B.babu Naik

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: PALAMANER

Present: Sri B.Babu Naik.,

Senior Civil Judge, Punganur

FAC/Senior Civil Judge, Palamaner.

Friday, the 2nd day of August, 2019

H.M.O.P.NO.16 OF 2016

Between: Lakshman, S/o.Narayanappa, aged about 30 years, Hindu, live by coolie, residing at D.No.7-73, Bharath Nagar, V.Kota town, post and Mandal, Chittoor District.

... Petitioner.

And:

D.Silpa, W/o.Lakshman, aged about 28 years, house wife, residing at Bandarlapalli village and post, Ramakuppam Mandal, Chittoor District.

... Respondent.

This petition came on 19-07-2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. G.Gopalakrishnaiah and Sri.V.Chandrasekhar, Advocates for petitioner; and of Sri. T.Reddeppa and Sri. K.Sharmila, Advocates for the respondent; upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

ORDER

1. This is a petition filed U/Sec.9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for relief of restitution of conjugal rights by stating that the petitioner and respondent are legally wedded husband and wife and their was solemnized on 11.03.2007 at

T.T.D.Kalyana Mandapam, V.Kota, Chittoor District. After their marriage both the petitioner and respondent lived happily and out of wedlock the respondent blessed with two male children. Thereafter the respondent used to leave the petitioner’s matrimonial home without informing the petitioner and settling at her parent’s house. On every occasion the petitioner and his parents along with village elders went to the respondent’s parents’ house and get back the respondent to her matrimonial home. Whenever the respondent and his parents visited to respondent’s parents’ home, the respondent used to lodge false complaints before Ramakuppam police and harassing the petitioner and his aged parents. The petitioner submits that the respondent is no other than 2 his uncle’s daughter and the parents of the petitioner have accepted for marriage with the respondent as the respondent is the close relatives and would adjust and co-operative him. The petitioner further contends that according to the intention of the respondent, he put up separate family at

Bandarlapalli village and at that place also the respondent did not co-operate to the petitioner in day to day life. Later, the petitioner and the respondent came to V.Kota village on the advice of the village elders and to lead happy married life at V.Kota village but she did not perform her moral and legal duties and obligations with the petitioner.

2. Further, the petitioner submits that on 09.04.2013 the respondent left the matrimonial home along with minor children without knowledge and consent of the petitioner. In spite of mediations through elders went in futile.

The petitioner also issued legal notice to the respondent on 20.08.2015, the respondent received the same but she did not come to her matrimonial home to lead conjugal life. The respondent also filed M.C.No.9/2015 on the file of

Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court, Palamaner claiming maintenance to her

and her children. So that the petitioner constrained to file the present petition and prayed the Court to allow the petition.

3. On the other hand, the respondent filed a counter by denying all the material allegations made by the petitioner as false and further contends that on 02.06.2015 the respondent was necked away by the petitioner from her matrimonial home saying that to bring additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-. The respondent further submits that she filed M.C.No.9/2015 which was dismissed for default for her non appearance before the Court. The respondent also filed another petition vide M.C.No.11/2016 against the petitioner herein for maintenance and the same is pending before the Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Court, Palamaner. The respondent also gave a complaint to the Station House

Officer, V.Kota against the petitioner and his family members and the same 3 was registered a case in Cr.No.39/2016. The respondent also submits that the petitioner to escape from the liability in the above mentioned cases, got filed this petition with all false allegations and hence the petitioner is not entitled for any of the reliefs as sought for in the petition. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.

4. During the course of enquiry, the petitioner was examined as PW-1 and the father of the petitioner is examined as PW-2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 in support of the case of the petitioner. On the other hand, the respondent was examined as RW-1 and father of the respondent was examined as RW-2 and no documents were marked on her behalf.

5. Heard on both sides.

6. Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the petitioner is entitled to a relief of restitution of

conjugal rights against the respondent?

7. The petitioner was examined as PW-1. Respondent was examined as RW-

1. Father of petitioner and father of respondent are examined as PW-2 and

RW-2 respectively. In view of the evidence of the witnesses, the relationship among them is undisputed. As per the pleadings of both parties, it appears that admittedly the petitioner and respondent are legally wedded husband and wife and out of wedlock they begotten with two children. Though the petitioner made so many allegations against the respondent stating that from the date of marriage the respondent is not cooperating with him and his parents in day to day life to perform her duties and used to left her matrimonial home without informing him, whenever himself and his parents visited to the house of the respondent’s parents to get back the respondent and the respondent used to lodge false complaints before the Ramakuppam police and harassed him without any cause and that the respondent did not care to reach matrimonial home and she has no courtesy to look after the minimum needs of the petitioner with a lenient attitude and mean thinking for no fault of him, but no 4 material is placed by the petitioner to prove the same by adducing any cogent evidence.

