Sri.B.R.Madhusudhan Rao, B.Com.,.LL.M.

FCOP 310 of 2011 - 1 - divorce

BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT

Dated this the 29th day of September, 2014

Present: -

B.R.Madhusudhan Rao,

Judge, Family Court, Nellore.

F.C.O.P. No. 310 of 2011

Nannem Jashuva @ Siva … Petitioner

Vs.

Dasari Masthanamma … Respondent

This petition coming on 22.09.2014 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Shaik Arif Malik, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri B.

Rama Krishna Reddy, Advocate for the respondent, upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following: -

O R D E R

This is a petition filed by the petitioner under sections 10 of the

Divorce Act read with Section 7 of Family Courts Act, prays to grant decree for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent performed on 26.05.2010.

2. The brief averments of the petition are as under:-

The marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was performed on 26.05.2010 as per Christian rites and customs at Padarupalli of

Nellore city. After the marriage the petitioner and the respondent set up their family at Padarupalli, Nellore and they lived together for 10 months. On 8.4.2011 respondent left the marital home without intimation and consent of the petitioner or his family members. The respondent addressed a letter to the petitioner that she is not willing to lead marital life and also advised petitioner not to take any steps to take her to his family fold.

(ii) The respondent while leaving the house was wearing 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments. The petitioner made his best efforts to know

FCOP 310 of 2011 - 2 - divorce her whereabouts but could not found her. Petitioner came to know that the respondent is in love with somebody and leading adulterous life with him. The petitioner traced out some letters in the house addressed to the respondent by some persons whose name was not disclosed. The letters discloses that the respondent is having illicit intimacy and leading immoral life and left the matrimonial home. Petitioner filed the OP to dissolve his marriage on the ground of adultery and filed an application seeking permission from the Court to permit him on exceptional grounds that the name of the adulter is not known to him.

3. Respondent filed her counter admitting the marriage and denied the rest of the allegations. The respondent contended that her parents gave

Rs.50,000/- towards dowry, 10 sovereigns of gold jewelry, Rs.10,000/- for household articles, 4 sovereigns of gold chain and bracelet to the petitioner.

(ii) Respondent joined the petitioner at Padarupalli village and their marriage is consummated. The petitioner was addicted to bad vices like drinking, gambling, debachery and used to abuse the respondent in filthy language and beat her in black and blue. The petitioner along with his mother and sister used to harass the respondent that if the petitioner has married another girl who is a Central Government employee they would get more dowry and she could have drawing Rs.10,000/- per month towards salary and demanded the respondent to bring additional dowry of Rs.25,000/-.

(iii) Petitioner suspected the character of the respondent and made false allegations that the respondent is having illegal contacts with others and abused the respondent in filthy language. The respondent bear the ill- treatment of the petitioner with a fond hope that there would be a change in the attitude of the petitioner. The petitioner used to threaten the respondent that he would marry again if the respondent fails to bring additional dowry.

Respondent suffering Appendicitis, during that time petitioner did not take care of her and her parents took her to the hospital. She underwent

Appendicitis operation. The petitioner did not come to the hospital to see her.

FCOP 310 of 2011 - 3 - divorce

The respondent conceived and when she was 2 months pregnant due to beating of the petitioner, she missed her pregnancy and got abortion. The petitioner demanded the respondent to cooperate for divorce but the respondent has refused for the proposal. The petitioner gave threat to the respondent that he will kill her if she did not give consent for divorce. The petitioner forcibly obtained a letter from the respondent, stating that the same as if the respondent is not interest to lead marital life. The respondent unable to bear the harassment of the petitioner came out from the house with wearing clothes. The respondent sent mediators viz., Dwarakanath Reddy and

Ranga Reddy to settle the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent.

But the mediation proved futile and prayed to dismiss the petition.

4. This court made an attempt to reconcile between the parties but the parties were reluctant to settle the dispute and were interested to prosecute their case.

5. Petitioner is examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 Wedding card, Ex.A2 Marriage photograph, Ex.A3 Marriage photograph issued by B.B.

