Smt. Arpitha Maram Reddy

O.S.No. 105 of 20181 of 16Date: 18 .10.2024 (F.C.)

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE –CUM-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE :: MANCHERIAL

CAMP COURT AT LUXETTIPET

Present : Smt. Arpitha Maram Reddy, Addl. Senior Civil Judge-cum- Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Mancherial

Friday, this the 18th day of October, 2024

O.S.No.105 of 2018

Between :

Dommati Prabhakar, S/o.Ramaiah, Age: 49 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Jendavenkatapur, R/m.Luxettipet, Mancherial District.

..Plaintiff

//A N D//

1.Masu Sunitha, W/o.Late Masu Bhemaiah, Age: 30 years, Occ: A.O., R/o.H.No.7-3-104, Kashmirgadda, Karimnagar, C/o.Senior Divisional Manager, LIC of India, P.B.No.13, N.R.Inspection Bangla, Nallamanchu Kondaiah Building, Karimnagar.

2.Masu Manvisri, D/o.Late Masu Bhemaiah, Age: 4 years (Minor, represented by Natural mother defendant No.1).

3.Masu Kushal, S/o.Masu Bhemaiah, Age: 1 year Minor, represented by Natural mother defendant No.1).

4.Masu Rambai, W/o.Masu Rajam, Age: 65 years, Occ: Nil, R/o.H.No.12-34, Gandhi Nagar, CCC Naspur, Mancherial District.

(Defendant No.4 is added as per the orders in I.A.No.211/2023,

dated: 17.11.2023)

..Defendants

This case is coming on before me for final hearing in presence of Sri V.Nalinikanth Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri Vodnala Satyanarayana, Advocate for defendant No.1 to 3, Sri N.Surender, Advocate for defendant

ASCJ

O.S.No. 105 of 20182 of 16Date: 18 .10.2024 (F.C.)

No.4, and having heard and stood over for consideration till to-day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed for recovery of money from the defendants to the tune of Rs.9,42,500/- (Rupees nine lakhs forty two thousand five hundred only) basing on promissory note.

2.The averments of the plaint in brief are that the plaintiff and deceased borrower namely Masu Bhemaiah are acquainted with each other. Out of such acquaintance, the deceased approached the plaintiff on 24-01-2016 and borrowed hand loan of Rs.6,50,000/- to meet his family needs. On receipt of the said amount, the deceased borrower executed a promissory note on the same day in favour of plaintiff in the presence of witnesses by name Vutoori Shiva Kumar and Velpula Gopal The plaintiff further submits that the deceased borrower assured the plaintiff for repayment of money with an interest at the rate of 1.5% per month as and when demanded by the plaintiff and one Masu Kalpana stood as guarantor. Subsequently original borrower died on 02.01.2017. The defendant No.1 and her children defendant No.2 and 3 succeeded the estate of deceased as legal heirs and the defendant No.1 also got employment in the same department. After death of deceased, the plaintiff informed the defendant No.1 regarding the hand loan amount, for which the defendant No.1 assured to repay the same with interest. Thereafter, the plaintiff several times demanded the defendant No.1 to repay the promissory note amount along with interest in the presence of

ASCJ

O.S.No. 105 of 20183 of 16Date: 18 .10.2024 (F.C.)

defendant No.4. But the defendants used to dodge the matter on one or the other pretext. Thereafter, on 27.03.2018 the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant No.1 demanding her to repay the promissory note amount along with interest. The same was served on her, but neither she repaid the loan amount nor gave any reply. As such the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for recovery of loan amount along with accrued interest thereon. Hence the suit.

3.On receiving the summons from the court, the defendant No.1 to 3 appeared before the court through their counsel and filed written statement.

The brief averments of the written statement filed by the defendant No.1 to 3 are that they denied all the allegations made in the plaint and submitted that the husband of defendant

No.1/deceased worked as Development Officer in LIC and after with the defendant No.1, deceased husband accustomed to bad vices and subsequently defendant No.1 also separated from her husband and living separately at her parents’ house. The deceased also neglected the defendant No.1 to 3, due to bad vices. The deceased borrowed died in the year of 2017 due to road accident leaving behind him the defendant No.1 to 3 and also mother and father as Class-I legal heirs to succeed the entire estate. The parents of deceased also received death benefits towards their share, as such the suit is also bad, not maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary parties. The deceased never borrowed any amount and there is no need to borrow such huge amount without consultation with the family members. The

ASCJ

O.S.No. 105 of 20184 of 16Date: 18 .10.2024 (F.C.)

alleged promissory note is forged and fabricated one in order to grab the amounts from the defendants who are innocent persons. The cause of action, jurisdiction and limitation are created to file the present suit. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4.In the additional written statement filed by defendant No.1 to 3, they admitted that except getting job of deceased/Masu Bheemaiah by defendant No.1, defendant No.1 to 3 never succeeded the estate of Masu Bheemaiah.

5.The defendant No.4 filed written statement submitting that she has no objection to decree the suit by excluding her.