8. The petitioner was examined as PW-1 by reiterating the averments made in the petition. On the other hand, the respondent is examined as RW-1. She simply deposed as she is not interested to join the petitioner and there is imminent danger to her life. Such evidence of the RW-1 does not specifically disclose the incidents in which she was subjected to harassment endangering to her life in the hands of the petitioner. In view of the absence of necessary reasons for respondent’s living separately from the petitioner, I am of the view that respondent failed to produce any kind of material witness in support of her contention that she is living separately in view of alleged danger in the hands of petitioner. During the course of evidence of the respondent as RW-1 in cross examination, categorical that she is ready to join with the petitioner for conjugal life but it is the evidence of RW-1 that if she went along with the petitioner, he will beat her and also there is a life threat. As per evidence of PW- 1 asserts in his chief affidavit that he undertake that he will look after and foster her and her children as a dutiful husband/father. Therefore, their evidence is clear suggested that they are ready and willing to live together as wife and husband.

9. Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act deals with conjugal rights and the same is produced as follows:

Sec.9. Restitution of conjugal rights:- “When either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply, by petition to the district court, for restitution of conjugal rights and the court, on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition and that there is no legal ground why the application should not be granted, may decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly.

5

Explanation:- Where a question arises whether there has been reasonable excuse for withdrawal from the society, the burden of proving reasonable excuse shall be on the person who has with-drawn from the society.”

10. As per the Sec.9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, in general the petitioner is not entitled to have relief of restitution of conjugal rights if he forced the respondent to leave her matrimonial home on one way or other and if the respondent left her matrimonial home due to the fault on the part of the petitioner. But, however, as per the evidence given by PW-1 in his Chief examination, when it appears that the respondent is agreed to join the petitioner and he is also ready to take back the respondent for conjugal life and as per the evidence given by RW-1 that she is ready and willing to lead her matrimonial life with the petitioner if the petitioner undertakes that there is no life threat on him, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of the justice can be met if this petition is allowed that the petitioner should take the respondent along with their two children to his house with all respects without causing any discomfort or any life threat to the respondent. Ex.P3 which is

Office copy of legal notice dated 20.08.2015 also strengthens the case of the petitioner.

11. In this circumstances, I have no option except consider the evidence of the PW-1 that the respondent frequently went to her parents house by leaving the petitioner without any reason which is consistent to the petitioner’s pleadings. Hence, I hold that the petitioner has proved the pleadings of the petition that the respondent has been living separately without any reasons, hence the petitioner is entitled for relief of conjugal rights.

12. In the result, the petition is allowed without costs directing the respondent to join the petitioner within three months for discharging her conjugal rights. In the circumstances both the parties are directed to bear their own costs.

6

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 2nd day of August, 2019.

Sd/- B. Babu Naik

Senior Civil Judge, Punganur.

FAC/Senior Civil Judge, Palamaner.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR

Petitioner: Respondent :

P.W.1 : Lakshman, R.W.1 : D.Silpa, P.W.2 : Narayanappa. R.W.2 : D.Jayappa.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

Petitioner: Respondent:

Ex.P1 : Xerox copy of House hold card, - NIL - Ex.P2 : Xerox copy of voter identified card, Ex.P3 : Office copy of legal notice dated 20.08.2015, Ex.P4 : Served copy of petition in M.C.No.9/2015.

Sd/- B. Babu Naik

Senior Civil Judge, Punganur.

FAC/Senior Civil Judge, Palamaner.

FAIR JUDGMENT IN OP16/16

DT: 2-8-2019

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT PUNGANUR

Present: Sri B. Babu Naik.,

Senior Civil Judge, Punganur.

Friday, the 16th day of July, 2021 

H.M. O.P.NO. 23 OF 2021

Between: 

1) P.Rajesh, S/o.P.Govinda Raju, aged about 32 years, Hindu, Private employee, residing at D.No.2­51, Kotha Veerappalli village, Itikinellore post, Pedda Panjani mandal, Chittoor District. 

2) K.Kavitha, D/o.K.Subba Raju, W/o.P.Rajesh, aged about 29 years, Hindu, Private Employee, residing at Malenatham village, K.,C.Palli post, Ramasamudram mandal, Chittoor District.