Prayer House, Nellore, Ex.A4 Letter addressed by the respondent to the petitioner and also examined Pw.2 Chandra Sekhar. Respondent is examined as Rw.1 and no documents are marked on her behalf.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed written arguments.

7. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of decree

of divorce on the ground of adultery?

8. POINT:-

On perusal of Exs.A1 to A3, the petitioner and the respondent are legally wedded husband of the respndent.

FCOP 310 of 2011 - 4 - divorce

(ii) The entire case of the petitioner is that, respondent is having illicit intimacy with another person and she used to leave his company without informing him and leading adulterous life. Respondent has executed Ex.A4 document contending that she is not interest to lead marital life with the petitioner. The ground for divorce set up by the petitioner is on the ground of adultery. It is better to refer Section 11 of Divorce Act.

Section-11:- Adulteror or adultercy to be co- respondent. On a petition for dissolution of marriage presented by a husband or wife on the ground of adultery, the petitioner shall make the alleged adulter or adulterous, a co-respondent unless the petitioner is excused by the Court from so doing on anything of the following grounds viz.,

(a) That the wife being the respondent is leading life of a prostitute or the husband being respondent is leading an immoral life and that the petitioner knows of no person with whom the adultery has been committed.

(b) That the name of the alleged adulter or adulterous or adulterous is unknown to the petitioner, although the petitioner is made efforts to discover it.

(c) That the alleged adulter or adulterous is dead”

The petitioner has averred in the petition that he is filing an application seeking permission from the Court to permit him on exceptional grounds that the name of the adulterous is unknown to him. Although he made due efforts to discover his name.

Petitioner has examined Pw.2 Chandra Sekhar that the respondent is leading adulterous life. There is no whisper in the petition that

Pw.2 has acted as mediator in between the petitioner and the respondent.

There is no pleading that Pw.2 has acted as a mediator. Pws.1 and 2 were cross-examined at length. Pw.1 has stated in his cross examination that the respondent has left the original of Ex.A4 in the house.

Pw.1 stated that there is no proof to show that on 8.4.2011, the respondent left the society and also admitted that the respondent underwent

Appendicitis operation at Narayana Hospital and she was conceived and she underwent operation.

FCOP 310 of 2011 - 5 - divorce

On Ex.A4, there is no signature of the respondent. But it is signed by the petitioner herein. Pw.1 has admitted in h is cross-examination that, in Ex.A4 signature of the respondent is not reflecting and he denied the suggestion that Ex.A4 is a fabricated document.

The evidence of Pw.2 is not helpful to the petitioner, as the petitioner failed to aver in the petition that Pw.2 mediated the issue between them. In his cross examination, she stated that there are thumb impressions on Ex.A4. He do not remember the elders names who mediated on behalf of respondent and he denied the suggestion that he do not know anything about the case facts.

Respondent filed her affidavit, but she failed to enter into the witness box, thereby her evidence was eschewed.

On perusal of the entire evidence on record, the petitioner has not obtained leave from the Hon’ble Court as mandatory provision under

Section 11 of Divorce Act are not complied and further the adulter is not made as a party to the proceedings. As such the petitioner has not complied the mandatory provisions and he is not entitled for grant of divorce on the ground of adultery.

IN THE RESULT, the petition is DISMISSED.

Dictated to the Senior Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 29 th day of September 2014.

Sd/- B.Madhusudhan Rao

Judge, Family Court,

NELLORE.

FCOP 310 of 2011 - 6 - divorce

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner: For respondent:

Pw.1: N. Jashuva @ Siva Rw.1 D.Masthanamma

Pw.2: Ch. Chandra Sekhar Documents marked

For Petitioner:

Ex.A1: Wedding card

Ex.A2: Marriage photograph Ex.A3: Marriage photograph issued by B.B. Prayer House, Nellore. Ex.A4: Letter addressed by the respondent to the petitioner

For respondent:

- NIL -

Sd/- B.Madhusudhan Rao

Judge, Family Court,

NELLORE.

