B.Pushpalatha

1 SC.No.97 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, 

NIZAMABAD

Present: Smt B. Pushpalatha, Asst. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad 

Dated this the 06th day of November, 2019

Sessions Case No.97 of 2017

Name of complainantThe State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Town.IV, Nizamabad

Name of AccusedBandari Parameshwer, S/o: Kashaiah, Age: 28 years, Caste: Vanjari, Occu: Commission Agent on Bore well vehicle, Private (Job), R/o: H.No.1­1­320/7, Saikrupanagar Colony, Nizamabad 

ChargeUnder Section 498­A, 306, 420 IPC 

Plea of AccusedPleaded not guilty

FindingFound not Guilty

Sentence or OrderThe accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under section 498­A, 306, 420 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Prosecution conducted bySri A. Ram Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor, Nizamabad Accused defended bySri G.V. Krupakar Reddy, Advocate 

This case was committed by the I­Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, in PRC No.15/2016 (Cr.No.17/2016 of P.S. Town.IV, Nizamabad)

This case coming before me on 04th day of November, 2019 for final hearing in the presence of Sri A. Ram Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri G.V. Krupakar Reddy, Advocate for accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivers the following:­

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Town.IV, Nizamabad filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498­A, 306 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging as follows:­ 2 SC.No.97 of 2017

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the accused subjected his wife Vadepally Roja to cruelty as she fell in love with accused since long time and he maintained coexistence with her at Saikrupanagar, Nizamabad in a rented house without knowledge of her parents without taking divorce with his first wife. On 05­02­2016 at night hours in his house situated at Saikrupanagar,

Nizamabad a quarrel took place between the accused and his wife Roja (deceased) over cell phones i.e. 7382348382, 7036267016 belongs to Roja and cell Nos.9440567808, 9030567808 due to which said Roja vexed over on her life and committed suicide by hanging.

3.On the complaint given by Pw.1, a case in Cr.No.17/2016498­A, 306 IPC were registered and investigated into by Lw.13/R. Shankar, Sub Inspector of

Police, P.S. Town.IV, Nizamabad. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer issued a requisition to Lw.10/G. Rajender, Mandal Revenue

Officer, Nizamabad with a request to conduct inquest over the dead body of the deceased Roja, visited the scene of offence place, where he secured the presence of Lws.7 and 8/Ibrahim Sai Baba and Raala Jembu Reddy, conducted scene of offence panchanama, drafted rough sketch of the scene, seized Galaxy­12 phone model SM­J­200 G, deceased phone GT­18262 Phone and missed Green Colour chunny and vegetable cutting knife from the scene of offence and got photographed the dead body of the deceased Roja through Lw.6/Erupudi

Ramprasad. Lw.10 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased Roja, examined and recorded the statements of Lws.2 to 6/Gandhari Naragoud,

Gandhari Indra Goud, Donthula Narsaiah, Anupala Ravinder and Erupadi

Ramprasad, subjected the dead body to Govt. Hospital, Nizamabad for autopsy.

Lw.12/Dr. Sridhara Chary, Govt. Medical Officer, Govt. Hospital, Nizamabad conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased Roja and issued post mortem examination report opining that the cause of death of deceased Roja 3 SC.No.97 of 2017 was due to hanging. The investigating officer apprehended the accused on 09­ 02­2016, on interrogation the accused voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence, recorded his confessional statement, effected the arrest of accused, added the section of law 420 IPC, produced the accused before the court for judicial remand. After completion of investigation and after collecting of post mortem examination report, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 498­A, 306 and 420 IPC.

Hence the charge sheet.

4.The learned I­Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, took the case on file under Section 498­A, 306 and 420 IPC against the accused. On appearance of the accused before the Court, the learned I­Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, furnished the copies of documents to him as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., and later, committed the case to the

Court of Sessions, Nizamabad, under Section 209 of Cr.P.C., and the Hon'ble Prl.

Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, took the case on file for the offence punishable

under Section 498­A, 306 and 420 IPC and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to law.

5.On appearance of the accused, charges for the offences punishable under

Sections 498­A, 306 and 420 IPC are framed against him, read over and explained to him in vernacular language, who having understood the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined

U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

7.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel

for the accused.

8.Now the point for consideration is:­ 4 SC.No.97 of 2017

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused u/sec 498­A, 306 and 420 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT :­

9.In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P13 documents and Mos.1 to 3 material objects.

10.The brief facts of the prosecution case is that the accused married the deceased Roja as love marriage. The deceased Roja is the 2nd wife of accused.

The accused maintained coexistence with the deceased Roja without knowledge of his parents and his first wife and their relatives. Thereafter, a quarrel took place over a phone in between the accused and deceased Roja with regard to getting divorce with the first wife of accused. Due to the acts of accused, the deceased Roja vexed over her life and committed suicide by hanging in their rented house situated at Saikrupakanagar, Nizamabad and died on the spot.

11.Pws.2 to 5 who are the relatives of deceased Roja deposed that they the deceased Roja died about 3 years back at Nizamabad. They do not know the reason for the death of Roja. Police did not examine and record their statements. Pw.5 further deposed that the accused and deceased introduced themselves to him as husband and wife and he let out the house situated at

Saikrupanagar Colony, Nizamabad on the 1st floor at about 3 ½ years back. At about 3 ½ years back the accused along with deceased came with household articles and started living in his house as husband and wife. He did not observe any differences among accused and deceased. He do not know the reasons behind the suicide and all them turned hostile to the case of the prosecution that they compromised with the accused. 