…Petitioners.

And

NIL.

...Respondent.

This petition came on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri L.V.Ramana, Advocate for the petitioners; upon hearing the arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following: 

ORDER

1.This Original petition is filed by the petitioners underSection 13­B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking the relief of granting decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage solemnized on 04.12.2019 at Sri

Kalyana Venkateswara Swamy Temple near Koneru, Punganur town and

Mandal as per the customs prevailing in their community in between the first petitioner and second petitioner, with mutual consent.

2. It is averred in the petition that the second petitioner is the legally wedded wife of first petitioner and their marriage was solemnized on 04.12.2019 at Sri Kalyana Venkateswara Swamy Temple near Koneru,

Punganur town as per Hindu rites and customs prevailing in their 2 community. After the marriage both of them are lived for a period of three months with some petty quarrels and thereafter disputes arose in between the petitioners as there were no issues to them and both are used to quarrel with each other for each and every thing. The second petitioner did not like the first petitioner. They are living separately since more than one year. There were several mediations held but all the efforts are proved futile. All the efforts for negotiations and conciliation between the petitioners made by their respective parents are proved futile and there is no chance for their re­union and to live together.

Hence, they agreed to have the divorce by dissolving their marriage by granting decree of divorce with mutual consent. Hence the petition. 

3.The efforts made by the Court for reunion of the petitioners, by way of conciliation, failed.

4.Chief Affidavits of both the petitioners are filed. The first petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and the second petitioner was examined as

P.W.2 and Ex.P1 is marked through P.W.1.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners through video conferencing mode by way of Blue jean application.

6.Now, the point arises for consideration is:- “Whether the petitioners are entitled for a decree of divorce on mutual consent by dissolving their marriage solemnized on 04.12.2019 at Sri Kalyana Venkateswara Swamy Temple near Koneru, Punganur town? 

POINT:

7.The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 coupled with the contents of petition, prima facie proves the case of the petitioners that the second petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the first petitioner and their marriage was solemnized on 04.12.2019. Ex.P1 wedding card also 3 establishes the marriage between the petitioners. There is no dispute regarding the relationship between the petitioners as husband and wife.

After the marriage both of them lived for a period of three months only and later due to misunderstandings both the petitioners living separately since more than one year. There is no rebuttal evidence also. 

8. The first petitioner as P.W.1 stated in his chief affidavit that after the marriage himself and second petitioner lived only three months with some petty quarrels and thereafter disputes arose in between himself and second petitioner. P.W.1 further stated that the second petitioner did not like him. There were several mediations but they were proved futile and both of them refused to join with each other to lead married life happily. P.W.1 also stated that himself and second petitioner ultimately came to a conclusion that there is no chance to reunion in between them and to lead happy marital life and prayed to allow the petition by granting decree of divorce with mutual consent. 

9. As seen from the evidence of P.W.2, after the marriage herself and the first petitioner lived only for a period of three months only with some petty quarrels. She further stated that since one year misunderstandings arose in between them as there were no issues to them and both of them are used to quarrel with each other for each and every thing as she did not like the 1st petitioner. She also stated that there were so many mediations held but all the efforts are ended in futile and both of them refused to join and to live together. There are no chances in between herself and the 1st petitioner to lead happy marital life and also voluntarily decided to dissolve their marriage by way of decree of divorce and prays for decree of divorce with mutual consent. It is apparent that 4 both P.Ws.1 and 2 have mutually agreed to get decree of divorce by consent.

10.It is an admitted fact that the marriage of the petitioners 1 and 2 was solemnized on 04.12.2019 at Sri Kalyana Venkateswara Swamy

Temple near Koneru, Punganur town. Admittedly they are husband and wife and after the marriage both of them lived together only for a period of three months. P.W.1 and P.W.2 in their chief affidavits asserted that due to misunderstandings both of them are living separately since more than one year. Both of them have stated in their chief affidavits that the elders and others have convened panchayath but in the said panchayath both the petitioners refused their advice for reunion and both the petitioners have desired to take divorce. Considering the evidence of

P.W.1 and P.W.2 that they have been living separately for the period of more than one year and they have not been able to live together and also they have mutually agreed to dissolve their marriage which was solemnized on 04.12.2019, this Court allowed the petition.