FCOP 260 of 2012 - 1 - Maintenance

BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT

Dated this the 30th day of September, 2014.

Present: -

B.R.Madhusudhan Rao,

Judge, Family Court, Nellore

F.C.O.P. No. 260 of 2012

Pasupuleti Anuradha @ Cherukuru ... Petitioner.

Anuradha

Vs.

Cherukuru Kishore … Respondent

This petition coming on 23.09.2014 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri D. Gurukumar, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri M. Kota

Reddy, Advocate for the respondent, upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following: -

O R D E R

This is a petition filed by the petitioner under section 125 Cr.P.C.

read with Section 7 of Family Courts Act, prays to pass order and Decretal

Order directing the respondent to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.6,000/- to the petitioner from the date of this petition.

2. The brief averments of the petition are as under:-

The marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was performed on 9.2.2011 at B.T.R. Colony, Mangalam, Tiurpathi as per Hindu rites and customs. The mother of the petitioner presented Rs.20,000/- of cash towards dowry, 4 ½ sovereigns of gold ornaments and house hold articles worth Rs.30,000/- to the respondent.

(ii) The petitioner was happy in the company of the respondent for 5 days. Thereafter she came to know that the respondent is addicted to bad vices and leading his life with his maternal aunt Padmamma. The respondent, his maternal aunt and his younger father Cherukuru Ramu beat the petitioner cruelly to bring additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- from her mother. Petitioner

FCOP 260 of 2012 - 2 - Maintenance was residing most of the time at her mother’s house at Nellore unable to bear the cruel attitude of the respondent. On 18.8.2011 when the petitioner was sleeping in the house, respondent his maternal aunt Padmamma and her husband Cherukuru Ramu beat the petitioner cruelly and she was necked out from the house demanding additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-. On 23.08.2011 petitioner lodged a complaint before the II Town Police Station and a Criminal case is registered against the respondent and others. Petitioner is studying nursing course at St.Josephs Nursing School, Nellore. Respondent willfully neglected the petitioner and refused to maintain her. Petitioner is unable to maintain herself and she has no means at all to lead her normal life.

Respondent is working as a carpenter and earning Rs.500/- per day i.e.,

Rs.15,000/- per month and he is having movable and immovable properties.

Petitioner requires an amount of Rs.6,000/- towards food, clothing and shelter and medical expenses and Rs.10,000/- to prosecute her studies and prayed to allow the OP.

3. Respondent filed his counter admitting the marriage and denied the rest of the allegations. Respondent is working as carpenter coolie and earning Rs.300/- per month. Petitioner is working as a nurse in the hospital and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The petitioner is having sufficient means to maintain herself and she voluntarily deserted the respondent and the respondent is not liable to pay the maintenance.

4. This court made an attempt to reconcile between the parties but the parties were reluctant to settle the matter and were interested to prosecute their case.

5. Petitioner is examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 wedding card printed by the respondent’s parents. Ex.A2 wedding card of the respondent. Ex.A3 is marriage photograph, Ex.A4 copy of F.I.R. in Crime

No.113 of 2012.

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

FCOP 260 of 2012 - 3 - Maintenance

7. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of maintenance from the respondent?

8. POINT:-

On perusal of Exs.A1 to A3, petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. The marriage of the petitioner is performed on 9.2.2011 as per Hindu customs and thereafter she joined the respondent at Tirupathi.

Within 5 days after the marriage the petitioner came to know that the respondent is having bad habits and having intimacy with one Padmamma who is his maternal aunt’s daughter. Respondent, Padmamma and Ramu used to beat the petitioner for additional dowry and finally she was necked out from the house on 18.8.2011. Petitioner contended that respondent is working as a carpenter and earning Rs.500/- per day. Petitioner further contended that her mother has given Rs.20,000/- towards dowry and presented 4 ½ sovereigns of gold and Rs.30,000/- towards household articles.