4.Basing on the contentions of both parties, this court framed following issues for trial:

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of

suit amount from the defendant as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

5.At the event of trial, the plaintiff got himself examined as PW1 and got Ex.A1 to A6 marked. On behalf of the plaintiff, the attestors to promissory note were examined as Pws.2 and 3. The counsel for defendant No.1 to 4 reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard both sides. Written arguments filed by counsel for defendant No.1 to 3. Perused the same.

ISSUE No.1:

ASCJ

O.S.No. 105 of 20185 of 16Date: 18 .10.2024 (F.C.)

7.As per Sec.104 of Bharathiya Sakya Adinayam, it is the initial burden on the party who seeks to get decree in his favour, he has to establish fact in issue. In the case in hand, the fact in issue is whether

Ex.A1 was executed by husband of defendant No.1 after receipt of pronote amount from plaintiff.

8.It is the contention of the plaintiff that due to acquaintance with him, husband of defendant No.1 borrowed Rs.6,50,000/- from him on 24.01.2016 and on the same day, executed Ex.A1 in his favour, in the presence of PW2 and PW3. In order to prove the claim, Plaintiff himself examined as PW1 by filing evidence affidavit in lieu of his chief examination, which is replica of pleadings. Ex.A1 is the original promissory note, dated: 24.01.2016, which goes to show that on the said date, promissory note amount was executed by the husband of defendant No.1 in the presence of attestor witnesses/PW2 and PW3.

Prior to proving execution of ExA1, it is the burden cast upon the plaintiff in order to show that after receiving pronote amount, husband of defendant No.1 had executed Ex.A1 in the presence of

PW2 and PW3. On cross examination of PW1, the learned defendants counsel elicited that in the year of 2008 award compensation amount was received by him, and the same was deposited in his account at

Andhra Bank, Mancherial. The learned defence posed the suggestion that no award compensation amount was granted to PW1 and the same was denied by the plaintiff. In fact, it is also elicited that PW1 is not an income tax assessee.

ASCJ

O.S.No. 105 of 20186 of 16Date: 18 .10.2024 (F.C.)

9.In as much it is also elicited by defendants counsel that any transaction exceeding Rs.20,000/-, the same should be made through cheque. In fact, it is the crux of the case whether Ex.A1 was executed and source of income and being I.T. assessee is an incidental factor.

As such, the court initially it is the burden on the plaintiff to prove execution of Ex.A1 in favour of plaintiff by husband of defendant

No.1. Apart from source of title, nothing contrary was elicited to disown the ocular evidence of PW1. In fact, as per PW1 cross examination, he categorically deposed that through his brother in law by name Golla Komuraiah got acquaintance with defendant No.1 and suggestion was denied by PW1. In such scenario, the acquaintance of plaintiff and husband of defendant No.1 is proved.

10.In as much it is pertinent to state that prior to one week of

Ex.A1 the husband of defendant No.1 requested him to lend the loan.

But the said fact did not pleaded in the plaint averments. In fact such non-disclosure of earlier request of husband of defendant No.1, the payment money either in the plaint pleadings or in the chief examination appears to be unacceptable, but not unreasonable. Mere disclosure of the same at the time of cross examination does not discard the entire evidence of PW1. Apart from the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 PW1 deposed the presence of one Kalpana, sister in law of defendant No.1. PW1 asserted in his cross examination that he paid pronote amount on 24.01.2016 and also categorically deposed the source of the same. It is pertinent to mention that there was

ASCJ

O.S.No. 105 of 20187 of 16Date: 18 .10.2024 (F.C.)

ambiguity to the extent of the presence at plaintiff house other than

Bheemaiah and Kalpana at the time of execution of Ex.A1. It is further pertinent to state that PW1 asserted that he paid entire pronote amount in the form of the cash.

11.Coming to PW2 who is one of the attestor filed chief affidavit supporting the averments of the plaint that on the date of execution of Ex.A1, one Kalpana came to plaintiff’s house around 9.00 to 10.00 a.m. Perhaps, PW3 filed chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination admitting the averments of the plaint. Despite of cross examination of PW3 nothing worth was elicited to disbelieve his version. In fact,

PW3 ocular evidence supported the claim of the plaintiff. In fact, PW2 admitted his signature on Ex.A1. Furthermore, the presence of PWs.2 and 3 is stated by PWs.1 to 3. Except denying suggestions, defendant did not elicit any contrary statements in order to disprove claim of the plaintiff. Perhaps, it is elicited from PW1 cross examination that either during the life time of husband of defendant No.1, plaintiff demanded payment for pronote amount to defendant No.1 or her husband. Perhaps, as per PW1 cross examination neither legal notice was issued to husband of defendant No.1 or to his sister Kalapana. In fact, issuance of legal notice is a demand which need to be paid as per the conditions of Sec.4 of Indian Negotiable Instruments Act and itself is not mandate to be in written form. Perhaps one

Kalpana/sister in law of defendant No.1 is shown as guarantor for execution of Ex.A1 and she was not examined on behalf of either of the parties.

ASCJ

O.S.No. 105 of 20188 of 16Date: 18 .10.2024 (F.C.)

