and recorded the statements of Lws.2 to 5. Further he held inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of mediators and forwarded the dead body to Medical Officer for autopsy. LW11 sent viscera and neck structure of deceased to RFSL Karimnagar and 4 of 9SC No.68 of 2023

Utnoor for analysis and report vide RFSL/KNR/202/TOX/100/2022, in which the expert opined that Item Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 are analysed, but no poisonous substance and no alcohol is found in items. Further, the

Medical Officer, Department of Forensic Medicine, Community Health

Center, Utnoor examined the Hyoid bone and gave report, in which he opined that “Hyoid Bone Intact”. Basing on PME findings and FSL reports, LW10/Dr.Ashlesha, Civil Assistant Surgeon, TVVP District

Headquarters Hospital, Mancherial who held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased gave final opinon opining that the cause of death of deceased is due to “Asphyxia due to drowing”. Subsquently

LW12/MD Tahsenoddin, Sub Inspector of Police, Mancherial took up investigation and verified the investigation done by LW11 and found it on proper lines. Later LW12 secured Lws.1 to 4 and examined them, but could not record their statements as they re-iterated the same facts which were disclosed before LW11. While investigation is under progress, accused No.1 and 2 approached the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad for seeking anticipatory bail, accordingly Hon’ble High Court is directed accused No.1 and 2 to appear before the Investigating Officer, whenever there is necessity and to cooperate with the investigation vide Crl.Petition No.4353 of 2022,

dated: 12.05.2022. As directed by the Hon’ble court accused No.1 and

2 came to Police Station Mancherial on 27.05.2022 and appeared 5 of 9SC No.68 of 2023

before LW12 by admitting their guilt. Later, accused persons gave their

undertaking, in which accused persons stated that they will attend the court concerned if charge sheet filed against them and ready to face trial before the court concerned. After collecting relevant documents and after completion of investigation, LW12 filed charge sheet against accused No.1 and for the offence punishable U/Sec.306 of IPC.

3.Cognizance was taken for the offence U/Sec.306 of IPC against accused No.1 and 2 and registered the same as P.R.C.No.25/2022.

After following the procedure prescribed by law, copies of documents as contemplated under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. were furnished to the accused and committed the case on 29.08.2023 by an order to the Hon’ble

Court of Sessions, Mancherial. Later, the Hon’ble Sessions Court, in turn, registered it as S.C.No.68/2023 and made over it to this Court for disposal according to Law.

4.After hearing both sides, accused No.1 and 2 were examined under Sec.228 Cr.P.C. Charge for the offence punishable under

U/Sec.306 of IPC framed against accused, read over and explained to them in vernacular language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, prosecution examined Pws.1 to 5 and got exhibited Exs.P1 to P15.

6 of 9SC No.68 of 2023

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused No.1 and 2 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material available against them, for which they pleaded all such evidence is false and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard both sides and perused the record.

8.Now, the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution brought home the guilt of Accused

No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under U/Sec.306 of

IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.POINT: In support of its case, as stated supra, prosecution got examined Pws.1 to 5 and got exhibited Exs.P1 to P15.

10. PW1 who is the complainant/son of deceased deposed that on 15.01.2020 at about 5.00 p.m., while he as at my work place he received phone call from one person from his house stating that his father was committed suicide by hanging in his house, immediately he rushed to home and found his father was hanging to the hook of the slab in the house. He further deposed that his father was suffering with ill health. Later, police obtained his signature on some papers.

During the course of cross examination by learned Addl. Public

Prosecutor, he denied to lodge report to police and also denied his

Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement given to police and admitted that now he entered into compromise with accused persons.

7 of 9SC No.68 of 2023

11.PW2 and PW3/neighbours of deceased deposed that they do not know anything about this case and they turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. During the course of cross examination by learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, they denied their

Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statements given to police.

