Sri B.Sivanagi Reddy, Prl.Dist. and Sessions Judge

IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Wednesday, the 29th day of June, 2016

Present:- Sri B.S ivanagi R eddy ,

Prl. District Judge, Mahabubnagar.

I.D.O.P.No.03 of 2016

Between:

K.Emmanuel David S/o. K.Aseervada Rao, aged 42 yrs., Occ. Pvt., Lecturer, R/o.Flat No.207, H.No.1-6-69/207, Vishu Apartment, Subhash Nagar, Mahabubnagar.

…Petitioner And,

Pushpalatha W/o.K.Emmnuel David aged 40 yrs., Occ. Tahsildar in Telkapally mandal, Nagarkurnool Division, R/o Flat No.207, H.No.1-6-69/207, Vishu Apartment, Subhash Nagar, Mahabubnagar. …Respondent

Sub:- Petition u/s 10 Sub Section 1 (ix)(x) of Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001 for dissolution of marriage by granting decree of divorce.

-o0o-

This case came up for hearing before me in the presence of Sri.M.Christopher, advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri.K.Pratap Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent and upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record, upon hearing the arguments, and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day the Court delivered the following:

ORDER

The petition is filed by the petitioner/husband u/s. 10(1)(ix)(x) of

Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001 for dissolution of marriage by granting decree of divorce against the respondent/wife.

2.As per the admitted case, the marriage of the petitioner with respondent took place on 12.10.2002 as per the customs and rites prevailing in Christian religion and their community and they are blessed with two children; 1)Koppera Abishai David, aged 13 years, 2)Koppera Siyona David, aged 8 years. The petitioner filed this petition

2

for divorce on the ground of cruelty alleging that the respondent subjected him to cruelty mentally and physically and also filed a criminal case u/s. 498-A I.P.C., in women Police Station, Mahabubnagar against him and his parents who are aged 79 and 74 years respectively. The brothers of the respondent who are in police department are collectively harassing him. In the year 2006, due to harassment of the respondent, he attempted to commit suicide by stabbing himself in the stomach. Thereafter, he underwent emergency surgery. He tried his level best to compromise with the respondent but in vain.

3.After receipt of notice of this petition, the respondent appeared through her counsel. Both the parties were directed to be present on 11.6.016 for counseling. The respondent was further directed to bring her children who are with her. On 11.6.2016, the petitioner present but respondent was absent. Hence, the petition was posted to 16.6.2016 for counter of respondent. From 16.6.2016, as I was on leave, the petition was posted to 24.6.2016. On 24.6.2016, the petitioner present whereas the respondent along with her children present.

4.After counseling of the petitioner and respondent in the presence of their children, both of them agreed for the following terms and conditions;

1) The petitioner agreed to not press the petition.

2) Both of them agreed to live separately and not to interfere with each other affairs.

3

3) The petitioner is permitted to talk through phone with his children with the cell phone that will be provided by the respondent.

And the petitioner prayed the court to dismiss the petition with the above said terms of compromise. In view of the above said terms of compromise, this petition is liable to be dismissed without costs with the above said terms of compromise.

5.In the result, this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed by the petitioner with the terms and conditions as agreed by them. A copy of terms of compromise shall be appended to the decree of this order.

Dictated to Senior Assistant, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 29th day of June, 2016.

Prl.District Judge, Mahabubnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined - N I L - Prl.District Judge, Mahabubnagar.

4

IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE AT MAHABUBNAGAR

I.D.O.P. No. 03 of 2016

Between: K.Emmanuel David S/o. K.Aseervada Rao, aged 42 yrs., Occ. Pvt., Lecturer, R/o.Flat No.207, H.No.1-6-69/207, Vishu Apartment, Subhash Nagar, Mahabubnagar.

5

…Petitioner

And,

Pushpalatha W/o.K.Emmnuel David aged 40 yrs., Occ. Tahsildar in Telkapally mandal, Nagarkurnool Division, R/o Flat No.207, H.No.1-6-69/207, Vishu Apartment, Subhash Nagar, Mahabubnagar.

…Respondent

Sub:-Petition u/s 10 (1)(ix)(x) of Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001 for dissolution of marriage by granting decree of divorce.

-o0o-

TERMS OF COMPROMISE

The petitioner who is the husband filed the O.P., u/s. 10(1)(ix)(x) of Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001 for dissolution of marriage by granting decree of divorce against the respondent/wife.