12.As per Sec.4 of Indian Negotiable Instrument Act, promissory note i.e,. Ex.A1 is negotiable instrument whereas on perusal of Ex.A1, it contains all the ingredients of promissory note. As such, the initial burden of the plaintiff is discharged who substantiate his case by examined PW1 to PW3 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. As the plaintiff proved execution of Ex.A1, this court is warranted to invoke the provision of presumption U/Sec.118 (a) to (g) of Negotiable Instrument Act. It is evince from the provision of law U/Sec.118 (a) to (g) of N.I.Act that unless the contrary is proved, the presumption as to (a) consideration, (b) as to date, (c) as time of acceptance (d) as to time of transfer (e) as to order of endorsement (f) as to stamp that, (g) the holder is a holder in due course, provided that where the instrument has been obtained for his lawful owner, or from any person in lawful custody thereof by means of offence of fraud, or has been obtained from the maker or acceptor thereof by means of offence or fraud or unlawful consideration, the burden of proving that the holder is holder in due course lies upon him.

13.Apart from it, this court draws presumption U/Sec.114

Illustration (c) of Indian Evidence Act, “That a bill of exchange, accepted or endorsed was accepted or endorsed for good consideration.” As plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and examined attestors/PWs.2 and 3 had established execution of Ex.A1 by stepping into witness box and discharged his burden. As such, the onerous of proof shifts on defendants, in order to disprove that Ex.A1 was not

ASCJ

O.S.No. 105 of 20189 of 16Date: 18 .10.2024 (F.C.)

executed by husband of defendant No.1 and signatures beared on it are forged and created. Prior to appreciation of evidence, it is initially eminent to look into the pleadings of defendants coupled with oral and documentary evidence let in by them, in order to disprove the claim of the plaintiff. It is the contention of the defendant No.1 that her husband does not have any acquaintance with plaintiff.

Defendants in order to disprove the case of plaintiff, neither adduced any oral or documentary evidence. In fact, the defendants did not take any steps to send the Ex.A1 to handwriting expert for comparison or filed any police report in order to disprove the case of the plaintiff. However, be it noted here that the courts are empowered to compare the disputed signatures with of the admitted signatures as per Sec.73 of Indian Evidence Act. In the case in hand the suit is filed against the wife of deceased borrower and his family members. In fact, no admitted document on behalf of husband of defendant No.1 is filed in order to compare the same with Ex.A1.

Perhaps, there is no other material on record to prove that Ex.A1 is a forged document. Mere pleading that husband of defendant No.1 did not receive pronote amount or executed Ex.A1 in the absence of any cogent and documentary evidence is not suffice to conclude that the defendants had rebutted evidence of plaintiff which inspires this court to draw presumption U/Sec.119 (g) of Bharatha Sakya Adiniyam that “evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it”.But in the case in hand, except cross examining PWs.1 to 3, there is no convincing and contrary evidence to culled out to disprove the case

ASCJ

O.S.No. 105 of 201810 of 16Date: 18 .10.2024 (F.C.)

of plaintiff, as such defendants failed to prove the burden of disproving the case of the plaintiff as well as pleading to the extent that Ex.A.1 was forged one.

14.The learned defendants counsel filed written arguments and vehemently argued that on the following counts, the suit may be dismissed:

1) That the is bad for non joinder of necessary parties as the guarantor/Kalapana is not impleaded as one of the party to the suit.

2) That the as Ex.A1 is created in collusion with defendant No.4 and one Kalpana.

3) Scribe of the document has not been examined.

4) Source of pronote amount is not been established.

5) The defendants did not receive any estate from deceased.

6) The plaintiff does not possess any money lending license.

15.The plaintiff being master of his suit and Order 1 Rule 1 of CPC would array necessary parties to the suit. In fact, as per Order 1 Rule 9 CPC, the suit is liable for dismissal for non joinder of necessary parties. In the case in hand, the suit is filed for recovery of money suit and not for declaration of title and partition suit. The plaintiff seeking recovery of money against the defendant No.1 on the count that husband of defendant No.1 had obtained pronote amount by

ASCJ

O.S.No. 105 of 201811 of 16Date: 18 .10.2024 (F.C.)

executing Ex.A1. In such scenario on the demise of husband of defendant No.1 being LRs of defendant No.1 to 4 would be Class I heirs, irrespective of property succeeded by them. If it is such a case, the sister in law of defendant No.1 is not an necessary party and she only amounts to proper party in whose absence effective decree can be passed. In as much, the said Kalpana is shown as a guarantor in

Ex.A1. If it is such a case, the plaintiff is at liberty to array any of the party directly connected to the case. In such circumstances the plea raised by defendants is unsustainable.

16.In fact, plaintiff examined himself PW1 being executee of Ex.A1 and also examined one of the attestor witnesses. If it is such a case non examining the scriber itself does not discard the entire evidence of plaintiff and that too when PWs.1 to 3 were examined on behalf of plaintiff.