12.PW4/one of the panch witness for crime details form and inquest panchanama deposed that police never conducted crime details form panchanama and also inquest panchanama in his presence and not drafted any rough sketch, at request of police he put his signature on some written papers while he went to visit the incident. PW4 turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. In his cross examination by learned Addl. Public Prosecutor he denied preparation of crime details form and inquest panchanama.

13.In this case, the Investigating Officer was examined as PW5 who deposed to the extent of investigation done by him and filing of charge sheet by LW12/MD Tahseenuddin, Sub-Inspector of Police Mancherial.

As the material witnesses turned hostile, this court has no evidence to proceed against the accused persons. The incriminating evidence deposed by the police who is circumstantial witness and whose evidence is pointless without corroboration, cannot establish the case of prosecution. Accordingly accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted for 8 of 9SC No.68 of 2023 lacking of strong evidence. Hence this point is answered in favour of accused persons and against the prosecution.

IN THE RESULT, accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty of the offence punishable U/Sec.306 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted of the said offence U/Sec.235(1) of Cr.PC. The bail bonds of accused persons shall be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided U/sec.437(A) Cr.P.C. No case property.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 7 th day of May, 2026.

PRL.ASST.SESSIONS JUDGE

MANCHERIAL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1Kurikyala Kiran Yadav/Complainant/Younger son of deceased PW2Rapolu Santhosh Rao/Neighbour of deceased PW3Kasa Sathyanarayana/Neighbour of deceased PW4Bingi Mallaiah/Mediator for crime details form and inquest panchanama PW5V.Praveen Kumar/Investigating Officer

FOR DEFENCE: -NONE-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1Signature of PW1 on report dated: 16.01.2020 Ex.P2Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 Ex.P3Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2 Ex.P4Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3 Ex.P5Signature of PW4 on crime details form 9 of 9SC No.68 of 2023

Ex.P6Signature of PW4 on inquest panchanama Ex.P7Report dated: 16.01.2020 Ex.P8First Information Report Ex.P9Crime details form and rough sketch Ex.P10Inquest panchanama Ex.P11Postmortem Examination Report Ex.P12Expert Opinion Ex.P13RFSL Report Ex.P14Final opinion Ex.P15Positive photographs (6 numbers along with Compact Disc)

FOR DEFENCE: Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Nil

PRL.ASST.SESSIONS JUDGE

MANCHERIAL

10 of 9SC No.68 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT MANCHERIAL

Present:- Smt. A.Nirmala,

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial.

Wednesday this the 6th day of May, 2026

H.M.O.P.No.162 of 2025

Between:

Puppala @ Aggu Pravalika, W/o.Puppala Sammaiah, D/o.Aggu Narayana, Age: 31 years, Occ: House wife, R/o.H.No.1-35, Plot No.348, Singapur, R & R Colony, R/m.Naspur, Mancherial District. (As per Aadhar Card R/o.H.No.2-69/3, Main Road, Shettipalli, Kotapalli mandal, Mancherial District).

...Petitioner

//A N D//

Puppala Sammaiah @ Santhosh, S/o.Late Mallesh, Age: 35 years, Occ: Hamali, R/o.H.No.1-69/3, Shettipalli village (Shankarapura), R/m.Kotapalli, Mancherial District.

...Respondent

This petition coming on 06-05-2026 before me for final hearing in presence of Sri Bheema Ranjith, Advocate for petitioner and the respondent having remained exparte, matter having heard and this Court delivered the following:-

:: O R D E R ::

This petition is filed under Sec.13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (in short 'the Act') praying the Court to grant decree of divorce by dissolving her marriage with respondent on the ground of cruelty.