5 SC.No.97 of 2017

12.Pw.1 who is the mother of deceased Roja deposed that she lodged a complaint about 3 ½ years back as her daughter Roja died at Nizamabad. At the time of her death she was doing her M. Pharmacy at Uppal, Hyderabad. She do not know how her daughter came to Nizamabad and died and that accused brought her daughter to Nizamabad. She do not know why the accused brought her deceased daughter to Nizamabad. On information given by Sub Inspector of

Police she came to Nizamabad and found her daughter was lying on the floor in a room on the 1st floor. She observed a mark on her neck and she was wearing a nighty and chunny was kept a side which was used for hanging. She do not know the relationship with the accused and her daughter. At this stage the

Pw.1 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. But during the cross examination by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor Pw.1 admitted that she mentioned in her complaint and 161 statement that the accused married her daughter and her daughter was the 2nd wife of accused and that for the last 20 days the accused along with her daughter were living in the flat in a rented house. There is no dispute about the death of deceased Roja died in a rented house but Pw.1 has categorically admitted that her daughter was studying

B­Pharmacy at Hyderabad which goes to show that Pw.1 was not aware when her deceased daughter came to Nizamabad. Further all the witnesses examined by the prosecution did not state anything about the marriage of the deceased with accused. Pw.1 stated that accused married her deceased daughter for 2nd time and that when Pw.1 reached the scene of offence and she noticed gold pusthela thradu on the floor. Except this there is no documentary evidence to show that when accused married for 2nd time with deceased. Mere present of gold pusthela thradu on the floor does not establish the marriage. Therefore, when marriage took place is not established an offence under section 498­A does 6 SC.No.97 of 2017 not arise. Further there is no piece of evidence to show that accused harassed the deceased.

13.Pw.6 who is the panch witness for scene of offence and inquest panchanama deposed that in the year 2016 in his presence police conducted inquest panchanama at Saikrupanagar, Nizamabad and he observed the dead body and found abrasions on the hands and face on the dead body of the deceased and some liquid was oozing from her mouth and inquest panchanamas was conducted by the Mandal Revenue Officer. Police seized material objects from the scene of offence under a cover of seizure panchanama under Ex.P6. He identified Mos.1 to 3 and signed on the panch chits. During cross examination he stated that the deceased related to him. The seizure panchanama was prepared on the 2nd floor of the building i.e. scene of offence.

14.Pw.7 who is the panch witness for scene of offence and inquest panchanama deposed that about 3 years back he received a phone call from

Pw.1 about the death of deceased Roja, he rushed to Nizamabad where he found the deceased Roja committed suicide by hanging. Police did not prepare scene of offence panchanama and inquest panchanama in his presence and obtained his signatures on some documents. He do not know the contents of the same and turned hostile to the case of the prosecution as he compromised with the accused.

15.Pw.8 who is the panch witness for inquest panchanama deposed that deposed that about 3 years back he received a phone call from Pw.1 about the death of deceased Roja, he rushed to Nizamabad where he found the deceased

Roja committed suicide by hanging. Police conducted inquest panchanama in his presence and he observed the dead body of the deceased Roja and found bleeding injury on the back side of the head, found scratching injury on the neck 7 SC.No.97 of 2017 and chest and abrasion on both the thighs. Police prepared inquest panchanama and recorded all the above injuries and he put his thumb impression on inquest panchanama which is marked as Ex.P7. During cross examination he stated that he signed on Ex.P7 at about 4.00 p.m. in the evening at the scene of offence and nothing except this nothing incriminating was found in his evidence.

16.Pw.9 who the medical officer who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased Roja and issued his report i.e. post mortem examination report under Ex.P10 opining that the cause of death of deceased was due to hanging as per Ex.P11 FSL report and Ex.P12 Final report. During the cross examination he stated that except ligature mark there are no injuries found on the dead body of deceased V. Roja @ Bandari Roja and the injuries mentioned in inquest panchanama were not found on the dead body of deceased Roja.

17.Pws.10 and 11 who are the investigating officers who registered a case, issued FIR, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, conducted scene of offence panchanama, inquest panchanama, subjected the dead body for post mortem examination, seized material objects under Mos.1 to 3, effected the arrest of accused and remanded his to the judicial custody and filed charge sheet against the accused from their evidence no incriminating evidence was found from their evidence. During cross examination Pw.11 stated that Lw.1 stated in her complaint that the marriage of accused with deceased is 2nd marriage. He collected entire telephone date with accused and deceased. He has not enquired about the 1st marriage of accused and no record is traced out with regards to 2nd marriage of accused and deceased Roja. He admitted that as per SMS record there was exchanged message between accused and deceased on the date of incident which is last message left by deceased “I Miss You”. He did not investigate that there was the marriage between accused and deceased. The 8 SC.No.97 of 2017 prosecution failed to investigate about the marriage of accused and deceased

Roja as a 2nd marriage and they did not file any record to show that the accused married the deceased Roja and they are wife and husband and failed to file any record showing about the information of 1st wife of accused and with whom he married as 1st marriage from where. The Pw.1 who is the mother of deceased failed to support the case of prosecution that the accused is the husband of her deceased daughter Roja and he is the responsible for her daughter’s death. The prosecution failed to prove the that the accused subjected the deceased Roja to cruelty, abetted her to commit suicide when the deceased asked the accused to give divorce to his 1st wife and accused cheated the deceased Roja by suppressing the fact of his 1st marriage with another lady and on knowing the same the deceased Roja vexed over her life and committed suicide by hanging in her rented house. The Pw.6 who is the panch witness for scene of offence and inquest during cross examination stated that the scene of offence panchanama and inquest panchanama was conducted at 2nd floor of flat in which the deceased the residing as a tenant, but as per material evidence available on record and the evidence of witnesses revealed that the incident took place at 1st floor of flat. The Pw.9 who is the medical officer deposed during his cross examination stated that except ligature mark there are no injuries found on the dead body of deceased V. Roja @ Bandari Roja and the injuries mentioned in inquest panchanama were not found on the dead body of deceased Roja.