(ii) No document is filed by the petitioner to show that her mother has presented dowry, gold and house hold articles. Respondent filed his counter and denied the allegations in the petition and contended that he is a carpenter and earning Rs.3,000/- per month.

(iii) No document is filed by the petitioner that the respondent is a carpenter by profession and earning Rs.500/- per day. Petitioner claimed

Rs.10,000/- towards her education. Petitioner failed to file document that she is pursuing her nursing course. During the evidence petitioner stated that she is a house-wife.

(iv) As petitioner contended that respondent is earning Rs.500/- per day and in a month Rs.15,000/-. No document is filed to substantiate her contention. Respondent failed to cross examine the petitioner and as a carpenter the respondent might have been earning at least Rs.10,000/- per month.

FCOP 260 of 2012 - 4 - Maintenance

(v) In view of the evidence of the petitioner, I hold that the petitioner is not in a position to maintain herself and it is the bounden duty of the respondent to maintain his wife. On perusal of Ex.A4, petitioner was forced to file a complaint against the respondent when he demanded

additional dowry.

(vi) The fault is on the part of the respondent as such petitioner is entitled for grant of maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- per month payable by the respondent on or before 10th of every succeeding month, from the date of the petition.

9. IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is entitled for grant of maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) per month payable by the respondent on or before 10th of every succeeding month from the date of petition.

Dictated to the Senior Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 30 th day of September, 2014.

Sd/-B.R.Madhusudhan Rao

Judge, Family Court,

NELLORE.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner: For respondent:

Pw.1: P. Anuradha None

Documents marked

For Petitioner:

Ex.A1: wedding card printed by the respondent’s parents. Ex.A2: wedding card of the respondent. Ex.A3: marriage photograph Ex.A4: copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.113 of 2012. Marriage Photograph. Ex.A2: Report given in Woman Police Station in Cr.No.24 of 2011.

For respondent:

- NIL -

Sd/-B.R.Madhusudhan Rao

Judge, Family Court,

NELLORE.

FCOP 297 of 2013 - 1 - Ex-parte/01.10.2014

BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT

Dated this the 1st day of October, 2014

Present: -

B.R.Madhusudhan Rao,

Judge, Family Court, Nellore.

F.C.O.P. No. 297 of 2013

Ragi Vijaya Kumar @ Jaya Kumar … Petitioner

Vs.

Ragi Kalyani … Respondent

This petition coming on 15.09.2014 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri E. Bhaskaraiah, advocate for the petitioner and the respondent having remained ex-parte, upon hearing and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following: -

O R D E R

This is a petition filed by the petitioner under section 13(1) (1a) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act R/w Section 7 of Family Courts Act prays to grant decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent which took place on 15.06.2005 on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

2. The brief averments of the petition are as under:-

The marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 15.06.2005 at Bollineni Chenchaiah Naidu Kalyana Mandapam, according to Hindu rites and customs prevailing in the community. The marriage is consummated and they lived happily for a period of 5 years. Out of the wedlock petitioner and the respondent are blessed with one son and one daughter by name R. Monish and R.Nithyasri. The respondent insisted the petitioner to put up a separate family at Podalakur Mandal where her mother is residing. Petitioner refused the proposal of the respondent as he is the only son to his parents. Respondent started harassing the petitioner physically and mentally demanding the petitioner to put up separate family. The petitioner and her mother did not agree for her evil desire. The respondent used to pick

FCOP 297 of 2013 - 2 - Ex-parte/01.10.2014 up quarrel with the petitioner and his mother for each and every thing without fault on his side. The respondent did not take the responsibility of her family and caused mental harassment. On 2.11.2010 the respondent left the company of the petitioner without his consent and joined her mother along with the children. Respondent threatening the petitioner that she will file a false case against him under Section 498-A I.P.C. Petitioner and others i.e.,

Kollu Satishi and T.Murali tried to pacify the dispute between the petitioner and respondent. Respondent did not heed their words and demanded for separate family. Respondent willfully and wantonly deserted the petitioner from his marital fold without any fault on his side and prayed to grant divorce.