17.In as much, on one hand the defendant filed written arguments that plaintiff does not possess any money lending license and on the other hand the defendant failed either to prove that the plaintiff is in habit to run money lending business or any instances to show such money lending to third party. Admittedly plaintiff did not file any record to show that after demise of the husband of defendant No.1, defendant No.1 to 4 succeeded any property which stands in his name. But as per the additional written statement averments except the job of husband of defendant No.1, no property was succeeded in the form of estate. In such scenario, the employment of defendant

ASCJ

O.S.No. 105 of 201812 of 16Date: 18 .10.2024 (F.C.)

No.1 can be termed as estate as she acquired job as Senior Divisional

Officer, LIC of India. In fact, it is undisputed that the husband of defendant No.1 was employer in LIC Department. In such scenario, the contention raised by the defendants counsel appears to be unsustainable.

18.It is undisputed fact that Masu Bheemaiah is the husband of defendant No.1, father and son of defendant No.2 to 4 as well as died intestate. In such a case, on demise of Masu Bheemaiah, irrespective of the properties being male person, property devolves as per Sec.8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which is as follows:

“The property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of Chapter-

(a) firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in Class-

I of the Schedule;

(b) secondly, if there is no heir of Class-I, then upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in Class-II of the Schedule;

(c) thirdly, if there is no heir of any of the two classes, then upon the agnates of the deceased; and

(d) lastly, if there is no agnate, then upon the cognates of the deceased.

If a Hindu dies intestate, the property shall be devolved firstly upon the heirs being relatives specified in Class-I of Schedule. Thus, it

ASCJ

O.S.No. 105 of 201813 of 16Date: 18 .10.2024 (F.C.)

is pertinent to look into the Schedule of the said Act. Wherein the opening lines of the said Class-I is:- sons, daughters, widow, mother, son of a predeceased son, daughter of a predeceased son, son of a predeceased daughter, daughter of predeceased daughter, widow of a predeceased son, son of a predeceased son of a predeceased son, daughter of a predeceased son of predeceased son, widow of predeceased son of a predeceased son, son of a predeceased daughter of a predeceased daughter, daughter of a deceased daughter of predeceased daughter, daughter of a predeceased son of predeceased daughter and daughter of a predeceased daughter of predeceased son.

19.Basing on the above provision of law, defendant No.1 being the mother of the deceased Bheemaiah, defendant No.1 to 3 being wife and children of deceased Bheemaiah fallen under the ambit of Class-I heirs. It is pertinent to mention that if Class-I heirs are not existing, then Class-II would succeed the property. But the same is not in the case in hand. As there is no dispute pertaining to relationship between the defendnat No.1 to 4 are family members of deceased

Bheemaiah and they are his Class-I heirs. In such a case, if any estate irrespective of any property left by late Masu Bheemaiah would devolve upon Class-I heirs. Thus, basing on the above, issue No.1 is answered in favour of plaintiff and defendant No.1 and 4.

20.Thus in view of above submissions, the ocular and documentary evidence let in by the plaintiff is positive, cogent and

ASCJ

O.S.No. 105 of 201814 of 16Date: 18 .10.2024 (F.C.)

establishes that on 24.01.2016 after receipt of pronote amount, husband of defendant No.1 executed Ex.A1 in the presence of plaintiff, his wife, defendant No.1 sister in law, PW2/Shivakumar,

Velpula Gopal/PW3, Katla Bheemaiah and another Bheemaiah. Thus, the plaintiff established his claim beyond probabilities. Hence, the

Issue No.1 is answered in favour of plaintiff and against defendants.

21.ISSUE No.4: To what relief

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff, that defendant No.1 and 4 are directed to pay jointly and severally an amount of Rs.9,42,500/- (Rupees nine lakh forty two thousand five hundred only) to the plaintiff along with interest @12 % per annum on principal adjudged from the date of the suit, till the date of decree. Further, interest @ 6% per annum on principle sum from the date of decree till date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 18th day of October,

2024.

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE–CUM-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

MANCHERIAL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ASCJ

O.S.No. 105 of 201815 of 16Date: 18 .10.2024 (F.C.)

For Plaintiff:

PW-1Dommati Prabhakar PW-2Vutoori Shiva Kumar PW-3Velpula Gopal

For Defendants:None

ASCJ

O.S.No. 105 of 201816 of 16Date: 18 .10.2024 (F.C.)

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1Original promissory note dated: 24.01.2016 Ex.A2Office copy of legal notice dated: 27.03.2018 Ex.A3Postal receipt addressed to office of defendant No.1 under which legal notice was issued Ex.A4Postal receipt addressed to the residence of defendant No.1 under which legal notice was issued Ex.A5Postal acknowledgment card of defendant No.1 Ex.A6Reply notice dated: 17.04.2018

For Defendants: -NIL-

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE–CUM-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

MANCHERIAL

ASCJ

O.S.No. 105 of 201817 of 16Date: 18 .10.2024 (F.C.)