11.In the result, the petition is allowed by dissolving the marriage between the first petitioner and second petitioner which was solemnized on 04.12.2019 at Sri Kalyana Venkateswara Swamy Temple near

Koneru, Punganur town by granting decree of divorce by mutual consent. No costs. 

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me at Court on the 16th day of July, 2021.

Sd/­ Sri B.Babu Naik 

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

 PUNGANUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for Petitioners:Respondent: P.W.1: P.Rajesh NIL. P.W.2: K.Kavitha. 

5

Exhibits marked for Petitioners: Ex.P1: Wedding card dated 04.12.2019. Id/­ Sri B.Babu Naik S.C.J./PNGR.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

-CUM- SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES AGAINST WOMEN,

CHITTOOR.

Present :- SRI B.BABU NAIK, VI Additional District Judge -cum- Special Judge for trial of offences against Women, Chittoor.

Wednesday, this the 09th day of April, 2025.

Crl. M.P.No. 235 of 2025

(Crime No.06/2025 of Bangarupalem Urban P.S.)

Between :

1. B.Durga, W/o.S.Rajasekhar, aged 29 years, R/o.D.No.34-426/1-2, Kannamakulapally Road, Opposite Charan Hotel, Palamaner Town and Mandal. Native of Musalimadugu village, Palamaner Mandal.

2. Bollineni Leela Manohar, S/o.Late Dhamodar Naidu, aged 23 years, R/o.R.R.Nagar, Bangarupalyam Village and Mandal. Native of Musalimadugu Village, Palamaner Mandal. … Petitioners/A1 and A2. And : The State of A.P., rep., by the Station House Officer, Bangarupalem Urban Police Station. … Respondent/Complainant.

The petition came before me for hearing in the presence of Smt.E.Renuka, Advocate for the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 and of in- charge Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/complainant in the application and the matter having stood over for consideration, the Court made the following:

ORDER

1.This is third application filed on behalf of the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of bail in Crime No.06/2025 of

Bangarupalem Urban Police Station for the offences punishable under 2

Sections 103(1), 305(a), 332(a), 238(a), 61(2) r/w.3(5) of BNS altered from

Section 194 of BNSS.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows :

On 18.01.2025 at 10.30 a.m., and 1.00 p.m., in the rented house of deceased G.R.Sunandamma, situated at RR Nagar, Bangarupalem village, was found dead on the bed in her house with some red spots on her nose.

After confirming her death, the complainant/son of deceased shifted the dead body to his native place. As the deceased was alone and has died unexpectedly and suspiciously, the complainant gave report on 19.01.2025 in

Bangarupalem Police Station. In this connection a case was registered and investigated. During the course of investigation, basing on the postmortem examination report it is established that some one killed the deceased/G.R.Sunandamma by smothering her and subsequently committed theft of 22 sovereigns of gold ornaments worth about Rs.12,00,000/- which worn by her and kept in the almirah in her rented house. Further, during the course of investigation on 29.01.2025 at 11.30 a.m., police arrested A1 and

A2 and recorded their confessional statements and recovered the ornaments which were committed theft by A1 and A2 and they sent for remand.

3.The learned Counsel for petitioners contended that, the petitioners are falsely implicated and they have no connection to the crime. The petitioners are the brother and sister and due to minor disputes with her husband

Rajasekhar, the 1st petitioner is residing at present address. The petitioners are the only bread winners to their family. The petitioners have fixed abode and they are ready and willing to furnish sufficient sureties. It is further stated that the entire investigation is completed and charge sheet is also filed.

4.Notice was given to the learned in-charge Additional Public Prosecutor, who opposed the grant of bail.

3

5. Heard both sides.

6. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the petitioners/A1 and A2 are entitled for grant of bail as prayed for?

POINT :

7.As seen from the record, the registered case is that the deceased

Sunandamma was found dead on the bed in house with some red spots on her nose and also committed theft of 22 sovereigns of gold ornaments worth about Rs.12,00,000/- which worn by her and kept in the almirah. Further, it alleged against the petitioners is that the stolen ornaments are recovered from

A1 and A2. Basing on the report of the son of the deceased person, the above case is registered against the petitioners and investigation is in progress. The C.D., goes to show that material part of investigation is completed. Earlier bail applications in Crl.MP.No.111/2025 and

Crl.MP.No.175/2025 are dismissed on the ground that investigation is not yet

completed and moreover the petitioners are in judicial custody from 29.01.2025. Since material witnesses examined and most of the investigation is completed except filing of charge sheet, this Court is of the view that, if at all the petitioners are enlarged on bail there is no hurdle for investigating agency to complete it and file charge sheet. Hence, it is a fit case to enlarge the petitioners on bail. Accordingly, the point is answered.