2. Respondent was set ex-parte.

3. Petitioner is examined as Pw.1 and got marked Exs.A1 Wedding card Ex.A2 Marriage photograph and also examined Pw.2 K. Sathish.

4. Heard petitioner's counsel and perused the record.

5. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion?

6. POINT:-

On perusal of Exs.A1 and A2, the petitioner is the legally wedded husband of the respondent.

(ii) It is the contention of the petitioner that they lived happily for a period of five years and they are blessed with 2 children by name Monish and

Nityasri, who are aged about 7 and 5 years respectively.

(iii) Respondent demanded the petitioner to put up separate family at Podalakuru Mandal, where her mother is residing. Petitioner refused the proposal of the respondent, thereby she started harassing the petitioner physically and mentally. Respondent left the company of the petitioner on 2.11.2010. Since then she is residing with her parents. Petitioner has sent

FCOP 297 of 2013 - 3 - Ex-parte/01.10.2014 mediators i.e., Kollu Sathish and T. Murali. But she did not heed the words of the mediators.

(iv) Pw.2 K. Satish deposed that respondent used to harass the petitioner physically and mentally and insisted him to put up separate family.

Out of lawful wedlock petitioner and respondent are blessed with two children. The children are in the custody of the respondent. He along with T.

Murali and some elders from the petitioner’s side tried to pacify the matter but could not be materialized and the respondent did not heed the words of the mediators and failed to join the petitioner.

(v) Pw.2 who acted as a mediator between the petitioner and the respondent tried his best to bring back the respondent to the marital fold of the petitioner. Respondent did not heed the words of the petitioner and did not join the petitioner to discharge her marital obligations.

(vi) The children are in the custody of the respondent. Petitioner made his efforts to bring back the respondent and his children through mediators. Since 2.11.2010, the respondent is residing separately away from the petitioner. The efforts made by the elders were not materialized and the fault is on the part of the respondent in not joining the petitioner to discharge her marital obligations. Petitioner made his best efforts, but his efforts were in vain.

(vii) The unchallenged testimonies of Pws.1 and 2 goes to show that it is the respondent who is at fault and she failed to join the petitioner even after mediation. As such, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for grant of divorce.

7. IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent performed on 15.06.2005 is hereby dissolved by a decree of divorce.

Dictated to the Senior Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 1 st day of October 2014.

Sd/. B.R.Madhusudhan Rao

Judge, Family Court,

NELLORE.

FCOP 297 of 2013 - 4 - Ex-parte/01.10.2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner: For Respondent:

Pw.1: R. Vijaya Kumar @ Jayakumar Ex-parte Pw.2: K. Sathish

Documents marked

For Petitioner:

Ex.A1: Wedding card Ex.A2: Marriage photograph

For Respondent:

Ex-parte

Sd/. B.R.Madhusudhan Rao

Judge, Family Court,

NELLORE.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, NELLORE

Dated this the 9th day of October, 2016

Present: B.R. Madhusudhana Rao,

Judge, Family Court, Nellore

F.C.O.P. No.71 of 2016

1. Burra Subhashini @ Suhasini

2. Burra Srinu @ Srinivasulu

... Petitioners

Vs.

N o n e … Respondents

This petition coming on 06.10.2016 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.D. Ramesh, advocate for the petitioners and none for the respondents, upon hearing and upon perusing the record, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

1.This petition is filed under section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage between the petitioners by a decree of divorce by mutual consent.

2.The brief averments of the petition are as under:-

The marriage of the petitioners is performed on 31.10.2001 at Sri

Venugopala Swami vari temple, Nellore town, SPSR Nellore district according to Hindu rights and customs and the marriage is arranged by elders. 1St petitioner joined the second petitioner, and her marriage is consummated.