ASCJ

H.M.O.P. No.205 of 2023 1 of 5 Dt: 18.10.2024 (F.C)

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE –CUM-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE :: AT :: MANCHERIAL

CAMP COURT AT LUXETTIPET

Present: Smt. Arpitha Maram Reddy, Addl. Senior Civil Judge-cum- Assistant Sessions Judge, Mancherial

Friday, the 18th day of October, 2024

H.M.O.P.No.205 of 2023

Between:-

Rapelly Jeevan, S/o Rapelly Jayanthaiah, aged: 25 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H.No. 4-138, Medaripet village of Dandepally Mandal of Mancherial District, Telangana state. …Petitioner No.1

AND

Rapelly @ Mugala Gangabhavani, D/o Mugula Rajanna, Aged: 23 years, Occ; House wife, R/o H.No.1-9, Kannepalle village of Dandepally Mandal of Mancherial district, Telangana state.

…Petitioner No.2

This petition is coming for final hearing and disposal before me in the presence of Sri Akkala Sridhar, Advocate for the Petitioner No.1 and Petitioner No.2 and having been heard and having been stood over for consideration to this day, this court made the following:-

: : O R D E R : :

1.This petition is filed under Sec.13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act (in short ‘the Act’) for dissolution of the marriage of the petitioners no.1 and 2 performed on 09.06.2021 at the 2nd petitioner house i.e., Kannepally

ASJ

H.M.O.P. No.205 of 2023 2 of 5 Dt: 18.10.2024 (F.C)

village of Dandepally mandal of Mancherial district, as per Hindu rights and customs, with mutual consent.

2.In the petition, it is inter-alia submitted that the marriage of the

Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 was performed on 09.06.2021 at the 2nd petitioner house i.e., Kannepally village of Dandepally mandal of Mancherial district, as per Hindu rights and customs. After marriage, Petitioner No.1 and 2 joined their conjugal life and led happy matrimonial life for two months only. Thereafter, disputes and differences arose between them. Despite of reconciliation terms held before caste elders, petitioners are unable to reside together in order to lead conjugal life. As such, the petitioners decided to settle the dispute amicably and decided to take mutual divorce and Petitioner No.1 is agreed to pay Rs.5,50,000/- to Petitioner No.2.

Which were presented by the parents of the petitioner no.2, during the time of marriage and also including towards present, past and future maintenance of petitioner no.2 under permanent alimony. Accordingly, the petitioner no.1 was transferred from his father account No.

211910100013409 to the account No.388601501411, who is the nearest relative of the petitioner no.2 namely Rajarao. Later the said elder namely

Rajarao also paid the said amount to the petitioner no.2, the petitioner no.2 also agreed that she received an amount of Rs. 5,50,000/-. It is

ASJ

H.M.O.P. No.205 of 2023 3 of 5 Dt: 18.10.2024 (F.C)

submitted that on 23.04.2023 to that effect MOU was also executed in between the petitioners in the presence of village and caste elders.

Further the petitioner No.1 and 2 have agreed that they shall not file any cases either civil or criminal against each other in any manner. That as petitioners agreed to dissolve their marriage through court of law by mutual consent, they may lead their life independently and remarry, if they desire. Thus there is no collusion between parties in the petition.

Moreover, since last two years, the petitioners are residing separately.

Hence, prayed to pass decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of the petitioners on mutual consent.

3.The case is registered on 15.11.2023 and the cooling period of six months was lapsed.

4.The court tried to reconcile the parties, but they did not heed.

5.To prove the case of petitioners, Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were examined as PWs-1 and 2 and Ex.A1 was marked on their behalf.

6.Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners.

7.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the petitioners have entitled for grant of decree with

mutual consent dissolving their marriage performed on

09.06.2021 at the 2 nd petitioner house i.e., Kannepally village of

Dandepally mandal of Mancherial district ?

ASJ

H.M.O.P. No.205 of 2023 4 of 5 Dt: 18.10.2024 (F.C)

8.The sum and substance of evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 is to the effect that their marriage was performed on 09.06.2021 at the 2nd petitioner house i.e., Kannepally village of Dandepally mandal of

Mancherial district as per Hindu Rights and Customs. The parties herein led happy marital life for two months only. Thereafter, disputes arose between them and since last two years, they are residing separately. The parties finally agreed to move this petition for divorce, as there is no scope to lead marital life in future. Under these circumstances, it is a fit case to grant decree of divorce with mutual consent.

9.IN THE RESULT:: The petition is allowed without costs granting decree of divorce with mutual consent dissolving the marriage of the

Petitioners performed on 09.06.2021 at the 2nd petitioner house i.e.,

Kannepally village of Dandepally mandal of Mancherial district.

Typed to my dictation to Stenographer (Grade-II), corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 18 th day of October, 2024.

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE –CUM-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

MANCHERIAL.

ASJ

H.M.O.P. No.205 of 2023 5 of 5 Dt: 18.10.2024 (F.C)

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

PETITIONER NOS.1 AND 2:

1. PW-1/Rapelly Jeevan (Petitioner No.1)

2. PW-2/Rapelly @ Mugala Gangabhavani (Petitioner No.2)

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.A1: Original Wedding card

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE –CUM-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

MANCHERIAL.