8. In the result, the petition is allowed and the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 are ordered to be released on bail on execution their bond for a sum of

Rs.20,000/- each with two sureties like sum each to the satisfaction of the

Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor and the petitioners shall

appear before Station House Officer, Bangarupalem Urben Police Station on 4 every Sunday between 10:00 A.M and 12:00 Noon for a period of two months or till filing of charge sheet, whichever is earlier.

Dictated to the Stenographer directly in the computer, typed by her,

corrected, and pronounced by me in open Court this the 09th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- B. Babu Naik

VI Additional District Judge -cum- Spl. Judge for trial of offences against Women, Chittoor.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Principal District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor. Copy to Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum- Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Chittoor. Copy to Station House Officer, Bangarupalem U/G Police Station. Copy to the Counsel for petitioners on payment of usual charges.

1

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE -CUM- SPECIAL

JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES AGAINST WOMEN : CHITTOOR.

Present: SRI B.BABU NAIK, VI Additional District Judge -cum- Special Judge for trial of offences against Women, Chittoor.

Monday, this the 7th day of April, 2025.

Crl. M.P. No.229 of 2025

(Crime No.32/2025 of Gangavaram P.S)

Between :

1. G.Siva S/o. G.Sathyanarayana, aged about 35 years, presently residing at D.No.118, Doddabelekere, Shivakote post, Bangalore.

2. Sathyanarayana, S/o. Late G.Guravaiah, aged about 58 years,

3. Lakshmamma, W/o. Sathyanarayana, aged about 50 years,

Nos 2 & 3 are residing at Guttavandlavooru K.P. Vaddigudiselu, Kalavagunta, Chittoor District. … Petitioners/A1to A3. And:

The State of A.P., rep., by the Station House Officer, Gangavaram UPS. … Respondent/Complainant.

The above Criminal Miscellaneous Petition came before me on for hearing in the presence of Sri E.Sugunasekar Reddy, Advocate for petitioners/A1 to A3 and of Learned in-charge Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent/complainant in the application and the matter having stood over for consideration, the Court made the following :

ORDER

1.This is an application filed on behalf of the petitioners/A1 to A3 under

Section 482 of BNSS for grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.32/2025 of

Gangavaram Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 85 r/w 3(5) BNS and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act.

2

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

That prior to 24.02.2025 at Deguva Vemanapalli village, A1 got married the defacto complainant/M.Deepika. At the time of marriage, the parents of the defacto complainant presented 133 grams of gold and 300 grams of silver patties and 15 pattu sarees worth about Rs.50,000/- to the defacto complainant and one bras light, minor chain, ring about 40 grams and

Rs.50,000/- for clothes to A1. They lived amicably about 6 months, and then the accused harassed her by physically and mentally for additional dowry. The

A2 and A3 who are the parents of A1 instigated him and on 19.02.2025, A1 to

A3 driven her out from their house for additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs. In this connection, a case was registered.

3.Notice was given to the learned in-charge Additional Public Prosecutor, she opposed for grant of bail.

4.The learned Counsel for petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence. The allegations are false and have been made to harass them. Further submitted that A1 had filed a complaint to the police at Karnataka on 19.02.2025 in Crime No. 136/2025 after the complainant left his home following a quarrel and took away her belongings.

The complainant is acting under the influence of her parents, who are misusing that even A2 and A3 reside in a different place, are falsely implicated. They are law-abiding, have permanent residents, and willing to abide by any conditions imposed by the Court. Hence, the petitioners prayed to grant anticipatory bail.

5.Heard both sides.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the petitioners/A1 to A3 are entitled to bail as prayed for ?

POINT :

7.As seen from the record, the case of the prosecution is that A1 is the husband of the defacto complainant (L.W.1), while A2 and A3 are her father- in-law and mother-in-law, respectively. It is alleged that the petitioners 3 subjected L.W.1 to both physical and mental cruelty in connection with a demand for additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- from her parents. The alleged acts of cruelty occurred prior to 24.02.2025, and based on the complaint, the case was registered and investigation was undertaken. During the course of investigation, notices under Section 35(3) of the BNSS were served on A1 to

A3, on 28.02.2025.

8.The record further goes to show that, since the investigation has been completed, the charge sheet was filed on 08.03.2025, which is indicating that the allegations against the accused are not baseless but are supported by witness statements, including that of the victim. The offences alleged are grave in nature, particularly involving harassment of a woman within her matrimonial home for unlawful dowry demands.