2. As per the admitted case, their marriage took place on 12.10.2002 as per the customs and rites prevailing in Christian religion and their community. Both of them are blessed with two children; 1)Koppera Abishai David, aged 13 years, 2)Koppera

Siyona David, aged 8 years. The petitioner filed the petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty.

3. After receipt of notice, the respondent appeared before this court along with the children.

4. Counseling made in between the parties in the presence of their children. Both of them agreed for the following terms and conditions:

6

1) The petitioner agreed to not press the petition.

2) Both of them agreed to live separately and not to interfere with each other affairs.

3) The petitioner is permitted to talk through phone with his children with the cell phone that will be provided by the respondent.

5. In view of the above settlement, the petitioner prays the court to dismiss the petition with the above said terms of compromise.

Petitioner Advocate

Respondent Advocate

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE: MAHABUBNAGAR.

Wednesday, the 29th day of June, 2016.

Present: Sri B.Sivanagi Reddy, Prl. Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

Crl.M.P.No. 758 of 2016

in Cr.No. 48 of 2016

Between

1) Mandla Chennamma W/o. Venkataiah, age 32 yrs., Occ. Coolie, R/o.Lemamidi village, Keshampet mandal now present at Eerlapally village, Jadcherla mandal, Mahabubnagar District

2) Boya Chennaiah S/o Pochaiah, age 45 yrs, Occ. Coolie, R/o.Rayapally village, Balanagar mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

.. Petitioners/A1 & A2

A n d

The State of T.S., through Police Keshampet P.S.

.. Respondent/Complainant

Offences: U/Sec. 307 r/w.34 of I.P.C.

Sub:Petition filed U/Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.

@ @ @

This petition came up for hearing before me on this day in the presence of Sri.K.VijayaMohan, and Sri.B.PurushothamRao, Advocates, for the Petitioners/ accused and of Sri.B. Bala Gangadhar Reddy, Public Prosecutor, for the State and the matter having stood over for consideration, this day, the court delivered the following: -

O R D E R

As per the orders dated 29.6.2016, in Crl.M.P.No. 800 of 2016, this petition is advanced to this date. This petition is filed for regular bail by the petitioners who are A1 and A2 in Cr.No. 48 of 2016 of Keshampet police station for the offence u/s 307 r/w.34 I.P.C.

2.As per the case of the prosecution, as revealed from the case diary, petitioner No.1/A1 is the wife of injured/ defacto complainant, whereas, A2 is the uncle of A1 and that on 1.6.2016, these petitioners with a pre-plan attempted to commit murder of the defacto complainant by strangulating his neck with a rope. On the report given by the defacto complainant, the above case was registered. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer arrested the petitioners on 7.6.2016 and from then, the petitioners are in judicial custody.

2

3.The earlier petition filed by the petitioners in

Crl.M.P.No.716/2016 was dismissed vide order dated 17.6.2016 mainly in view

of the serious allegations made against the petitioners and as the investigation of this case is pending.

4.In this petition, the petitionerssubmitted that they are innocents of the offenceandthey are falsely implicated in this case. They also submitted that entire investigation of this case is completed except filing of charge sheet.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioners also filed memo of arguments stating that the 1st petitioner is having children of tender age.

6.The Public Prosecutor opposed this petition mainly on the grounds that investigation of this case is pending and if the petitioners are released on bail, they will threatened the witnesses and tamper the evidence.

7.Heard arguments.

8.Now the point for consideration is: Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of bail?

9.In this case 1st petitioner is a woman having a daughter aged 14 years and a son aged 9 years respectively, even as per the report given by the defacto complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the mother of the petitioner No.1 is unable to look after the children of the 1st petitioner due to her old age. In these circumstances, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner No.1/A1, but with regard to the petitioner No.2/A2, in view of the serious allegations made against him and as the investigation of this case is pending, I am not inclined to grant bail to him.

10.In the result, this petition in respect of petitioner No.2/A2 is dismissed and allowed in respect of petitioner No.1/A1 and petitioner No.1/A1 is ordered to be released on bail onexecuting a personal bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) with two sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Shadnagar.

Pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 29th day of June,

2016.

Prl. Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar. Copies to:

1. The Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Shadnagar

2. The Station House Officer, P.S. Keshampet

3. The petitioner/accused through counsel.