18.Though the prosecution alleged that the deceased was harassed and abetted the deceased Roja to commit suicide. Pws.10 and 11 categorically admitted in their evidence before the court that they have recovered cell phones of the deceased and accused and also took out last message that was sent by the deceased i.e. “Raj Kmr Any way nitho na life enni rojulu chala bagundhi Bye” 9 SC.No.97 of 2017 and another message at 7.52 p.m. on the same day which is the last message left by deceased “I miss you”. Even as per the SMS sent by the deceased it does not disclose that the accused has abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, the offence under section 306 IPC is not made out against the accused. There is dispute that the death of accused was caused by hanging herself. But it is a vaguely situation where the inquest and scene of offence panchanama was prepared at the scene of offence at the 1st Floor of Sai Krupanagar, Nizamabad, but the panch witness to the inquest and scene of offence panchanama i.e. Pws.

6 and 7 to 8 has categorically stated that he observed the dead body of the deceased and found some liquid was oozing from the mouth of the deceased which was stated by Pws.6 and 7 did not support the prosecution case, but whereas pw.8 has stated that she has observed the dead body of the deceased found bleeding injuries on the backside of the head, found scratching injury on the neck and chest and abrasion on both thighs. Whereas Pw.9 who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased has categorically admitted in the cross examination that he did not find any injuries on the body of the deceased Roja and the same is not mentioned in Ex.P10 post mortem examination report and Ex.P12 final report. Therefore, it appears that the evidence of Pws.6 and 7 is an improved evidence which is not corroborated with the evidence of Pw.9. Pw.10 who conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased categorically stated that he has conducted inquest on the request of police under Ex.P7. Pw.10 categorically admitted in the cross examination inquest panchanama was drafted and scribed by the police which clearly goes to show that the procedure which is supposed to the adopted at the time of conducting inquest panchanama was not followed and in the mechanical process the inquest panchanama was prepared which clearly appears in the evidence of the panch witnesses with that of Pw.10 and as well as the doctor i.e.

10 SC.No.97 of 2017

Pw.9. There is no corroboration with regard to the injuries that were found on the dead body of the deceased. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the inquest panchanama does not disclose factual observation of the dead body on the date of conducting inquest panchanama. Pws.10 and 11 have categorically stated that they did not examine or investigate with regard to the offence under section 498­A and also about the marriage of accused with the deceased.

Therefore, basing upon the evidence it can be safely concluded that the marriage between the accused and deceased is not established.

19.The prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of offences under section 498­A, 306 and 420 IPC and failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore the accused is entitled for acquittal for the charges framed against him.

20.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable u/sec 498­A, 306 420 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted u/sec 235 (1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Mos.1 to 3 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. 

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 06th day of November, 2019.

Asst. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE 

PW1Odepally Laxmi/defacto complainant­­Nil­­ PW2G.Narsagoud PW3G. Indra Goud PW4D. Narsaiah Pw.5A. Ravinder Pw.6Ibrahim Saibaba Pw.7Jambu Reddy 11 SC.No.97 of 2017

Pw.8G. Chandrakala Pw.9Dr.Sridhar Acharya/medical officer Pw.10Gunnala Rajender/Mandal Revenue Officer Pw.11R. Shanker/investigating officer 

EXHIBITS MAKED

(On behalf of)

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1:Complaint given by Pw.1 dated 06­02­2016 Ex.P2:Relevant portion in 161 statement of Pw.2 Ex.P3:Relevant portion in 161 statement of Pw.3 Ex.P4: Relevant portion in 161 statement of Pw.4 Ex.P5:Relevant portion in 161 statement of Pw.5 Ex.P6: Scene of offence panchanam Ex.P7:Inquest panchanama Ex.P8:Signature of Pw.7 on crimed details form Ex.P9:Signature of Pw.7 on inquest panchanama Ex.P10:Post mortem examination reort Ex.P11:FSL Report Ex.P12:Final Report Ex.P13:FIR

FOR DEFENCE 

­­Nil­­

MOs MARKED

Mo.1: Vegetable cutting knife Mo.2: Chunni Mo.3: (2) Samsung cell phones

Asst. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad 

1OS.No.253/2018

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NIZAMABAD

Present:- Smt B. Pushpalatha, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad

Dated this the 06th day of November, 2019

O.S.No.253 of 2018

Dr. Kaulaiah, S/o: Veera Bhadraiah, Aged 63 years, Occu: Orthopaedic Surgeon, R/o: Near Old LIC Building, Yellammagutta, Cross Roads, Nizamabad … Plaintif

Vs.