ASJ

H.M.O.P. No.59 of 2021 1 of 5 Dt. 30.09.2024 (F.C)

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

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE : AT MANCHERIAL

Present:

SMT. ARPITHA MARAM REDDY

Addl. Senior Civil Judge-cum- Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Mancherial FAC: Prl. Senior civil Judge, Mancherial

Monday, this the 30th day of September, 2024

H.M.O.P.No. 59 of 2021

Jilkara Ramm Murthy,S/o. Sailu, Age. 36 years, Occ. Driver, R/o.H.No.6-133/2, Amarawadi, Mandamarria Mandal, Mancherial District.

... Petitioner No.1

//A N D//

Jilkara Supraja @ Merugu Shailaja, W/o. Ramm Murthy, Age. 25 years, Occ. House wife, R/o.H.No.6-232/1, Amarawadi, Mandamarri Mandal, Mancherial district.

...Petitioner No.2

This petition is coming before me for final hearing on this day in presence of Sri Dega Ravinder, Advocate for petitioner No.1 and Sri. Satyanarayana Rao Gudur, advocate for petitioner No.2, and having heard and stood over for consideration this Court made the following:

:: O R D E R ::

1.Initially, the petitioner No.1 has filed the petition under

Section 13(i)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short ‘the Act’) against the petitioner No.2 to grant decree of divorce in his favour by dissolving their marriage and subsequently it was

PSCJ

H.M.O.P. No.59 of 2021 2 of 5 Dt. 30.09.2024 (F.C)

amended to Section 13B of the Act for grant of divorce to them by mutual consent vide orders in I.A.No.206/2024, dated:

18.09.2024.

2.In the petition, it is inter-alia submitted that the marriage of the Petitioner No.1 and 2 was performed on 20-03-2020 at the petitioner No.1 parents house at Amarawadi, Mandamarri Mandal,

Mancherial District, as per Hindu rights and customs, with mutual consent, Petitioner No.1 and 2 joined their conjugal life and led happy matrimonial life for a period of 1 month only. Thereafter, disputes and differences arose between them. Despite of reconciliation terms held before caste elders, petitioners are unable to reside together in order to lead conjugal life. As such, the petitioners decided to settle the dispute amicably and decided to take mutual divorce. It is further submitted that both petitioners agreed not to do anything which is detrimental to their interest.

That as petitioners agreed to dissolve their marriage through court of law by mutual consent, they may lead their life independently and remarry, if they desire. Thus there is no collusion between parties in the petition. Moreover, since 02-05-2020 the petitioners are residing separately. Hence, prayed to pass decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of the petitioners on mutual consent.

PSCJ

H.M.O.P. No.59 of 2021 3 of 5 Dt. 30.09.2024 (F.C)

3.The Petitioner No.1 agreed to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner No.2 towards her full and final, permanent maintenance and alimony. Out of the said amount, on 20-08-2024

Petitioner No.1 has paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/- will paid a the the time of filing of chief examination affidavits. Petitioner No.2 accepted the same towards her full satisfaction and also will not have any right to claim any maintenance case or any other proceedings in civil or criminal nature against the Petitioner No.1 in any manner for the past or in future for maintenance under any provision of law.

5.The case is registered on 20.04.2021 and the mandatory period of six months completed.

6.The court tried to reconcile the parties, but they did not heed.

7.To prove the case of petitioners, Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were examined as PWs-1 and 2 and Ex.P1 is marked on their behalf.

8.Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners.

9.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the petitioners have entitled for grant of decree

with mutual consent dissolving their marriage performed

on 20-03-2020 at the petitioner No.1 parents house at

Amarawadi, Mandamarri Mandal, Mancherial District?

PSCJ

H.M.O.P. No.59 of 2021 4 of 5 Dt. 30.09.2024 (F.C)

10.The sum and substance of evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 is to the effect that their marriage was performed on 20-03-2020 at the petitioner No.1 parents house at Amarawadi, Mandamarri Mandal,

Mancherial District, as per Hindu rights and customs, with mutual consent., as per Hindu rites and customs. The parties herein led happy marital life for a period of 1 month. Thereafter, disputes arose between them and 02-05-2020 they are residing separately.

The parties finally agreed to move this petition for divorce, as there is no scope to lead marital life in future. Under these circumstances, it is a fit case to grant decree of divorce with mutual consent.

11.IN THE RESULT,the petition is allowed without costs granting decree of divorce with mutual consent dissolving the marriage of the Petitioners performed on 20-03-2020 at the petitioner No.1 parents house at Amarawadi, Mandamarri Mandal,

Mancherial District.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist directly on computer, and after correction pronounced by me in the Open Court this the 30th day of September, 2024.

Addl. Senior Civil Judge-cum- Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge,

FAC: Prl. Senior Civil Judge,

PSCJ

H.M.O.P. No.59 of 2021 5 of 5 Dt. 30.09.2024 (F.C)

Mancherial

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioners:

PW-1 Jilkara Ramm Murthy PW-2Jilkara Supraja @ Merugu Shailaja

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P1: Original Wedding Card.