Out of lawful wedlock, they are blessed with two children named as Sai

Sreja, aged about 12 years and Venkata Sai, aged about 9 years and studying 7th class and 5th class at Chakravarthi English medium school,

Pragathinagr, Podalakur, Nellore town, respectively and both the children are under the care and custody of 1st petitioner, thereafter disputes arose between the petitioners as the 2nd petitioner is addicted to bad vices and used to beat the 1st petitioner without any reason. 1St petitioner bore all those tortures for the sake of her children expecting a change in the attitude of the 2nd petitioner. But there is no change in the attitude of 2nd petitioner 2 and he deserted the 1st petitioner in the month of May, 2007 and thereafter he did not turn up . Elders from both sides tried to settle the dispute but could not be materialized. 2nd petitioner agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 1 lakh towards permanent alimony to the 1st petitioner and 1st petitioner agreed to receive the same and she further agreed to take care of her children.

Petitioners stated that there is no force, fraud or collusion between the parities in obtaining divorce by mutual consent and prayed to dissolve their marriage.

3.This court made an attempt for reconciliation between the parties but the parties were reluctant to settle the issue and were interested to prosecute their case.

4.1St petitioner is examined as Pw1 and got marked Ex.A1 wedding card, Ex.A2 marriage photo, Ex.A3 marriage certificate and Ex.A4 receipt for

Rs.1 lakh dated 28.9.2016. 2Nd petitioner is examined as Pw2.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Perused the oral and documentary evidence.

6.Now the point for consideration is ---

Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of divorce on the ground of mutual consent?

POINT:

7.On perusal of Exs.A1 to A3, petitioners are legally wedded wife and husband. Marriage of the petitioner is performed on 31.10.2001 at Sri

Venugopala Swamivari temple, Nellore town according to Hindu rites and customs. Out of lawful wedlock, they are blessed with two children named as Saisreja, aged about 12 years and Venkata Sai, aged about 9 years and studying 7th class and 5th class at Chakravarthi English medium school,

Pragathinagar, Podalakur, Nellore town, respectively and both children are under the care and custody of 1st petitioner, thereafter disputes arose 3 between the petitioners as the 2nd petitioner is addicted to bad vices and he deserted the 1st petitioner in the month of May, 2007 and thereafter he did not turn up . Elders from both sides tried to settle the dispute but could not be materialized. 2nd petitioner paid an amount of Rs.1 lakh towards permanent alimony to the 1st petitioner. 1St petitioner deposed that she has received Rs.1 lakh from the 2nd petitioner towards her permanent alimony and executed receipt under Ex.A4 and she has undertaken to look after her children with love and affection and she further stated that there is no force, fraud or collusion in obtaining the divorce by mutual consent.

8.Petitioners are residing separately since 15.05.2007 and that they have not been able to live together as wife and husband. 1st petitioner has received an amount of Rs.1 lakh towards permanent alimony and she deposed that there is no force, fraud or collusion in obtaining divorce, I hold that the petitioners are entitled for decree of divorce on the ground of mutual consent.

9.In the result, the petition is allowed without costs. Marriage of the petitioners is hereby dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground of mutual consent.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 9th day of October, 2016.

Judge,

Family Court, Nellore

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Petitioners:

PW1: B. Subhashini @ Suhasini

Pw2: B. Srinu @ Srinivasulu

For Respondents:

-None- 4

Documents marked

For Petitioners :

Ex.A1:Wedding card

Ex.A2:Marriage photo

Ex.A3:Marriage certificate

Ex.A4:Receipt for Rs.1 lakh dated 28.9.2016.

For Respondents:

-Nil-

Judge

FCOP 80 of 2016 - 1 - divorce(mutual consent)

BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT

Dated this the 27th day of September, 2016

Present: -

Sri B.R.Madhusudhan Rao,

Judge, Family Court, Nellore.

F.C.O.P. No.80 of 2016

1.Sirigiri Venkateswara Reddy

2. Sirigiri Harini.…Petitioners

Vs.

Nil …Respondent

This petition coming on 26.9.2016 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.Rajagopal Reddy--advocate for the petitioners , upon hearing the petitioners, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following: -

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the petitioners under section 13-B of Hindu

Marriage to dissolve the marriage between the petitioners which was performed on 13.5.2007 for grant of divorce on the ground of mutual consent.