1. V.Balaji Bhanu, S/o: Not known, Aged about 45 years, Occu: Medical Business, Plot No.6, Suman Co-operative Housing Society, Near Lions Hospital, West Maredpally, Secunderabad

2. The Proprietor, Intact Technology, Plot No.32, Sri Sathya Sahi Vihar, Hyderabad 500088

... Defendant

This suit coming before me on 16-10-2019 for fnal hearing in the presence of Sri P. Ravikanth Sharma, Advocate for plaintif and the defendants remained exparte and having stood over for consideration, till this day the Court delivered the following:- :: J U D G M E N T ::

1.This is a suit fled by the plaintif against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.7,14,000/-.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that plaintif is an orthopedic surgeon running Heera Orthopedic Nursing Home, Near Old LIC Building

Yellammagutta, Cross Roads, Nizmabad. The plaintif and defendants are known to each other in course of medical business. The 1st and 2nd defendants are and plaintif are known to each other in view of their medical business. The defendants are supplying medical equipments to the doctors. In the year 2015 the 1st defendant had supplied C-Arm for which the plaintif paid an amount of Rs.2,75,000/- to the 1st defendant, but it was not functioned properly, 1st defendant take back the same and assured to supply new A-arm for Rs.6,50,000/- out of said transaction the 1st defendant has to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the plaintif. The 1st defendant has issued two cheques each Rs.1,00,000/- 2OS.No.253/2018 bearing Nos.078692 and 078693 dated 30-05-2016 and 08-06-2016 respectively. The 1st defendant will supply new equipment of Digital X- ray to the plaintif, the rate of digital X-ray is Rs.5,50,000/-. The 1st defendant advised the plaintif that he will pay Rs.2,00,000/- to the 2nd defendant and advised the plaintif to pay balance of Rs.3,50,000/- to the 2nd defendant for digital X-ray. The plaintif transferred an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- to the 2nd defendant, but the 1st defendant has not supplied the equipment inspite of several demands and requests and agreed to return Rs.5,50,000/- to the plaintif. The 1st defendant issued

1) cheque bearing No.078692 for Rs.1,00,000/- dated 30-05-2016, 2) cheque bearing No.078693 for Rs.1,00,000/- dated 08-06-2016, 3) cheque bearing No.000042 for Rs.1,00,000/- dated 23-11-2017, 4) cheque bearing No.000064 for Rs.50,000/- dated 05-01-2018, 5) cheque bearing No.000065 for Rs.50,000/- dated 05-01-2018 and said cheques were dishonoured by the bank when the plaintif deposited in his account No.,03871901003083 FO Andhra Bank, Nizamabad Branch and another amount of Rs.1,50,000/- pending from 1st defendant. The plaintif issued a notice to the 1st defendant on 28-03-2018 and the same was received by the 1st defendant, but he failed to comply the notice. On 16-08-2018, the plaintif issued notice to the 2nd defendant which is unclaimed. The 1st and 2nd defendants failed to pay the amount to the plaintif.

3.The 1st and 2nd defendants remained exparte.

4. During the trial the plaintif got fled his chief evidence afdavit as

Pw.1 and exhibited Exs.A1 to A17.

5.Heard.

6.Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether the plaintif is entitled for suit amount as prayed for?

3OS.No.253/2018

7.Point:-

In order to prove the case of the plaintif, the plaintif got fled his chief evidence afdavit as Pw.1 and exhibited Exs.A1 to A17.

8.It is the contention of Pw.1 that the defendants are known to each other in the course of medical business, out of business they acquainted with each other since 2004. The defendants are supplying medical equipments to the doctors. In the year 2015 the 1st defendant had supplied C-Arm for which the plaintif paid an amount of Rs.2,75,000/- to the 1st defendant, but it was not functioned properly, 1st defendant take back the same and assured to supply new A-arm for Rs.6,50,000/- out of said transaction the 1st defendant has to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the plaintif. The 1st defendant has issued two cheques each

Rs.1,00,000/- bearing Nos.078692 and 078693 dated 30-05-2016 and 08-06-2016 respectively. The 1st defendant will supply new equipment of Digital X-ray to the plaintif, the rate of digital X-ray is Rs.5,50,000/-.

The 1st defendant advised the plaintif that he will pay Rs.2,00,000/- to the 2nd defendant and advised the plaintif to pay balance of

Rs.3,50,000/- to the 2nd defendant for digital X-ray. The plaintif transferred an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- to the 2nd defendant, but the 1st defendant has not supplied the equipment inspite of several demands and requests and agreed to return Rs.5,50,000/- to the plaintif. The 1st defendant issued 1) cheque bearing No.078692 for Rs.1,00,000/- dated 30-05-2016, 2) cheque bearing No.078693 for Rs.1,00,000/- dated 08- 06-2016, 3) cheque bearing No.000042 for Rs.1,00,000/- dated 23-11- 2017, 4) cheque bearing No.000064 for Rs.50,000/- dated 05-01-2018,

5) cheque bearing No.000065 for Rs.50,000/- dated 05-01-2018 and said cheques were dishonoured by the bank when the plaintif deposited in his account No.,03871901003083 FO Andhra Bank, Nizamabad Branch 4OS.No.253/2018 and another amount of Rs.1,50,000/- pending from 1st defendant. The 1st defendant issued Exs.A1 to A5 cheques which were returned under

Exs.A6 to A8 for which the plaintif issued Ex.A9 legal notice. Ex.A10 is the postal receipt dated 31-03-2018, Ex.A11 is the postal status copy of 1st defendant dated 24-04-2018, Ex.A12 is the courier receipt of 1st defendant dated 29-03-2018, Ex.A13 is the served courier receipt of 1st defendant, Ex.A14 is the ofce copy of legal notice issued to 2nd defendant dated 16-08-2018, Ex.A15 is the postal receipt dated 16-08- 2018, Ex.A16 is the postal status report dated 21-08-2018 and Ex.A17 is the postal unclaimed envelope with acknowledgement.

9.As such the plaintif was constrained to fle this suit. The present suit was fled on 03-12-2018 and notice was issued, but the defendants refused to receive the said notices and they did not choose to fle the written statement within the stipulated time and was remained absent without any representation. Therefore, this Court was constrained to set exparte.