2.The brief facts of the case are that petitioner is the legally wedded wife of respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 27.03.2014 at

Singapur village of Mancherial mandal and district, as per Hindu rites 2 of 8HMOP 162 of 2025 and customs. At the time of marriage, on demand of respondent and his family members, the parents of petitioner presented net cash of

Rs.80,000/-, 7 ½ tulas of gold ornaments and other household articles worth of Rs.50,000/- to them. After the marriage, petitioner joined the society of respondent and they lived happily for some period. Out of wedlock, the couple blessed with two daughters by name Rakshitha on 24.04.2016 and Tejaswini on 05.02.2018. At the time of marriage, respondent was running shoe shop – Vigneshwara Footwear in market road during the year 2014 and closed the same in the year 2017. The respondent has taken gold ornaments without intimation to petitioner and pledged the same for loan at Muthoot Finance. Six months after the marriage when the respondent asked for pusthelathadu (mangalasutra) to pledge for loan for business purpose, then petitioner asked him to take the gold chain and pledge it, then he informed that he had already pledged the gold chain about 3 months ago, then she refused to give mangalasutra, but on repeated request, she gave mangalasutra by wearing pasuputadu.

It is further submitted that three months thereafter the father of petitioner Aggu Narayana came to see the petitioner and identified the mangalasutra as it is not gold and questioned her about gold ornaments, then on assurance by respondent, to return the same in a 15 days, then the father of petitioner took the petitioner to his house, 3 of 8HMOP 162 of 2025 she resided at her parents’ house for three months. After 3 months, respondent came to parents house of petitioner to take back the petitioner without money, then father of petitioner provided

Rs.60,000/- cash for bike (proved to be paid one year) + Rs.50,000/- loan from Aggu Kistaiah (junior paternal uncle of the petitioner) in total

Rs.1,10,000/- on 30.04.2015. On 30.04.2015 the respondent, his father Mallaiah and Aggu Narayana went to Muthoot Finance and paid due amounts and taken back ornaments. The petitioner was taken to

Mancherial (respondent’s house) and both lived happily till birth of

Tejaswini. After birth of Tejaswini on 05.02.2018, they lived at Shetpelli – Shankarapur village for six months. Thereafter the respondent and his parents started demanding of additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner. The parents expressed her inability to procure the same, the respondent and his family members doubled their harassment towards the petitioner. The respondent used to harass the petitioner from morning till night in different modes, so that compel her to bring

additional dowry as demanded by them. The respondent and mother

treated the petitioner like a slave in the home. Besides all these, respondent used to drink alcohol, beat the petitioner indiscriminately for taking gold ornaments and his family members also tortured the petitioner, so that compel her to bring additional dowry.

4 of 8HMOP 162 of 2025

It is further submitted that on 24.12.2022, the respondent came to the petitioner house at R & R Colony, Singapur in a drunken condition and abused her in filthy language and beat her indiscriminately without any reason, the incident was seen by the brother of petitioner Aggu mahender, came in the middle and tried to stop the respondent. But respondent not listening to anybody and said to Aggu Mahender that what are you talking about and beat to her brother with nearby stick, caused a severe injury to his left hand. Then he took treatment in Government Hospital and reported to police CCC

Naspur and a case was registered against respondent vide

Cr.No.309/2022 U/Sec.325, 294-B of IPC which is pending on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial vide CC

No.73/2023.

It is further submitted that in the year 2017 the respondent involved in criminal offence and a case was registered against him

U/Sec.337, 180, 181, 196 of IPC registered by the police Mancherial vide CC No.281/2017 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Mancherial and in that case for non-appearance of accused

the court was issued NBW against respondent and he was apprehended by police and produced before the court and sent him to judicial remand on 27.03.2023. The petitioner was compelled to return to her parents house. In that case the respondent was convicted. Few days 5 of 8HMOP 162 of 2025 after release of respondent from the jail, he neither came to take back the petitioner to his house nor tried to stop drinking alcohol. The petitioner submitted that there was panchayath held in the month of

May, 2023 before the elders and friends wherein the petitioner narrated all the activities committed by the respondent several times.