2.The brief averments of the petition are as under:-

i) The marriage of the petitioners is performed on 13.5.2007 at Indira

Bhavan, Nellore as per Hindu rites and customs. Marriage of the petitioners is consummated and out of lawful wedlock, they are blessed with a son on 6.8.2008, named as Narasimha Reddy. After the birth of the child, 2nd petitioner, did not live amicably with the 1st petitioner, thereby serious disputes arose between them and they started residing separately, since 21.8.2013. Elders from both sides, tried to settle the dispute but could not be materialized.

ii) 1st petitioner agreed to deposit Rs.10 lakhs in the name of his son in a bank accordingly, he has done the same. He also agreed to pay an amount of Rs.5 lakhs to the the 2nd petitioner towards her permanent alimony. 2Nd petitioner agreed to look after her son with love and affection. Petitioners contended that there is no force, fraud or collusion in filing the petition for divorce.

3.This court made an attempt for reconciliation between parties. But the parties were reluctant to settle the matter and were interested to take divorce.

FCOP 80 of 2016 - 2 - divorce(mutual consent)

4.The 1st Petitioner is examined as Pw.1 and got marked Ex.A1 wedding card,Ex.A2 marriage photos(2 in number), Ex.A3 copy of Lok Adalath award dated 4.3.2016, Ex.A4 copy of Fixed deposit receipt 2 in number for Rs.5 lakhs each in the name of Sirirgiri Narasimha Reddy showing the 2nd petitioner has guardian 2nd petitioner is examined as PW2.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Perused the record.

6.Now the point for consideration is:” Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of divorce on the ground of mutual consent?

POINT:-

7.On perusal of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2, the petitioners are legally wedded husband and wife. The marriage of the petitioners is performed on 13.5.2007 as per

Hindu rites and customs. Out of lawful wedlock they are blessed with one son by name

Narasimha Reddy. Due to disputes petitioners started residing separately since 21.8.2013.

Elders tried their best to join the petitioners under one roof but could not be materialized and finally they have decided to take divorce. . 1St petitioner has deposited an amount of

Rs.10 lakhs in the name of his son by name Sirigiri Narasimha Reddy under Ex.A4 under two fixed deposit receipts at Corporation Bank, Nellore on 1.3.2016 showing the 2nd petitioner as guardian. 1St petitioner further deposed that he has paid an amount of Rs.5 lakhs to the 2 d petitioner before Lok Adalath in M.C.No.8/2015 and Lok Adalath has passed an award under Ex.A3.

8. 2nd petitioner deposed that she is in custody of originals of Ex.A4 and she has received an amount of Rs.5 lakhs from the 1st petitioner towards her permanent alimony. 2nd petitioner further deposed that she undertakes to look after her son with love and affection and her father by name Gopala Rao is present in the court hall during her evidence. She further stated that there is no force fraud or collusion in obtaining the divorce by mutual consent.

9.Petitioners 1 and 2 are residing separately since 21.8.2013 and that they could not able to live together as husband and wife , as 2nd petitioner stated that there is no force, fraud or collusion in obtaining divorce, as such I hold that the petitioners are entitled for grant of divorce on the ground of mutual consent.

FCOP 80 of 2016 - 3 - divorce(mutual consent)

10.IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed. The marriage between the petitioners is hereby dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground of mutual consent.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 27 th day of September, 2016.

Judge, Family Court,

NELLORE.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioners:

PW1: Sirigiri Venkateswara Reddy. PW2:Sirigiri Harini.

For respondent:Nil

Documents marked

For Petitioner:

Ex.A1:Wedding card,

Ex.A2:Marriage photos(2 in number),

Ex.A3:Copy of Lok Adalath award dated 4.3.2016,

Ex.A4: Copy of Fixed deposit receipt( 2 )in number for Rs.5 lakhs each in the name of Sirirgiri Narasimha Reddy showing the 2nd petitioner has guardian.

For respondent: Nil.

JUDGE.