10.The defendants failed to pay the suit amount and issued Exs.A1 to

A5 cheques which were dishonoured with Exs.A6 to A9 as such the plaintif issued a legal notice under Ex.A9, but the defendants failed to comply it. The plaintif proved the suit transaction by fling Exs.A1 to A5 and by adducing his evidence as Pw.1.

11. Admittedly, the defendants did not choose to contest the matter and the pleadings in the plaint remained unchallenged the testimony and the evidence of Pw.1 also supported by Exs.A1 to A9. The plaintif proved his claim by adducing his evidence as Pw.1 as well as fling

Exs.A1 to A17. Therefore, this Court is inclined to believe the pleadings of the plaint basing under Exs.A1 to A17 which are not rebutted either 5OS.No.253/2018 by oral or by documentary evidence placed by defendants. Therefore, the plaintif is entitled to recover the suit claim from the defendants.

12.In the result, the suit of the plaintif is decreed for a sum of

Rs.7,14,000/- (Rupees seven and fourteen thousand only) with costs and with pendentilite interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree, and thereafter @ 6% per annum till the date of realization on Rs.5,50,000/- (Rupees fve lakhs and ffty thousand only), against the defendants jointly and severally.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 06th day of November, 2019.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANTS

PW1: Dr. Kaulaiah --Nil--

EXHIBITS MARKED

(On behalf of the)

FOR PLAINTIFFS

Ex.A1: Cheque bearing No.078692 for Rs.1,00,000/- dated 30-05-2016 Ex.A2: Cheque bearing No.078693 for Rs.1,00,000/- dated 08-06-2016 Ex.A3: Cheque bearing No.000042 for Rs.1,00,000/- dated 23-11-2017 Ex.A4: Cheque bearing No.000064 for Rs.50,000/- dated 05-01-2018 Ex.A5: Cheque bearing No.000065 for Rs.50,000/- dated 05-01-2018 Ex.A6: Four returned vouchers of cheque NO.000042 Ex.A7: Two returned vouchers of cheque No.000064 Ex.A8: Two returned vouchers of cheque No.000065 Ex.A9: Ofce copy of legal notice dated 28-03-2018 Ex.A10: Postal receipt dated 31-03-2018 Ex.A11: Postal status copy of 1st defendant dated 24-04-2018 Ex.A12: Courier receipt of 1st defendant dated 29-03-2018 Ex.A13: Served courier receipt of 1st defendant Ex.A14: Ofce copy of legal notice issued to 2nd defendant dated 16-08- 2018 Ex.A15: Postal receipt dated 16-08-2018 Ex.A16: Postal status report dated 21-08-2018 Ex.A17: Postal unclaimed envelope with acknowledgement

FOR DEFENDANTS

--Nil--

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad

1 HMOP No.5 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (FAST TRACK COURT),

NIZAMABAD AT ARMOOR

Present: Smt B. Pushpalatha,

Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad

FAC:­Addl. Senior Civil Judge, (FTC), Nizamabad at Armoor 

Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2019

H.M.O.P.No.5 of 2016

Eddy Srinivas, S/o: Eddanna, Aged: 38 years, Caste: Guradikapu, Occu: Agriculture, R/o: H.No.1­4­57, Yelalwada Proper Morthad Mandal, Nizamabad District

...Petitioner

Vs.

Smt. Eddy Raja Gangu, W/o: Eddy Srinivas, Aged 37 years, Occu: Agriculture, Caste: Guradikapu, R/o: H.No.1­4­57, Yelalwada proper, Morthad Mandal, Nizamabad District

...Respondent

This petition is coming before me today for final hearing in the presence of Sri Mohd. Tajuddin, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri R. Rajeshwar, Advocate

for respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court

has delivers the following:­

:: O R D E R ::

1.This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 13 (ia) (ib) of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondent by a decree of divorce.

2.The averments of the affidavit in support of the petition in brief are as follows:­

The marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized in the year 1992 according to Hindu rites and customs. They lived happily for 10 years, out of their wedlock they blessed with two children namely Mr. Eddy Ajay and Mrs. Anusha who are aged about 23 and 20 years respectively. More than 7 years prior to filing this petition the respondent has changed her attitude towards the petitioner and she started ill treating the petitioner in all aspects of 2 HMOP No.5 of 2016 matrimonial life and deserted the petitioner since then and used to misbehave in cruel manner. The respondent used to harass the petitioner by abusing him in most filthy language, torturing him mentally and physically and deserted him.

The respondent used to attend the political party meeting and acting as a women groups and she used to interfere in the personal and family matters of others in the village and used to settle the problems arose between husband and wife.

The respondent used to leave the house of petitioner without his permission and consent and whenever she likes at any time and neglected own family members and her children. The respondent took the money of the petitioner and waste the money earned by the petitioner and she used to abuse the petitioner in filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences to file false criminal cases against him and took the Mahila Dwacra Group members to his house and abused him in filthy language and insulted him with them. The petitioner is unable to move freely in the village due to the acts and behaviour of respondent and he sustained heavy loss in the agricultural fields work and amount and his reputation in the society. The respondent has got 30 members group in which her brother M.Srinivas, E. Gangareddy and other women members are existing and by listening words she used to harass and torture the petitioner. The petitioner and caste elders also tried to convince the respondent, but in vain.