Accordingly respondent bluntly refused to join with the company of petitioner stating that unless his illegal demands are fulfilled respondent will not continue his matrimonial relationship with the petitioner. The petitioner and her family members made several efforts to join the respondent, but respondent used to road here and there and since two years the respondent whereabouts are not known to anybody.

The petitioner further submitted that she made all efforts to reconcile with the respondent several times for change of his attitude i.e., stop drinking alcohol, for which recently in the month of June the respondent came to the house of the parents of petitioner in a drunken condition, at that time Aggu Prashanth – elder brother of petitioner was present. Then respondent enquired about the petitioner and when

Prashanth requested him to come inside and informed that she went to temple and wait for some time and he will call her, then the respondent became violent and said that “ninnu champitene na samasya parishkaram authadi”, so saying brutally attacked Prashanth and

Prashant received head injuries and then on his report a case is 6 of 8HMOP 162 of 2025 registered by police CCC Naspur against accused in Cr.No.105/2025 for the offence U/Sec.296(b), 118(1) BNS dated: 13.04.2025 vide CC

No.434/2025 on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Mancherial. The acts of the respondent caused lot of mental agony and harassment amounting to cruelty. Hence, petitioner is left with no other option except to put an end to the relationship between him and respondent. Hence this petition.

3.The respondent is set exparte.

4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

5.Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of decree of

divorce by dissolving her marriage with the Respondent on

the ground of cruelty as prayed for?

6.POINT:In support of petitioner’s case, petitioner examined himself as PW1 and deposed reiterating the petition averments and relied upon Ex.P1 to P3. Ex.P1 is the original marriage wedding card which discloses that the marraige of petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 27.03.2015 at Singapur village of Mancherial mandal and district. Ex.P2 is original Aadhar card of petitioner. Ex.P3 is two marriage photos along with pen drive. The evidence of PW1 discloses that the petitioner and respondent lived happily for some period and 7 of 8HMOP 162 of 2025 they were blessed with two daughterrs, thereafter respondent harassed the petitioner physically and mentally by demanding additional dowry and he also addicted to alcohol and involved in several criminal cases.

The respondent used to harass the petitioner in drunken state and used to demand money from the petitioner. The evidence of PW1 further discloses that the petitioner bore all the harassment with a fond hope that respondent may change his attitude in future, but in vain.

The conduct of respondent alleged by petitioner in her affidavit in lieu of examination in chief which remained intact disclosed cruelty. The evidence of PW1 coupled with the material on record goes to show that the respondent with his cruel nature intentionally caused cruelty and mental agony to the petitioner. The respondent remained exparte. The conduct of the respondent failed to appear before the court and resist the claim of petitioner, supports the version of petitioner.

7.The oral testimony of PW1 remained unchallenged as respondent remained exparte. There is nothing on record to discard the testimony of PW1 as the same remained intact. In view of the above said facts and circumstances in the testimony of PW1, it is evident that the petitioner is seeking the decree of divorce against the respondent as there are no chances of their reunion on account of cruelty. Hence, this Court opines that the petitioner is entitled for decree of divorce as prayed for.

8 of 8HMOP 162 of 2025

This point is accordingly answered in favour of petitioner and against respondent.

IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed with costs and consequently the marriage between the petitioner and respondent stands dissolved by a decree of divorce.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected on the desktop and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 6 th day of May, 2026.

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MANCHERIAL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner:

PW-1Puppala @ Aggu Pravalika

For Respondent: -Exparte-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioner:

Ex.P1Wedding card Ex.P2Original Aadhar card of petitioner Ex.P3Two marriage photos along with pen drive

For Respondent: -Nil-

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MANCHERIAL

Note:

The original Aadhar card of petitioner No.1 shall be returned to him forthwith on proper identification and acknowledgment.

9 of 8HMOP 162 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

MANCHERIAL

Present : Smt. A.Nirmala,

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial.