Addl. Senior Civil Judge-cum-

Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge,

FAC: Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial

PSCJ

H.M.O.P. No.32 of 2024 1 of 5 Dt. 01.10.2024 (F.C)

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

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE : AT MANCHERIAL

Present:

SMT. ARPITHA MARAM REDDY

Addl. Senior Civil Judge-cum- Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Mancherial FAC: Prl. Senior civil Judge, Mancherial

Tuesday, this the 01st day of October, 2024

H.M.O.P.No. 32 of 2024

Bairy Mani shankar,S/o. Raju,Age:27Yrs, Occ:Private employee,R/o. H.No.3-2-62,Jammikunta Village and Mandal of Karimnagar Disrict.

...Petitioner No.1

//A N D//

Arigela@ Bairy Akhila, W/o.Bairy Mani Shankar,D/o. Arigela shankar Goud,Age:22years,Occ:House wife,R/o.Plot.No.28,Asnad village, Chennur mandal,Mancherial District.

...Petitioner No.2

This petition is coming before me for final hearing on this day in presence of Sri G.Rajesh Goud, Advocate for petitioner No.1 , and having heard and stood over for consideration this Court made the following:

:: O R D E R ::

1.This petition is filed under Sec.13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act (in short ‘the Act’) for dissolution of the marriage of the petitioner No.1 and 2 performed on 09-12-2022 at the House of parents of the

PSCJ

H.M.O.P. No.32 of 2024 2 of 5 Dt. 01.10.2024 (F.C)

Petitioner No.2 at Asnad Village, Chennur Mandal, Mancherial

District , as per Hindu rights and customs, with mutual consent.

2.In the petition, it is inter-alia submitted that the marriage of the Petitioner No.1 and 2 was performed on 09-12-2022 at the

House of parents of the Petitioner No.2 at Asnad Village, Chennur

Mandal, Mancherial District , as per Hindu rights and customs, with mutual consent, Petitioner No.1 and 2 joined their conjugal life and led happy matrimonial life for few days only. Thereafter, disputes and differences arose between them. Despite of reconciliation terms held before caste elders, petitioners are unable to reside together in order to lead conjugal life. As such, the petitioners decided to settle the dispute amicably and decided to take mutual divorce. It is further submitted that both petitioners agreed not to do anything which is detrimental to their interest. That as petitioners agreed to dissolve their marriage through court of law by mutual consent, they may lead their life independently and remarry, if they desire. Thus there is no collusion between parties in the petition. Moreover, since 30-12-2022 the petitioners are residing separately. Hence, prayed to pass decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of the petitioners on mutual consent.

PSCJ

H.M.O.P. No.32 of 2024 3 of 5 Dt. 01.10.2024 (F.C)

3.Both parties are exchanged their articles and presentations each other which were presented in their marriage. The Petitioner

No.1 has agreed to pay an amount of Rs.15,50,000/- (Rupees

Fifteen Lakhs Fifty thousand only) to the petitioner No.2 towards permanent alimony of for which the petitioner No.2 agreed and the Petitioner No.2 will not have any right to claim any maintenance from the Petitioner No.1 in any manner for the past or in future for maintenance under any provision of law.

4.The case is registered on 05.02.2024 andthe mandatory period of six months completed.

5.The court tried to reconcile the parties, but they did not heed.

6.To prove the case of petitioners, Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were examined as PWs-1 and 2 and Ex.P1 is marked on their behalf.

7.Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners.

8.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the petitioners have entitled for grant of

decree with mutual consent dissolving their marriage

performed on 09-12-2022 at the House of parents of

the Petitioner No.2 at Asnad Village, Chennur Mandal,

Mancherial District ?

09.The sum and substance of evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 is to the effect that their marriage was performed on 09-12-2022 at the

House of parents of the Petitioner No.2 at Asnad Village, Chennur

PSCJ

H.M.O.P. No.32 of 2024 4 of 5 Dt. 01.10.2024 (F.C)

Mandal, Mancherial District , as per Hindu rights and customs, with mutual consent., as per Hindu rites and customs. The parties herein led happy marital life for few day only. Thereafter, disputes arose between them and 30-12-2022 they are residing separately.

The parties finally agreed to move this petition for divorce, as there is no scope to lead marital life in future. Under these circumstances, it is a fit case to grant decree of divorce with mutual consent.

10.IN THE RESULT,the petition is allowed without costs granting decree of divorce with mutual consent dissolving the marriage of the Petitioners performed on 09-12-2022 at the House of parents of the Petitioner No.2 at Asnad Village, Chennur Mandal,

Mancherial District.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist directly on computer, and after correction pronounced by me in the Open Court this the 01st day of October, 2024.

Addl. Senior Civil Judge-cum- Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge,

FAC: Prl. Senior Civil Judge,

Mancherial

PSCJ

H.M.O.P. No.32 of 2024 5 of 5 Dt. 01.10.2024 (F.C)

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioners:

PW-1Bairy Mani shankar PW-2Arigela@ Bairy Akhila

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.A1: Original Wedding Card.