On 04­02­2009, at the request of the caste elders the respondent joined the society of petitioner, and after a period of one week she repeated her previous attitude. On 05­03­2009 the respondent along with 5 men and 10 women illegally came to the house of the petitioner and started abusing him in most filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences to do away his life and all her supporters also put the petitioner in fear and again on 10­01­2016 the respondent quarreled with the petitioner at market of Morthad Village and caused heavy mental torture. The respondent willfully deserting the petitioner 3 HMOP No.5 of 2016 and used to avoid the matrimonial life with the petitioner and the marital status between the petitioner and respondent is irretrievably broken and there is no chance for their reunion to lead happy marital life. Hence the petition. 

3. The respondent filed her counter by denying the avernments of the petition and submitted that the petitioner has changed his attitude towards the respondent and started ill treating the respondent in all aspects and he got illegal relationship with one Uma and spending money on her and not looking after the respondent and her children without doing any work and question of desertion does not arise as both the petitioner and respondent are living together in one house. The respondent looking the welfare of her father in law and mother in law and their children higher education. The petitioner with malafied intention started misbehaving in a cruel manner and harassing the respondent by abusing her in filthy language, torturing her mentally and physically since he contacted illegal relationship with Uma of Nagampet Village who spoiled many matrimonial relations. The respondent did not spent money of the petitioner, she used to spent her hard earned money on her whole family and children and used to look after daily activities and agricultural fields operation and maintenance and requirement of the children and the petitioner used to take the money from her which were kept for purchase of agricultural materials i.e. labour, pesticides, seeds feed and other and she never abused the petitioner and never threatened him to file a false case and took Mahila Dwacra Group members to beat him with them. The petitioner did not look after the welfare of his parents. Further submitted that this is a second divorce petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent and he withdrawn the first divorce petition i.e. OP NO.32 of 2009 after filing the chief examination affidavit. The petitioner approached the Court with unclean hands and prayed to dismiss the petition.

4 HMOP No.5 of 2016

4. Heard both sides. 

5.The point for determination is:­

Whether the petitioner is entitled for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent, which was solemnized in the year 1992 on the ground of cruelty and desertion ?

6.POINT:­In order toprove his case, the petitioner got filed his chief evidence affidavits as Pw.1 and exhibited Exs.P1 and P2 and also got filed the chief evidence affidavit of one Boga Dharmapuri as Pw.2. Ex.P1 is the joint photo dated 23­03­2008 and Ex.P2 is the ration card dated 24­10­2016.

7.The Pw.1 deposed in his chief evidence affidavits as he averred in his petition. Pw.2 also deposed in the same manner as deposed by Pw.1 in his chief evidence affidavit and his evidence supported the contents of petition filed by

Pw.1. The respondent did not choose to cross examine Pws.1 and 2 and failed to adduce any oral or documentary evidence on her behalf to support her contention. The unchallenged testimony of Pws.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.P1 and P2 proved that the marriage of Pw.1 took place with the respondent. The evidence of Pw.1 established that the respondent harassed the petitioner mentally and tortured him physically and mentally and she used to insult the petitioner before the neighbors, relatives and she refused to lead marital life with him and subjected the petitioner cruelty and there is no chance for their reunion to lead the happy marital life. The marital status between the Pw.1 and respondent is irretrievably broken and there is no chance for their reunion to lead happy marital life. The evidence of Pws.1 and 2 is consistent, cogent and trustworthy. Nothing is found to disbelieve or distrust the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 and to discredit his evidence. In the circumstances, it is found that the petitioner has proved his case and he is entitled for divorce as prayed for. The point is accordingly answered. 

5 HMOP No.5 of 2016

8.In the result, this petition is allowed, dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent, which was performed in the year 1992, by granting a decree of divorce with costs. 

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 23rd day of August, 2019.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERFOR RESPONDENT

PW1: Eddy Srinivas ­­Nil­­ PW2: Boga Dharmapuri 

EXHIBITS MARKED

(On behalf of the)

FOR PETITIONERFOR RESPONDENT

Ex.P1: Joint photo dated 23­03­2008

Ex.P2: Ration card dated 24­10­2016

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad

1 SC.No.27 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, 

NIZAMABAD

Present: Smt B. Pushpalatha, Asst. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad 

Dated this the 05th day of November, 2019

Sessions Case No.27 of 2017

Name of complainantThe State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Dharpally

Name of AccusedEddeni Rajanna, S/o: Rajalingam, Age: 48 years, Caste: Motadikapu, Occu: Agriculture, R/o: Ansanpally Village, Dharpally Mandal 

Charge307 IPC

Plea of AccusedPleaded not guilty

FindingFound not Guilty

Sentence or OrderAccused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/sec 307 and 290 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted u/sec 235 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said charge. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. Mos.1 to 5 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time

Prosecution conducted bySri A. Ram Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor, Nizamabad Accused defended bySri N. Subhash Reddy, Advocate 

This case was committed by the II­Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, in PRC No.2/2017 (Cr.No.116/2016 of P.S. Dharpally)

This case coming before me on 17­10­2019 for final hearing in the presence of Sri A. Ram Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri T. Vinod Kumar, Advocate for accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivers the following:­

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Dharpally filed a charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, alleging as follows:­ 2 SC.No.27 of 2017

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 10­10­2016 at 2130 hours, at Ansanpally Village of Dharpally Mandal when LW2­Pothanolla Mohan

Reddy was alone in his house, in the meantime the accused went there with an axe and stick with an intention to kill him and attacked him with axe on his head and caused bleeding injuries on his right side ear, in order to occupy the house of said Pothanolla Mohan Reddy.