Wednesday, this the 6th day of May, 2026

H.M.O.P.No.90 of 2025

Between: Singathi Kiran Kumar, S/o.Anjaiah, Age: 38 years, Occ: Business, H/o.GP Perkapally, Bellampalli Revenue Mandal, Mancherial District.

... Petitioner No.1

//A N D//

Singathi Vanitha, W/o.Singathi Kiran Kumar, Age: 32 years, Occ: House wife, C/o.Embadi Chandraiah (father of petitioner No.2), Rebbenapally village, Dandepalli mandal, Mancherial District.

...Petitioner No.2

This petition coming before me on 05.05.2026 for final hearing in presence of Sri Kanukuntla Rajesh, Advocate for petitioner No.1 and Smt. Gundarapu Padma, Advocate for petitioner No.2, and upon hearing the arguments of said counsel, this Court made the following:

:: O R D E R ::

The parties herein being the spouse have jointly filed this petition under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of divorce to them by mutual consent.

2. The brief facts of the petition are that petitioner No.2 is the legally wedded wife of petitioner No.1 and their marriage was performed on 15.05.2014 at Rebbenapally village of Dandepally mandal,

Page 2 of 6H.M.O.P.No.90 of 2025

Mancherial District, as per the rites and customs of Hindus. Soon after the marriage petitioner No.2 joined the petitioner No.1, thereafter differences arose between the petitioners and they are residing separately for the last 8 years. Petitioners further submitted that in spite of best efforts made by them, their family members, well-wishers and elders, the disputes could not be solved. On the advice of the elders, well wishers and other relatives, petitioners came to a conclusion to get divorce from the court on mutual consent. It is further submitted that the petitioner No.1 is giving an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- to petitioner No.2 towards permanent alimony and the same is reduced into writting on a non-judicial bond paper. Further, petitioner No.1 and 2 agreed to enter into compromise with regard to criminal case vide CC No.607/2017 which was filed by petitioner No.2 and CC No.50/2018 which was filed by petitioner No.1 before Junior

Civil Judge, Bellampally accordingly with outcome of the present

petition. Further, petitioner No.2 agreed to enter into compromise with regard to Criminal Misc. Petition vide Crl.M.P.No.1546/2023 which was filed by the petitioner No.2 before Junior Civil Judge, Luxettipet accordingly with the outcome of the present petition. Further, both parties have exchanged their articles which were presented at the time of marriage by their respective parents and it is also agreed that in

Page 3 of 6H.M.O.P.No.90 of 2025 future the petitioner No.2 shall not claim any future maintenance against petitioner No.1. The petitioner No.2 undertakes that she will forego all her legal rights over the person and properties of the petitioner No.1 and also undertake that she will not claim any maintenance before any court of law in future against petitioner No.1.

The petitioner No.2 agreed to take care of their daughter and their daughter will be in the custody of petitioner No.2. It is further submitted that there is no past, present or future claim by petitioner

No.2 against petitioner No.1. That both parties undertake not to file any civil or criminal cases including maintenance proceedings against each other or their family members in future and shall disengage completely from teh life of either parties or their family members, and will not indulge in any act of omission or commission in the future which would tentamount to interfering in the other party’s or their family members life. It is further submitted that both parties shall assist each other in prudently pursuing the petition for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent and shall appear in the concerned courts as and when necessary and required to record necessary statements as per law in getting the decree of divorce by mutual consent. Hence the petition.

Page 4 of 6H.M.O.P.No.90 of 2025

3.This case was filed on 19.04.2025 and the statutory period of six months lapsed.

4. Petitioner No.1 got examined himself as PW-1 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P3. Whereas petitioner No.2 got examined herself as PW2 and no documents marked through her.

5.Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and perused the record.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether petitioners are entitled for the grant of decree of

divorce by mutual consent by dissolving their marriage as

prayed by them?