9.Though the petitioners have submitted that there is no previous criminal record and that they have cooperated with the investigation, it is to be noted that the charge sheet has recently been filed, therefore, considering the seriousness of the allegations and charge sheet was already filed, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners at this this stage.

10.In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 7 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- B. Babu Naik

VI Addl. District Judge -cum- Spl. Judge for trial of offences against Women, Chittoor.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Principal District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor. Copy to Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palmaner. Copy to Station House Officer, Gangavaram Police Station. Copy to Counsel for petitioners on payment of usual charges.

1

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE -CUM- SPECIAL

JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES AGAINST WOMEN : CHITTOOR.

Present: SRI B.BABU NAIK, VI Additional District Judge -cum- Special Judge for trial of offences against Women, Chittoor.

Monday, this the 7th day of April, 2025.

Crl. M.P. No.212 of 2025

(Crime No.472/2024 of East P.S., Tirupati)

Between : J.Merina, W/o. J. Muniraja, aged about 35 years, R/o. D.No.3, Otterivadi Street, Thiruvika Nagar, Sembilyam, Perumbur post, Chennai District. … Petitioner/A1. And:

The State of A.P., rep., by the Station House Officer, East Police Station, Tirupati. … Respondent/Complainant.

The above Criminal Miscellaneous Petition came before me for hearing in the presence of Sri B.Ramesh and Smt. V.Sailaja, Advocates for petitioner/Accused No.1 and of Learned in-charge Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/complainant in the application and the matter having stood over for consideration, the Court made the following :

ORDER

1.This is second bail application filed by the petitioner/Accused No.1 under Section 483 of BNSS seeking to enlarge her on bail in Crime

No.472/2024 of East Police Station, Tirupati for the offence punishable under

Section 105 r/w 3(5) of BNS.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows :

This is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, occurred on 21.09.2024 that the petitioner is the wife of brother of defacto complainant by name Muniraj and were blessed with two female children.

2

Due to family disputes, the petitioner and the said Muniraj divided and the defacto complainant is taking care of her brother’s daughters. Later the petitioner herein started living together with one Sriramulu. While so, on 21.09.2024 at about 8.00 P.M. at the residence of defacto complainant in

Raghavendra Nagar, Tirupati the petitioner along with other accused came to take away her daughters. The defacto complainant objected the same and one of the accused Sriramulu took a rod and tried to beat her, her mother intervened and rescued her. The petitioner and another accused Sriramulu outraged the modesty of the mother of defacto complainant by beating her in a public place. The Sriramulu kicked the mother of the defacto complainant on her stomach and caused severe injury at operation spot. Then the defacto complainant shifted her mother to SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati for treatment and then shifted to Stanley hospital, Chennai for better treatment.

But she could not survive and succumbed to injuries due to quarrel. In this connection a case was registered and investigated.

3.On the other hand, the learned Counsel for petitioner/A1 contended the she is no way concerned with the alleged offence and she has been falsely implicated in this case and that she is the only earning person of her entire family and that the petitioner did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution.

4.Notice was given to the learned in-charge Additional Public Prosecutor, who opposed for grant of bail.

5. Heard both sides.

6.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the petitioner/A.1 is entitled to grant of bail as prayed for?

POINT :

7.Perused the record, the case was registered under section 105 r/w 3(5) of BNS against the accused alleging that petitioner/A1 and others outrage the 3 modesty of Pungavanam by beating her and kicked on her stomach, occurred on 21.09.2024 and she succumbed to the injuries sustained by her. Basing on the report lodged by defacto complainant, the case was registered. The C.D., goes to show that investigation is in progress and some more witnesses have to be examined. The first bail application in Crl.MP.No.142/2025 dismissed on the ground that investigation is not yet completed. There is no change of circumstances placed by the petitioner from the ground of dismissal of

Crl.MP.No.142/2025 to this petition. The nature of the offence alleged is of

serious in nature where the probe into investigation is necessary and as there is no change of circumstances. Thus, this Court is of the view that, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail as prayed for. Accordingly, the point is answered.

8. In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 7 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- B. Babu Naik

VI Addl. District Judge -cum- Spl. Judge for trial of offences against Women, Chittoor.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Principal District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor. Copy to II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tirupati Copy to Station House Officer, East Police Station, Tirupati Copy to Counsel for petitioner on payment of usual charges.