3.On the complaint given by Pw.1, a case in Cr.No.116/2016 under section 307 IPC was registered and investigated into by Lw.12/B. Murali, Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Dharpally. Thereafter, he examined and recorded the statements of Lws.2 and 3/Pothanolla Mohan Reddy and Pothanolla Laxmi at Govt.

Hospital, Nizamabad, visited the scene of offence place situated at Ansanpally

Villatge where he secured the presence of Lws.7 and 8/Thatipamula Srinivas and

Thoorpu Gangadhar in their presence he conducted scene of offence panchanama, seized the blood stained clothes i.e. banian and dhothi which were worned by the injured at the time of offence, drafted rough sketch of the scene of offence, he also examined and recorded the statements of Lws.4 to 6/Eddeni

Raju, Bakkolla Ramaswamy Goud and Jella Gangadhar. On 15­10­2016 at 1230 hours, the investigating officer apprehended the accused at 1300 hours, on interrogation the accused voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence, recorded the confessional statement of the accused in the presence of Lws.9 and 10/Rajolla Narayana and Donpati Ramchandhar, effected his arrest and produced him before the court for judicial remand. Lw.11/Dr. K.V. Bhasker

Reddy, Medical Officer, Sri Sai Thirumala Hospitals, Nizamabad treated the injured and issued medical certificate that the injured received grievous injuries.

After completion of investigation and after collecting of medical certificate, the

Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section 307 IPC. Hence the charge sheet.

3 SC.No.27 of 2017

4.The learned II­Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, took the case on file under Section 307 IPC against the accused. On appearance of accused before the Court, the learned II­Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Nizamabad, furnished the copies of documents to him as contemplated under

Section 207 of Cr.P.C., and later, committed the case to the Court of Sessions,

Nizamabad, under Section 209 of Cr.P.C., and the Hon'ble Prl. Sessions Judge,

Nizamabad, took the case on file for the offence punishable under Section 307

IPC against accused and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to law.

5.On appearance of accused, charges for the offences punishable under

Section 307 IPC was framed against him, read over and explained to him in vernacular language, who having understood the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined

U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

7.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel

for accused.

8.Now the point for consideration is:­

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused under Section 307 IPC against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.POINT :­In order to establish the guilt of accused, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8 documents and Mos.1 to 5 material object.

10.It is the case of the prosecution that the accused with an intention to occupy the house of Pw.1 which is situated adjacent to his house used to quarrel with Pw.1 frequently and keeping the old grudges in his mind with an intention 4 SC.No.27 of 2017 to Pw.1 he attacked him with an axe and stick and caused severe bleeding injuries on his head and on right side of ear. 

11.Pws.1 to 3 who are the defacto complainant, injured and wife of injured have categorically stated that they do not know the facts of the case. Police did not examine them and record their statements. Pw.1 further stated that he do not know the contents of complaint and all of them turned hostile to the case of the prosecution as they compromised with the accused. During cross examination by the Addl. Public Prosecutor they denied the contents of their 161 statements which are marked as Exs.P3 to P5. The prosecution failed to prove its case by examining Pws.1 to 3 who are the crucial witnesses to its case. In view of hostile evidence of Pws.1 to 3 the prosecution given up the rest of witnesses as there is no useful purpose would be serve by examining them.

12.Pw.4 who is the investigating officer deposed that on 11­10­2016 at 1400 hours, Pw.1 came to police station and lodged a complaint, basing on the said compliant he registered a case in Cr.No.16/2016 under section 307 IPC and issued FIR under Ex.P6. He examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence place and conducted scene of offence panchanama, drafted rough sketch of scene under Ex.P7, recovered Mos.1 to 5, effected the arrest of accused on 15­10­2016, recorded the confessional statement of accused, collected Ex.P8 medical certificate, produced the accused before the court for judicial remand. During his cross examination did not elicit any incriminating material to connect the accused with this offence. The prosecution miserably failed to prove the ingredients of section 307 IPC against accused by examining Pws.1 to 4 and failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence the accused is entitled for acquittal.

5 SC.No.27 of 2017

13.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/sec 307 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted u/sec 235 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said charge. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. Mos.1 to 5 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 05th day of November, 2019.

Asst. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE 

PW1 P. Narender Reddy/defacto complainant ­­Nil­­ PW2 P. Mohan Reddy/injured PW3 P. Laxmi/wife of injured PW4 B. Murali/investigating officer

EXHIBITS MAKED

(On behalf of)

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1:Signature of Pw.1 on complaint ­­Nil­­ Ex.P2:Complaint dated 11­10­2d016d Ex.P3:Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.1 Ex.P4: Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.2 Ex.P5:Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.3 Ex.P6: FIR Ex.P7: Scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch Ex.P8: Medical certificate 

FOR DEFENCE 

­­Nil­­

MOs MARKED

Mo.1: Dothi Mo.2: Banian Mo.3: Axe Mo.4: Stick Mo.5: Blood stained shirt and lungi

Asst. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad 

1 H.M.O.P. No.16 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (FAST TRACK COURT),

NIZAMABAD AT ARMOOR

Present: Smt B. Pushpalatha,

Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad

FAC:­Addl. Senior Civil Judge, (FTC), Nizamabad at Armoor 

Dated this the 19th day of August, 2019

H.M.O.P.No.16 of 2018

Karrolla Rajanna, S/o: Dharmaiah, Age: 25 years, Caste: Kurma, Occu: Agriculture, R/o: Muchkur Village of Bheemgal Mandal, Nizamabad District 

...Petitioner

Vs. 