Addl. Senior Civil Judge-cum-

Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge,

FAC: Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial

PSCJ

H.M.O.P. No.38 of 2024 1 of 5 Dt. 16.10.2024 (F.C)

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

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE : AT MANCHERIAL

Present:

SMT. ARPITHA MARAM REDDY

Addl. Senior Civil Judge-cum- Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Mancherial FAC: Prl. Senior civil Judge, Mancherial

Wednesday, this the 16th day of October, 2024

H.M.O.P.No. 38 of 2024

Between: Chatla Venkatesh, S/o Lingaiah, Age 33 yrs, Occ. SCCL Employee, R/o Q.No. SC-17, Krishana Colony, Srirampur, Naspur Mandal, Mancherial District.

... Petitioner No.1

//A N D//

Chatla @ Bore Rupa, W/o Venkatesh, D/o Bore Dharmaiah, Age 35 yrs, Occ. Housewife, R/o 02 Ground Floor, Jambo colony, Anand Nagar, Dombivali, West Thane, Mumbai

...Petitioner No.2

This petition is coming before me for final hearing on this day in presence of Sri S. Nirajan, Advocate for petitioner No.1 and Smt. T. Pallavi, advocate for petitioner No.2, and having heard and stood over for consideration this Court made the following:

:: O R D E R ::

1.This petition is filed under Sec.13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act (in short ‘the Act’) for dissolution of the marriage of the petitioner

No.1 and 2 performed on 12-03-2020 at Dombivalli Village, Thane,

Mumbai, as per Hindu rights and customs, with mutual consent.

PSCJ

H.M.O.P. No.38 of 2024 2 of 5 Dt. 16.10.2024 (F.C)

2.In the petition, it is inter-alia submitted that the marriage of the Petitioner No.1 and 2 was performed on 12-03-2020 at

Dombivalli Village, Thane, Mumbai, as per Hindu rights and customs. After the marriage, Petitioner No.2 joined the conjugal society of the Petitioner No. 1 at her residence at Srirampur

Colony, Naspur Mandal, Mancherial District. It is submitted that at the time of the marriage the neither the Petitioner No.2 nor her family members given nothing to the petitioner No.1

3. Petitioner No.1 and 2 joined their conjugal life and led happy matrimonial life for a period of 1 year. During wedlock they have blessed with a Female child namely Praakruthika, thereafter, disputes and differences arose between them. Despite of reconciliation terms held before caste elders, petitioners are unable to reside together in order to lead conjugal life. As such, the petitioners decided to settle the dispute amicably and decided to take mutual divorce. It is further submitted that both petitioners agreed not to do anything which is detrimental to their interest.

Further, the petitioner No.1 (Father) agreed to the Relinquished the rights of their child and child was custody natural guardian under the petitioner No.2(Mother).

PSCJ

H.M.O.P. No.38 of 2024 3 of 5 Dt. 16.10.2024 (F.C)

4.Both Petitioners exchanged their articles and belongings. The petitioner No.2 agreed that she will not claim any maintenance or alimony in future that as petitioners agreed to dissolve their marriage through court of law by mutual consent, they may lead their life independently and remarry, if they desire. Thus there is no collusion between parties in the petition. Moreover, since

January,2022 the petitioners are residing separately. Hence, prayed to pass decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of the petitioners on mutual consent.

5.The case is registered on 23.02.2024 and the and the mandatory period of six months completed.

6.The court tried to reconcile the parties, but they did not heed.

7.To prove the case of petitioners, Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were examined as PWs-1 and 2 and Ex.A1 is marked on their behalf.

8.Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners.

9.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the petitioners have entitled for grant of

decree with mutual consent dissolving their marriage

performed on 12-03-2020 at Dombivalli Village,

Thane, Mumbai ?

PSCJ

H.M.O.P. No.38 of 2024 4 of 5 Dt. 16.10.2024 (F.C)

10.The sum and substance of evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 is to the effect that their marriage was performed on 12-03-2020 at

Dombivalli Village, Thane, Mumbai, as per Hindu rites and customs. The parties herein led happy marital life for a period of 1 year, thereafter disputes arose between them and Since

January,2022 they are residing separately. The parties finally agreed to move this petition for divorce, as there is no scope to lead marital life in future. Under these circumstances, it is a fit case to grant decree of divorce with mutual consent.

11.IN THE RESULT,the petition is allowed without costs granting decree of divorce with mutual consent dissolving the marriage of the Petitioners performed on 12-03-2020 at Dombivalli

Village, Thane, Mumbai.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist directly on computer, and after correction pronounced by me in the Open Court this the 16th day of October, 2024.

Addl. Senior Civil Judge-cum- Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Mancherial FAC: Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial

PSCJ

H.M.O.P. No.38 of 2024 5 of 5 Dt. 16.10.2024 (F.C)

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioners:

PW-1Chatla Venkatesh PW-2 Chatla @ Bore Rupa

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.A1: Original Wedding Card.

Addl. Senior Civil Judge-cum- Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Mancherial FAC: Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial

PSCJ