7.POINT: I have perused the entire record. In order to grant a decree for divorce on the ground of mutual consent, the following conditions are to be fulfilled, i) The marriage between both the petitioners was solemnized, ii) The petitioners are living separately one year since the day of filing this petition and they are not able to live together, iii) The petitioners have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved, iv) The consent has not been obtained by force, fraud or undue influence, v) The petition is not presented with unnecessary or improper delay, vi) There is no other legal ground why relief should not be granted.

8.Both parties examined as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to 3 through PW1. The oral and documentary evidence of both parties

Page 5 of 6H.M.O.P.No.90 of 2025 giving reliance on this court that they filed this petition by mutual consent. The marriage of petitioner No.1 and 2 was performed on 15.05.2014 at Rebbenapally village of Dandepally mandal, Mancherial

District, as per Hindu rites and they were blessed with a daughter, thereafter some disputes arose in between them and the relations were strained, as such the parties are residing separately for the last 8 years and there is no hope of reunion. The petitioner No.1 submitted that there are no claims between them and both petitioners mutually agreed to entrust the responsibility of taking care of their daughter to petitioner No.2. Both parties reduced terms and conditions/clauses in the petition and they fixed burden of each of them not to interfere with personal life after they get mutual divorce.

9.Through this mutual divorce petition, both parties are seeking dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent. This clearly states the nature of the petition and the agreement. Further, the parties arrived at the firm decision that they can no longer live together. This court, therefore, finds it appropriate to uphold their agreement. Since there is no contesting party, allowing this petition will not cause any injuries to other side. On the contrary, it will provide them with much needed relief. Accordingly this court is inclined to grant mutual divorce.

Furthermore, the petitioners have explicitly stated that there are no

Page 6 of 6H.M.O.P.No.90 of 2025 pending terms between them. In light of these submissions, this court is prepared to grant the decree of mutual divorce as requested. Hence, this point is answered accordingly in favour of the parties.

IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed without costs and consequently the marriage between petitioners herein stands dissolved by a decree of divorce, by mutual consent.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected on the desktop,

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 6 th day of May, 2026.

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MANCHERIAL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioners:

PW-1Singathi Kiran Kumar PW-2Singathi Vanitha

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P1Original wedding card Ex.P2Agreement dated:17.02.2025 Ex.P3Original Aadhar card of petitioner No.1

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MANCHERIAL

Note: The original Aadhar card of petitioner No.1 shall be returned to him forthwith on proper identification and acknowledgment.

Page 7 of 6H.M.O.P.No.90 of 2025 Page 8 of 6H.M.O.P.No.90 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

MANCHERIAL

Present : Smt. A.Nirmala,

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial.

Wednesday this the 6th day of May, 2026

H.M.O.P.No.183 of 2025

Between: Lanka Vijay Kumar, S/o.Hanumaiah, Age: 35 years, Occ: Singareni Employee, R/o.H.No.7-54, SC Colony, Muthyampalli, Kasipeta, Adilabad District (Mancherial District).

... Petitioner No.1

//A N D//

Lanka @ Dikonda Ramya, W/o.Lanka Vijay Kumar, D/o.Dikonda Srihari, Age: 29 years, Occ: House wife, R/o.L.C.H. QTER No.D-06, Ward No.5, Nakoda, Usgaon, Chandrapur, Maharashtra State – 442 502.

...Petitioner No.2

This petition coming before me on 06.05.2026 for final hearing in presence of Sri B.Prabhakar & Sri Mulkalla Vineeth, Advocates for petitioner No.1 and Sri Bolli Srikanth, Advocate for petitioner No.2, and upon hearing the arguments of said counsel, this Court made the following:

:: O R D E R ::

The parties herein being the spouse have jointly filed this petition under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of divorce to them by mutual consent.

2. The brief facts of the petition are that petitioner No.2 is the legally wedded wife of petitioner No.1 and their marriage was performed on 08.03.2023 at Sri Mallikarjuna Function Hall, Pegadapalli village,

Page 2 of 5H.M.O.P.No.183 of 2025

Kalvasrirampur mandal, Peddapalli District, as per the rites and customs of Hindus. Soon after the marriage petitioner No.1 joined the petitioner No.2 and they led happy marital life for a period of 20 days.

Subsequently differences arose between the petitioners and they are residing separately since 01.04.2026. Petitioners further submitted that in spite of best efforts made by them, their family members, well- wishers and elders, the disputes could not be solved. On the advice of the elders, well wishers and other relatives, petitioners came to a conclusion to get divorce from the court on mutual consent. It is further submitted that the petitioner No.2 agreed to withdraw the polic case filed by her against petitioner No.1 at Peddapalli Mahila Police

Station. Further, both parties have exchanged their ornaments and articles against each other. Hence the petition.

3.This case was filed on 20.08.2025 and the statutory period of six months lapsed.

4. Petitioner No.1 got examined himself as PW-1 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P3. Whereas petitioner No.2 got examined herself as PW2 and got marked Ex.P4 through her.

5.Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and perused the record.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether petitioners are entitled for the grant of decree of

divorce by mutual consent by dissolving their marriage as

prayed by them?

Page 3 of 5H.M.O.P.No.183 of 2025

7.POINT: I have perused the entire record. In order to grant a decree for divorce on the ground of mutual consent, the following conditions are to be fulfilled, i) The marriage between both the petitioners was solemnized, ii) The petitioners are living separately one year since the day of filing this petition and they are not able to live together, iii) The petitioners have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved, iv) The consent has not been obtained by force, fraud or undue influence, v) The petition is not presented with unnecessary or improper delay, vi) There is no other legal ground why relief should not be granted.

8.Both parties examined as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to 3 through PW1 and Ex.P4 through PW2. The oral and documentary evidence of both parties giving reliance on this court that they filed this petition by mutual consent. The marriage of petitioner No.1 and 2 was performed on 08.03.2023 at Sri Mallikarjuna Function Hall,

Pegadapalli village, Kalvasrirampur mandal, Peddapalli district, as per

Hindu rites. After the marriage petitioner No.2 joined the petitioner

No.1 and they lived happily for a period of 20 days only, thereafter some disputes arose in between them and the relations were strained, as such the parties are residing separately since 01.04.2023 and there is no hope of reunion. The petitioner No.1 submitted that there are no

Page 4 of 5H.M.O.P.No.183 of 2025 claims between them and both petitioners. Both parties reduced terms and conditions/clauses in the petition and they fixed burden of each of them not to interfere with personal life after they get mutual divorce.

9.Through this mutual divorce petition, both parties are seeking dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent. This clearly states the nature of the petition and the agreement. Further, the parties arrived at the firm decision that they can no longer live together. This court, therefore, finds it appropriate to uphold their agreement. Since there is no contesting party, allowing this petition will not cause any injuries to other side. On the contrary, it will provide them with much needed relief. Accordingly this court is inclined to grant mutual divorce.

Furthermore, the petitioners have explicitly stated that there are no pending terms between them. In light of these submissions, this court is prepared to grant the decree of mutual divorce as requested. Hence, this point is answered accordingly in favour of the parties.

IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed without costs and consequently the marriage between petitioners herein stands dissolved by a decree of divorce, by mutual consent.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected on the desktop,

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 6 th day of May, 2026.

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MANCHERIAL

Page 5 of 5H.M.O.P.No.183 of 2025

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioners:

PW-1Lanka Vijay Kumar PW-2Lanka @ Dikonda Ramya

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P1Original wedding card Ex.P2Two marriage photos along with Compact Disc Ex.P3Original Aadhar card of petitioner No.1 Ex.P4Original Aadhar card of petitioner No.2

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MANCHERIAL

Note: The original Aadhar cards of petitioner No.1 and 2 shall be returned to him forthwith on proper identification and acknowledgment.

Page 6 of 5H.M.O.P.No.183 of 2025