Karrolla Suma @ Organti Divya, W/o: Rajanna, D/o: Late Organti Pochanna, R/o: H.No.2­72/1, Vannel “K” Village of Nandipet Mandal, Nizamabad District 

...Respondent

This petition is coming before me 02­08­2019 for final hearing in the presence of Sri V. Jagadeeshwar Reddy, Advocate for petitioner and the respondent remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court has delivers the following:­

:: O R D E R ::

1.This petition is filed by petitioner under Section 13 (i) (ib) of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondent by a decree of divorce.

2.The averments of the affidavit in support of the petition in brief are as follows:­

The marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 22­05­2014 at Muchkur Village of Bheemgal Mandal, Nizamabad District according to Hindu rites and customs prevailing in their community. Their marriage is still subsisting and the parents of petitioner were presented 4 tolas of gold to the respondent and all the marriage expenses were also borne by the parents of petitioner. After the marriage the petitioner and respondent lived together happily for a period of one year and they blessed with a female child 2 H.M.O.P. No.16 of 2018 namely Pooja out of their wedlock. After the birth of their daughter Pooja, the respondent and her mother changed their attitude towards the petitioner and his parents. The respondent used to picked up quarrel with the parents of petitioner without any reason. The mother of respondent went to Muchkur village and picked up a quarrel with petitioner and his parents without any reason and also took the respondent to her village i.e. Vannel (K) village where the respondent stayed for more than (8) moths and she came back with the petitioner when the parents of petitioner, petitioner and their caste elders went to the parents house of respondent at Vannel (K) village and thereafter she stayed with the petitioner at Muchkur village for 20 days only. Thereafter, the respondent and her mother went made an oral complaint with the police Nandipet as such the Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Nandipet summoned petitioner and his parents and held a panchayat wherein it was decided that the respondent shall join the company of petitioner at Muchkur and the petitioner shall took the respondent to his company. After that the respondent hardly stayed for 20 days only and left his company. The petitioner tried many times to convince the respondent to live together, but she refused to live together. The respondent and her mother used to quarrel with petitioner and his parents without any reasons and insulted them

before the neighbours and caste people and tortured them mentally. The

petitioner tried to bring the respondent into his company, but the respondent failed to join the petitioner without specifying any reason and she failed to fulfill her duties towards the petitioner and she has deserted him and she has not shown any inclination to continue the relationship with the petitioner and she failed to fulfill her matrimonial obligations and duties towards the petitioner.

The respondent also failed to give conjugal happiness to the petitioner and she did not care him. As such the petitioner got issued a legal notice 05­08­2017 requesting the respondent to join him, but she failed to give any reply and she 3 H.M.O.P. No.16 of 2018 got registered a false case against the petitioner and his parents with false and frivolous allegations with the police which clearly show that the respondent is deserting the petitioner and she is not intend to continue the matrimonial life with the petitioner and she willfully deserting the petitioner with an intention to sever her relationship with the petitioner. The petitioner, his parents and caste elders tried to convince the respondent to lead matrimonial life with the petitioner, but she deserted the petitioner continuously without any reason. The respondent willfully deserting the petitioner and used to avoid the matrimonial life with the petitioner and there is no chance to their reunion. The marital relationship between the petitioner and respondent has been broken irretrievably and there is no chance for their reunion to lead happy marital life. Hence the petition. 

3. The respondent remained exparte.

4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner.

5.The point for determination is:­

Whether the petitioner is entitled for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent, which was solemnized on 22­05­2014 on the ground of desertion ?

6.POINT:­In order toprove her case, the petitioner and respondent got filed their chief evidence affidavits as Pw.1 and Rw.1 and exhibited Exs.A1 to

A3. Ex.A1 is the marriage photos of petitioner and respondent, Ex.A2 is the wedding card and Ex.A3 is the office copy of legal notice. 

7.The Pw.1 and Rw.1 deposed in their chief evidence affidavits as they averred in petition. Pw.1 deposed in his chief evidence affidavit that they compromised and he paid an amount of Rs.12,50,000/­ to the respondent i.e.

Rs.3,00,000/­ towards dowry amount presented by the parents of respondent,

Rs.3,00,000/­ towards permanent alimony of respondent and Rs.6,50,000/­ 4 H.M.O.P. No.16 of 2018 towards future maintenance of their daughter Pooja and the same has agreed by the respondent and she has agreed to maintain and look after welfare of her daughter Pooja, the respondent and her daughter Pooja shall not have any right over Pw.1 and his property and she agreed that she will not demand anything from him and it is sole responsibility of respondent to look after the welfare of her daughter Pooja and performing her daughter’s marriage. Rw.1 also agreed that she has received an amount of Rs.12,50,000/­ towards her permanent, alimony, future maintenance and her daughter’s maintenance including the marriage expenses of her daughter. unchallenged testimony of Pw.1 and Rw.1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A3. The evidence of Pw.1 and Rw.1 established that there is no chance for their reunion to lead the happy marital life and also the marital life between them is irretrievably broken. The evidence of Pw.1 and

Rw.1 is consistent, cogent and trustworthy. In the circumstances, it is found that the petitioner and respondent are entitled for divorce as prayed for. The point is accordingly answered. 

8.In the result, this petition is allowed, dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent, dated 22­05­2014, by granting a decree of divorce.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 19th day of August, 2019.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERFOR RESPONDENT

PW1: Karrolla Rajanna Rw.1: Karrolla Suma @ Oraganti Divya 

EXHIBITS MARKED

(On behalf of the)

FOR PETITIONERFOR RESPONDENT

Ex.P1 is the marriage photographs 5 H.M.O.P. No.16 of 2018

Ex.P2 is the wedding card

Ex.P3 is the office copy of legal notice 

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad