Sri. B.syamsunder

1

In the Court of the Judge, Family Court – cum – V Additional District

Judge, Tirupati 

Present: Sri B.Syamsunder, 

 Judge, Family Court cum 

V Addl. District & Sessions Judge,

Tirupati. 

Saturday, the Sixteenth (16 th ) day of September, 2017. 

 FCOP .No. 7 of 2016

Between: Vatturi Sai Rohit, S/o V.Hari Krishna Prasad, aged 31 years, Occ. Process Analyst, in Accenture services Pvt Ltd., Hyderabad r/o Flat No.302, Ravi Teja Apartments behind food world , Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad

...Petitioner.

And: Kurra Priyadarshini, W/o V.Sai Rohit, aged 29 years, Occ. Housewife, C/o K.Mohana Muni Siddha Reddy, H.No.4­6­44A, UP stairs, Reservoir colony, Tirupati, presently residing at F.No.301, A.V. Residency, 16­1­30/E, Saidabad, Hyderabad

...Respondent.

This petition came up before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt S.N. Padmini, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri N.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the petitioner/husband against the respondent/wife under section 13(1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short “the Act”) seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty.

02. Though the contents of the petition shows that it is like a dairy of the petitioner mentioning day today affairs of himself and respondent for the purpose of adjudication of this petition there is no necessity to mention all the details in the petition which running into 18 pages.

2

03. The contention of the petitioner is that his marriage with the respondent is love­cum­inter­caste marriage, for which both sides elders have not agreed, but respondent used to visit his house prior to the marriage and requested his mother to accept marriage proposal and then mother of petitioner asked her to get consent from her parents but she could not get and again she pressurized to have a marriage and accordingly it was performed on 08­11­2008 in Arya Samaj, at Hyderabad.

After marriage photos were sent to parents of respondent who collected telephone number of petitioner’s house and they abused mother of petitioner and threatened her. It is alleged that father of respondent also visited office of the father of petitioner and threatened him and insulted him in the presence of his colleagues. He submits that prior the marriage there was an understanding between himself and respondent in respect of studies as respondent has very much interested to attend Group­I examination and as her main goal is to become an IAS officer and she already attended examination two times prior to her marriage but she did not qualify and she had two more opportunities to appear for the said examination and the petitioner has to take care and help her in fulfilling her goal which he accepted. It is contented that as respondent was preparing for IAS examination parents of petitioner not disturbed her and all house­hold work done by mother of petitioner only. After that parents of respondent also invited them to their house and they arranged reception at

Tirupati for which petitioner along with his parents attended. It is contended that mother of petitioner came from Orthodox family and she is very particular about the customs and she is very principled and systematic and not allowing her daughter also into kitchen which includes pooja room at the time of menstrual periods, and she perform pooja twice a day and cooking food after taking bath only. Then respondent said to be started complaining to the petitioner that his mother not allowing her into kitchen when she is in periods and asking her everyday whether she took head bath or not, such silly things became a nuisance for her and she has no habit of maintaining distance during the menstrual periods at her parents house. He submits that during the month of ‘Aashadamasam’, mother of petitioner asked the respondent to live separately to go to her uncle’s house which is situated at Saidabad, for which respondent grew 3 wild and refused to stay apart by saying that she won’t entertain such type of things and then mother of petitioner requested her to take care of household things by preparing food with the help of her daughter and she wants to go out for which respondent declared that she is not going to do such type of things (cooking etc)as she is having allergy and she could not wakeup early and she cannot put her hands in cold water and she is not a servant maid to do all those things and at her parents house they maintain a cook and 3 to 4 servants and she decided to leave the house for one month and stayed in working women hostel but not in her uncle’s house. Since the said incident respondent said to be bore grudge against her mother­in­law and stopped talking with her. It is alleged that after the marriage at the time of ‘Ganesh festival’ respondent did not get down from the bed inspite of request by the petitioner and told her to go and get ready to participate in Ganesh pooja, she stated that in her house they never celebrate any festival and sitting hours together before clay idols is nothing but foolishness and asked him don’t pressurize her to do such type of things and petitioner stunned after seeing the attitude of the respondent as her behaviour is entirely opposite to the behaviour prior to her marriage and tried to know the reason for her behaviour but in vain. He submits that after ‘Aashadam’ Month and ‘Ganesh festival’ incidents one day the parents of respondent came to the house of petitioner at Hyderabad without informing them and on their arrival, the respondent took them to her room and locked the door and after some time all of them came out from the room and told that they will take food later and then the mother of respondent started saying to the respondent that it is her foolishness to marry the petitioner and she does not know how she liked dark complexion person and how she is staying in the house which is equivalent to their servant quarter and started scolding the mother of petitioner by saying that “Neekemina Pitcha, buddhivunda’ and questioning her about asking the respondent to leave the house during ‘Aashadamasam’ and alleged that she harassed her daughter by interfering in her daily activities due to her behaviour and abused her in filthy language degrading the parents of petitioner and then the parents of respondent told the petitioner that their daughter will not stay in the family and asked the petitioner to put up separate family and accordingly petitioner took rented house nearer to the 4 parents house of the petitioner in the same locality and after putting up separate family respondent engaged one cook and one servant maid and she never served food to the petitioner personally and whenever he asked her to serve food she told him that she is busy with her IAS preparations or not feeling well. Both have lived separately in the said house for a period of one year and during that period, her parents, grandmother and cousins one after another visited regularly but she has not allowed the parents of petitioner to come to their house and whenever mother of petitioner sent curries and snacks items with the sister of petitioner, the respondent showed recklessness not asked sister of petitioner to sit and she also started quarreling with the petitioner that she did a big blunder in her life by marrying a persion having Dependent nature. It is alleged that prior to marriage respondent used to call the petitioner as ‘Kanna’ but stopped calling him as her mother warned her not to call like that and then she started calling him as ‘hello’ and she changed her behaviour, she always tried to insult him and his family members by saying that they are “vatti chadastapadi moorkhuralu”. He alleged that respondent did not allow him to live peacefully, whenever he asked her to come with him to movie, she immediately replied that she is not interested as she has to prepare IAS examination . In March, 2010 petitioner left for USA where he stayed four months during that period whenever he call the respondent over phone she never talked to him smoothly, she only enquired whether he had any talks with his parents and sister, when he said yes she started weeping by saying that he is always giving first preference to his parents and he is at least bothered about her and it is her fate to marry him. It is alleged that after the marriage of the respondent, she never shown any interest towards him and even on the date of his arrival to India she insisted him to come to home directly and not to go to his parents house and not to waste money by purchasing waste things to his sister and mother and after returning from USA petitioner came to know that the respondent conceived and asked her to quit the job for the sake of her health as she is suffering from

PCOD and needs rest, but as usual she didn’t listen his words and continued the job as per advise of her father not to stop working by saying that people will work till 8 to 9 months of pregnancy, butwithin two months she got admitted in hospital for over bleeding, the doctors strictly 5 advised her to take bed rest and stop working, then she applied for maternity leave and quit the job after delivery of the child. In the 7th month of pregnancy mother of respondent came and taken her to Tirupati without informing the petitioner, they planned to go on the very next day itself, when the petitioner informed the same to his parents, his mother informed him that day is not good to send the respondent to her parents house for delivery and she consulted ‘Siddhanti’ fixed the date after two days and the same was informed to respondent and her mother, they told him that those things are foolish and she also behaved abnormally by seeing the same, the petitioner literally shivered and in fact she got prior plan of going to her parents house due to that she has not paid two months rent which she wanted to adjust advance amount paid to house owner.

Then respondent gave birth to a prematured, under weight baby and after getting information about birth of the child, the petitioner and his father went to the hospital at Chennai and on the next day his father returned to

Hyderabad but he stayed there for a period of one week and again he visited Chennai as condition of the child was very critical who was kept under observation in the hospital nearly two months at Chennai. At that time father of respondent took a room at Chennai and petitioner visited

Chennai number of times till discharge of his son from the hospital. After that the respondent stayed at her parents house for a period of seven months, during that period petitioner said to be visited Tirupati every alternate week to meet respondent and to see his son. He also alleged that after the marriage he came to know that the respondent is not a healthy person and she is suffering from Asthma, Sinusitis, Insomnia, Skin and dust allergies, pain in spine (back bone) PCOD and morbid Obesity, due to that she gave birth to a pre­matured, under weight child. After knowing about her health condition, her behaviour, the petitioner said to be suggested her that they will plan for the children after two years, but the respondent started taunting stating that he is escaping from responsibility and declared that she has no problem she can give birth to a child which shows her stubbornness in every aspect. After birth of a child on several requests after 7 months the respondent came to Hyderabad, but never allowed mother of petitioner to touch the child and complaining him that his parents are not taking care of the child, and she intended to engage two servant maids, 6 which proposal petitioner refused and he also refused the advise of his father­in­law due to health condition of the child, for which respondent showed her dissatisfaction with the attitude of the petitioner. The petitioner also submits that again the respondent said to be started pressurizing him to put up separate family, which he refused and then she bore grudge against him as well as his parents and started harassing them by making false allegations against the petitioner and his parents. The respondent said to be created quarrels between the family of the petitioner with their relatives, whenever petitioner questioned the same she used to abuse him saying that he is a dependent person and defamed him before his family members, relatives, friends and neighbours. The petitioner submits that he intended to give a party on the occasion of his son’s second birthday at Country Club, Begumpet, Hyderabad, the petitioner, respondent along with their son sat in the car, then the petitioner called his mother also to accompany them as in the car as back seat is vacant, his mother came and sat in the car, then the respondent started quarreling with the petitioner asking him to sent out his mother for which he refused which she also complained to her parents. Then father of the respondent also advised him by stating that why the mother of petitioner doing such things which is against to the wish of respondent. He also alleged that after the birth of a child respondent used to visit her parents house on one pretest or the other each and every time the petitioner booked flight tickets as respondent insisted for flight journey, though the petitioner expressed that traveling by

Air is too expensive for him to bear, for which respondent abused him by saying that don’t cry, cheap fellow and he is not able to earn money, her father will arrange the same, due to that petitioner has not raised that issue again before her. It is alleged that when respondent was staying with him along with child she used to show the child to her parents hours together in Skype by closing the doors of her room and never allowed her in­laws to touch the child. Then in August, 2013 when the petitioner and his parents decided to shift the house and started packing the things and then respondent stated that she wants to go to her parents house as she is having dust allergy, but the petitioner refused by saying that she came from

Tirupati 15 days back only after taking rest for nearly 2 months at her parents house and asked her to stay away from the packing it will take only 7 two days. But respondent did not listen the words of petitioner and changed her version by saying that she is not getting time for preparing for the IAS examination though naughtiness of her son and due to packing was going on in the house she left the house and went to her parents house against the will of the petitioner. After reaching Tirupati respondent has not contacted the petitioner and she always not shown the child on

Skype and when petitioner went to Tirupati to see the child without informing the same to the respondent for which respondent asked him why he came to Tirupati without informing her and alleged that he is disturbing her studies and asked him to leave the house immediately before child woke up by observing the behavior of respondent the petitioner said to be asked the respondent he wanted to talk with her parents but nobody including the respondent shown any interest towards him. It is alleged that the respondent under the guise of preparing of IAS examination left matrimonial home along with child in August, 2013 and did not come back though the petitioner arranged flight tickets to her and she always deprived the petitioner for conjugal happiness and she deprived him from fatherly affection of the child and kept the child away for long period and caused mental agony to him. When petitioner contacted the respondent and asked her to get the child to admit in play school for which respondent informed him that she already admitted the child in a play school at Tirupati, by hearing the same petitioner astonished and she refused to come to

Hyderabad even at the time of birthday of their son and refused to lift his calls and when he contacted his father­in­law who informed him that his daughter is not interested to go to Hyderabad. He alleged that the respondent under pretext of preparation of IAS examination deprived him of for conjugal bliss and fatherly affection to the son on 09­02­2014 petitioner, his parents and elder brother of petitioner’s father visited the house of parents of respondent and at that time father of respondent also called one Mr. Srikanth Reddy and Mr. Thimma Reddy on their behalf of as mediators, wherein petitioner questioned the respondent about her behavior and then respondent told him that she does not want to return

Hyderabad , then the mother of respondent started shouting that they are low class people, they have no parity with them and asked to go away. It is alleged that the respondent not interested to live with the petitioner at 8

Hyderabad along with her in­laws and she told him that she will join him if he come to Tirupati or get transfered to Bangalore and she also gave another option to him that she will stay in Hyderabad with her son near by to her uncle’s house and petitioner has to come twice in a week to her house if he wants to see his son if that proposal is not acceptable to him, she would not allow the petitioner in future to meet them and she should loose both of them forever. For which petitioner not accepted the proposal and tried to convince her to join at his parents house and petitioner sent number of SMS to the respondent. It is the contention of the petitioner that he is very much fond of his son and he cannot live without his son and in fact he still loves his wife also but the respondent without considering his feelings showed stubborn nature and not changed her attitude and she was insisting him to leave his parents house and live separately with her. When petitioner siad that he is going to take steps to get divorce, for which she has to come to court to give consent for divorce and he will take his son with the help of police, but to his utter surprise respondent is reacted by saying that to go and proceed immediately to get divorce as she is also not interested to continue the marital relationship. Then the respondent got issued a legal notice to the petitioner on all false and frivolous allegations and she also gave number of SMS by provoking him that he has no guts to give divorce to her. The petitioner further submits that in her reply notice respondent alleged that he used to go pubs and he used to beat her in the drunken mood which is false. He also stated that making false allegations against him and attributing relationship with other women amounts to cruelty on the part of respondent. He prays to allow the petition.

03. The respondent filed counter consisting of 32 pages, most of contents in the counter are denying the averments mentioned in 18 pages of the petition. It is the contention of the respondent that her marriage with the petitioner was a love marriage which took place on 08­11­2008 in ‘Aarya Samaj’ at Hyderabad and at the time of marriage she was permanent employee, whereas petitioner working as a part time employee and after the marriage she joined petitioner at his house. She alleged that immediately after the marriage petitioner changed a lot and he never 9 treated her affectionately and her mother­in­law and her sister­in­law used to harass her and demand her to do all house­hold work , then only her mother­in­law she used to allow her to go to her job and many times her mother­in­law intentionally and wantonly asked the servant maid not to come and used to harass her to do all household work and petitioner always supports his mother and at times even petitioner beat her and threatened her to necked herout from the house if she fails to obey orders of his mother . She also alleged that at the time of ‘Asadamasam’ month her mother­in­law asked her to go out from the house though they got having knowledge that she is not having any support from her parents and forced her to reside at her relatives house, but she stayed in working women’s hostel for a period of one month and later she joined with the petitioner at his parents house . She alleged that petitioner is having habit of taking alcohol and used to go to pubs with some unknown persons and used to spend much time and he never cared her and not provided any conjugal happiness to her and whenever she used to come to him and tried to move closely, he always says that he has no interest on her and he used to sleep in the hall most of the time. She submits that she being a Hindu wife had been doing all the house hold work and she used to bring provisions, vegetables with her own money and used to pay electricity bills and purchased household furniture to the house with her own money but petitioner and his parents were not satisfied and used to harass her and treated her like a maid servant. She submits that though she got permanent job and she had an opportunity to go to USA or UK but she did not opted for the same and only to stay with the petitioner to lead happy marital life but petitioner has not shown any interest towards her. After some time respondent said to be informed harassment of the petitioner to her parents and then they came to Hyderabad held mediation and after mediation petitioner put up separate house in the same locality at

Hyderabad where his parents are residing and she paid advance amount for the house in the month of October, 2009 and she also purchased all household articles with her own earnings and she used to pay monthly rent to the owner of the house. She alleged that even after putting of a separate family there is no change in the attitude of the petitioner and some times he has not returned to the house for more than 10 days 10 continuously by leaving her alone in the house and she used to bring all the provisions and vegetables to the house with her own money and when she questioned him about not coming to the house he used to beat her indiscriminately saying that he is being a man and have lot of things to do outside. Then in the month of May, 2010 petitioner went to USA for a period of two months and at that time he helped him a lot by spending sleepless nights by advising and helping the petitioner in his job and again she attended her duties in the morning, due to that her health was spoiled she became sick and then petitioner returned to India after two months.

After petitioner returned from USA he had been demanding her to deliver the child so that he will be happy and he want to prove that he is a man and then only he can live happily along with her which she blindly believed and they lead happy marital life for a period of one month and later again petitioner repeated his behaviour staying out side during the nights and not used to come to the house regularly . When the respondent conceived in August 2010 they both lived happily for a period of 5 months and later petitioner sent her to her parents house for delivery and she gave birth to a premature baby on 31­01­2011 at Channai. When the same is informed to the petitioner he did not turn up. As child born three months prematurely she has taken lot of extra care to protect the child and all medical expenses of newly born child spent by her parents only. When the petitioner sent her to her parents house for delivery he vacated the house at Hyderabad and again joined his parents house. She alleged that the petitioner has not changed his behaviour and used to withdraw her amounts from the bank which he spent lavishly and he sent her and child to her parents house in August, 2013 since then they have been living at

Tirupati and after that petitioner has not taken care of them. In March, 2014 petitioner along with his parents came to Tirupati to have to have a

Darshan of Lord Venkateswara swamy and at that time they came to the parents house of the respondent and held mediation, where her parents requested the petitioner to take the respondent and her son along with them but the petitioner not accepted for the same and returned to

Hyderabad along with his parents. She further alleged that for the past three years many times petitioner informed her that he wants divorce and he no longer want to continue the relationship with her and he also 11 informed her through SMS that he contacted the advocate at Hyderabad for taking mutual consent divorce and wants her to accept for the same. She alleged that the petitioner had intentionally and wantonly deserted her and her son for more than one year from August 2013 without valid reason due to that petitioner is liable to pay maintenance to her and her minor son. It is also the contention of the respondent that after observing the attitude of the petitioner in the mediation center at Tirupati, she also felt thatthere is no possibility of reunion due to the adamant attitude of the petitioner even at the mediation center forgetting the past when she intended to join him along with her son petitioner was not ready and not willing to live with her. Therefore she is also willing to take divorce from the petitioner and asked the petitioner to convert the petition as consent petition but the petitioner is not willing for the same to avoid payment of maintenance to her and her minor son. Therefore respondent also prays to pass decree of divorce by dissolving her marriage with the petitioner as there is no chance of reunion and prays to award reasonable compensation and permanent alimony to her and to her minor child.

04. On behalf of the petitioner PW­1 was examined, Exs.A1 to

A19 were marked. On behalf of respondent, RW­1, RW­2 were examined,

Exs.B1 was marked. 

05. I have heard both sides.

06. The learned advocate for petitioner contended that the detailed behaviour of the respondent narrated in the petition and also deposed by petitioner as PW­1 clearly shows that the respondent behaved cruelly with the petitioner. She submits that the respondent also wants divorce but she is claiming maintenance which she is not entitled to claim as due to her fault she is living separately and she capable to earn money .

She relied on the following precedent law:­

(1) Narendra ...Appellant Vs. K.Meena ...Respondent in Civi Appeal

No.3253 of 2008, Judgment , dated 06­10­2016,

(2) Gaurav Nagpal ...Appellant Vs. Sumedha Nagpal...Respondent in

Civil Appeal No.5099 of 2007, Judgment dated: 19­11­2008,

(3)Ruchi Majoo...Appellant Vs. Sanjeev Majoo, Respondent in Civil 

Appeal No.4435 of 2011, Judgment dated 13­05­2011, 12

(4) Kalyan Dey Chowdhury ..Appellant Vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee

Nandy.. Respondent, in Civil Appeal No.5369 of 2017 Judgment 

dated 19­04­2017,

(5) Smt Mamta Jaiswal Vs. Rajesh Jaiswal , 2000 (4) MPHT 457 (6) Bhushan Kumar Meen Vs. Mansi Meen @ Harpreet Kaur, in

Criminal Appeal No.879 of 2009, Judgment dated 28­04­2009

The main contention of learned advocate for petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled to claim visiting rights and the petitioner also filed a separate petition for the same and though the petitioner is seeking for divorce prays to grant visiting rights to the petitioner to visit her son on every Sunday and direct the respondent to hand over minor son to the petitioner from 6­00 AM to 5­30 PM on every Sunday. She prays to allow the petition. 

07. The learned advocate for respondent contended that the petitioner failed to prove contents mentioned in the petition, but respondent after observing the attitude of the petitioner she also does not want to live with the petitioner and she wants divorce due to that she also asked the petitioner to convert the petition as mutual consent petition, for which he refused only on the ground to avoid payment of maintenance to the respondent and her son. He submits that evidence of RW­2 medical officer clearly shows that minor boy required special care and he should be in the custody of respondent only and petitioner who neglected his wife and child not entitled to seek visiting rights. He prays to grant divorce and direct the petitioner to pay maintenance to the respondent and her minor son.

08. Now the points for determination are:­

(1) Whether the petitioner/husband is entitled to seek divorce 

on the ground of cruelty ? (2) To what relief ? 

09. Point No.1. Before going to the merits of the case it would be beneficial to quote Section 13 of the Act which reads as under:­ “Sec.13.Divorce:­ (1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground 13 that the other party­­ 

(i) has, after the solemnization of marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse; or (ia) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty; or (ib) has, deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately proceeding the presentation of the petition...” 

10. The concept of mental cruelty explained in many number of authorities by the Hon'ble Higher Courts that :­

(i) Cruelty must be inferred from the whole facts and atmosphere disclosed by the evidence; 

(ii) actual intention to injure the other spouse is an important, but not an essential factor,

(iii) it is impossible to create categories of acts or conduct which do not amount to cruelty; 

(iv) sexual offences directly relevant to the husband's conjugal obligations may constitute ill­treatment of the wife;

(v) mental ill­treatment may be coupled with physical ill­treatment in order to found a charge of persistent cruelty; and

(vi) even different forms of mental ill­treatment may be taken together in order to found a charge of persistent cruelty.

11. As the charge of cruelty is with the direct knowledge of the complaining spouses, law requires that averments in relation to this charge must be specific, concise and clear. Vagueness or ambiguity in the allegations of cruelty is likely to be viewed with disfavour. The burden of proving cruelty lies on the petitioner. But, it need not be proved beyond reasonable doubt and it may be proved by way of probable circumstances. 

12. The petitioner who is seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty has to prove that behaviour of respondent towards him is so cruel due to that he is entitled to seek divorce. Though the petitioner has mentioned things said to be happened in detailed in his petition and also in his chief examination affidavit as PW­1 which not requires in detailed discussion about pasrties were divorce and since August 2013 petitioner and respondent are living separately and both are not willing to live together. Further in detailed cross­examination PW­1 admitted that he is getting net salary of 14

Rs.50,000/­ per month and he also paid medical bills of his son when he was admitted in hospital at Chennai. It is suggested to PW­1 that he used to visit pubs and having habit of consuming alcohol and used to spend time with his girl friends by name Sweeti and Amudha and he used to beat the respondent in drunken state. It is also admitted by PW­1 that respondent sent legal notice to him prior to filing of this petition wherein she has stated that she has been residing separately in September, 2013 and asked him to take her to lead marital life or to give divorce and he again says that the respondent demanded him for divorce in her legal notice and he has not issued reply to the said notice. He added that issuance of legal notice by the resplendent is also one of the reason for him for filing divorce petition. He admitted that his working timings are 9­00

AM to 7­00 PM. He denied the suggestion that only to harass the respondent he filed petition seeking custody of child though he has no time to look after welfare of the child.

13. Against the aforesaid evidence of petitioner, RW­1

K.Priyadarshini/respondent has stated on oath in her chief examination affidavit with regard to averments in her counter. She also prays to pass a decree of divorce by dissolving their marriage as there is no scope of reunion and prays to award maintenance to herself and her minor son.

Ex.B2medical certificate issued by Dr. D.Sasikumar Reddy marked in her evidence. In detailed cross­examination, she deposed that she know that the petitioner is having illicit intimacy with other women as she heard the telephone conversation and petitioner is also informed her that he has got illicit intimacy with other women which he said that it is common in city life . He categorically stated that she saw petitioner going for shopping with other women and attending pubs with other women but she has not seen petitioner is having illicit intimacy with other women. She further stated that the petitioner got intimacy with one Amudha, Sweety and Lalitha who is Human Resource Manager in petitioner company. Which clearly shows that the respondent attributed illicit intimacy to her husband but she failed to prove the same and she has not adduced any independent evidence nor examined any neighbour at Hyderabad to show that the petitioner is having illicit intimacy with other women. It is also stated by RW­1 that it may be 15 true that her opinion about relationship between Sweety and petitioner may be false as her opinion is based on information given by the petitioner.

Which suggests that respondent is having great suspicion on petitioner and she attributed illicit intimacy to him even with his colleagues at office.

Though she admitted that she was getting salary of Rs.42,000/­ per month . She deposed that now she is taking care of her son and not working anywhere. .

14. RW­2 Dr. B.Sasi Kumar Reddy medical officer has deposed that he examined minor son of the respondent whom he treated at the first time when the child was three months old he was suffering from cold, cough rapid breathing and he treated the child as he was referred by doctor from Chennai . He deposed that in view of past medical history of child he is of an opinion that it is not advisable to separate the child from his mother for his mental and physical growth and issued Ex.B1 certificate. In cross­ examination he reiterated his contention that minor child is suffering from health problem but at present his position is 50% better , but child is still suffering behaviour problems may recur when he gests stressed/ emotional 

15. After perusing the evidence on both sides, it is pertinent to note that there is no dispute that the marriage of petitioner and respondent was love marriage and it is an intercaste marriage which took place without the consent of both sides elders.. After the marriage they lived at parents house of the petitioner for a short period and thereafter they put up separate family wherein respondent alleged that petitioner used to return to the house late nights and not visited the house days together .

There is separation between the couple since August, 2013 and both have attributed so many allegations against each of them. Even when the matter was sent to mediation there was no amicable settlement and this court also tried for amicable settlement even during the examination of RW­1, but failed. After considering allegations made against each other and in view of contention of the respondent also that there is no possibility of reunion, this court is of an opinion that even if there is reunion they may not live in peace and allegations against each other went to the stage of attributing illicit intimacy to the petitioner by the respondent without any convincing 16 evidence. Therefore attributing illicit intimacy to the husband by the wife is certainly amounts to cruelty and on that ground petitioner is entitled to seek divorce from the respondent.

16. After perusing the evidence on both sides which clearly shows that now the parties are very particular about visitation rights of the child claimed by the petitioner. There is no doubt true that minor boy of the parties born prematured and having health problems as per the evidence of

RW­2. But on that ground respondent cannot refuse the petitioner to have visitation rights, however after considering the evidence of RW­2, this court also is of an opinion that it would be better the respondent should have custody of the minor child and she also admittedly left her job and taking care of her child. Therefore custody of child shall be with the respondent only till the child attains majority. However as both are not intended to live together and respondent cannot deny visiting rights to the petitioner, petitioner has got right to visit the child on every Sunday between 10­00

AM to 5­00 PM in a temple or in a park at Tirupati in the presence of respondent or her parents. For which the respondent shall not object.

17. It is also the contention of the respondent that though she also willing for divorce as herself and her minor son now depending upon her parents for their livelihood, she prays to award maintenance to them. Admittedly the respondent is getting net salary of Rs.50,000/­ per month and it is not the contention of the petitioner which is admitted by

PW­1 that the respondent resigned her job for the sake of child and now she is taking care of the child. Though the respondent is capable to work and earn money that it is not a criteria to deny the separate maintenance to the respondent and her child when they are now admittedly not having any independent source of income. The petitioner who is seeking divorce from the respondent also liable to pay maintenance to the respondent and child . After considering the income of petitioner, respondent is entitled to claim a sum of Rs.15,000/­ per month as maintenance to herself and her child from the petitioner from the date of this order.

17

18. In view of discussion in preceding paras that what amounts to cruelty and as petitioner not filed petition seeking custody of the child there is no need to discuss precedent law relied on by the learned advocate

for petitioner.

19. Point No.2: In the result, the petition is allowed. The marriage of the petitioner with the respondent which took place on 08­11­ 2008 at Arya Samaj, Secunderabad is hereby dissolved by granting decree of divorce. The petitioner shall have visiting rights of his minor child and he has got right to visit the child on every Sunday between 10­00 AM to 5­00 PM in any park or temple or at Mediation center court premises at

Tirupati in the presence of respondent or her parents. For which respondent shall not object. The respondent is entitled to claim maintenance of

Rs.15,000/­ per month from the petitioner from the date of this order. The petitioner shall pay maintenance of Rs.15,000/­ to the respondent towards maintenance of respondent and her child from the date of this order by depositing the amount in the bank account of the respondent to be furnished by her within 10 days of this judgment. In the circumstances of the case, I direct both parties shall bear their own costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected

and and pronounced by me in open court, this the 16 th day of September, 2017.

Judge­Family Court­cum

V Additional District Judge, Tirupati. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner: P.W.1: V.Sai Rohit

Witnesses examined on behalf of the respondent: R.W.1: Kurra Priyadarshini R.W.2: Dr. B.Sasikumar Reddy

Exhibits marked on behalf of the petitioner: Ex.A1: Marriage Certificate dt: 08­11­2008 Ex.A2: Certificate of Marriage dt: 10­11­2008 Ex.A3: Positive photograph Ex.A4: Sakshi News paper Invitation Ex.A5: Three furniture purchase bills Ex.A6: Copy of E­Ticket Ex.A7: Copy of E­Ticket Ex.A8: Copy of E­Ticket confirmation (11pages) 18

Ex.A9: Copy of E­Ticket (4 pages) Ex.A10: Copy of Railway E­Ticket (pages) Ex.A11: Copy of E­Ticket (6pages) Ex.A12: ICICI bank statement of account (5 pages) Ex.A13: Bills with detailed statement of city bank Ex.A14: Axon hospitals prescription and receipts (5 in number) Ex.A15: Rainbow hospital medical record (2 pages) Ex.A16: Medical prescriptions and discharge summary of Apollo hospitals Ex.A17: SMS crcord (20 pages) Ex.A18: photostat copy of birth certificate Ex.A19: Discharge summary and out patient report

Exhibts marked on behalf of respondent: Ex.B1: Medical certificate issued by RW­2 D.Sasi Kumar Reddy

V Addl.D.J.,

TPT.

19

Prepared by: Compared by:

Fair Order in FCOP.128/2015

dt: 09­09­2017

20

Fair orders in MC.34 of 10 

dt; 26­6­2015 21

1

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL -CUM-

VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (FTC) :: TIRUPATI.

Present: Sri B.Syamsunder,

Judge, Family Court-cum-

V Additional District Judge , Tirupati, FAC: Motor Accident Claims Tribunal –cum- VI Additional District Judge (FTC), Tirupati.

Friday, the Fourth (4th) day of September, Two thousand fifteen.

M.V.O.P.No. 552 of 2008

T.Subramanyam.. .. Petitioner

Vs.

1.V.Pavan Kumar

2.M/s.Bajaj Allianz, Tirupati,

rep. by its Branch Manager. .. .. Respondents

This petition came up before me on 31.08.2015 for final hearing in the presence of Sri R.Venkatadri, Advocate for petitioner, Sri B.Narahari Reddy, Advocate for respondent No.2, and the respondent No.1 having remained exparte, and upon hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material available on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

This is a petition filed under Section 166(1)(A) of M.V.Act, 1988 read with

Rules 455 and 475 of A.P.M.V.Rules, 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- by the petitioner, who sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 09.06.2007 at about 3-15 A.M. near Sanjaygandhi Colony junction, at Tirupati.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that on 09.06.2007 at about 3-15 A.M.

when he was crossing the road on his TVS Champ two wheeler vehicle bearing No.

AP 03/F-2308 near Sanjaygandhi Colony junction on Tirumala Bypass Road from west to east, the rider of motor cycle bearing No. AP-26/K-TR-3571 came from RTC

Bus Stand side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the petitioner, due to that, petitioner sustained injury on his right leg and shifted to SVRR Hospital in an

Ambulance for treatment. It is the contention of the petitioner that he took treatment in the hospital upto 04.07.2007 as inpatient and again admitted on 09.11.2007 with severe pain to his right leg and took treatment upto 21 days and 2 again admitted on 23.11.2007 and took treatment upto 17.12.2007 at SVRR

Hospital and also at Sri Ramadevi Multi Super Speciality Hospital, Tirupati. The petitioner submits that a criminal case registered against the rider of motor cycle on a complaint lodged by him under Section 337 I.P.C. and filed Charge sheet in

C.C.No.428 of 2007 under Section 338 I.P.C. and Section 134(a) of Motor Vehicle

Act. It is also the contention of the petitioner that he was aged 54 years at the time of accident and he was hale and healthy, working as Head Constable in S.V.U.

Campus Police Station and getting income of Rs.8,000/- per month and the same was contributing to his family. The petitioner submits that he was the only earning member in his family and due to the injuries sustained in the accident, rod inserted in his right leg and he sustained permanent disability, now he is not in a position to attend his regular duties. He also stated that due to permanent disability sustained by him, his life span has been shortened and he spent huge amount towards medical treatment. He has stated that even now he is taking treatment in private hospital by availing leave on loss of pay. He submits that the motor cycle bearing

No. AP-26/K-TR-3571 insured with 2nd respondent Insurance Company and claimed compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- against the respondents on various heads.

3. The 1st respondent, owner of motor cycle, remained exparte and not chosen to contest the case.

4. The 2nd respondent Insurance Company filed Written Statement denying the accident, manner in which it was occurred, nature of injuries and treatment taken by the petitioner. It is the contention of 2nd respondent that as per averments in the petition, accident occurred due to collusion between two vehicles which shows that accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of the petitioner. They have stated that claim of the petitioners is highly excessive and prays to dismiss the petition.

3

5. On the basis of above pleadings, following ISSUES settled for trial:-

1. Whether the petitioner/injured sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident that took place on 09/06/2007 due to rash and negligent driv ing of the rider of motor cycle bearing Regn.No. AP 26 KTR 3571 as alleged ?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation amount? If so, what is the quantum of compensation and against whom ?

3. To what relief ?

6. On behalf of petitioner, P.W.1, P.W.2 were examined, Exs.A-1 to A-16 were marked. On behalf of 2nd respondent, R.W.1, R.W.2 were examined, Exs.B-1 to B-4 and Ex.X-1 were marked.

7. I have heard Advocate for petitioner.

8. The learned Advocate for petitioner contended that there is no dispute with regard to manner in which the accident occurred and injuries sustained by the petitioner in the accident. He submits that not having or non-registration of vehicle will not exonerate or exempt Insurance Company to pay compensation as said defence is not available to 2nd respondent Company under Section 149 of Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988. He relied on a decision in Joby Thomas & another,

Respondents Vs. Annamma Augustine & another, Respondents 1(2012) Accident and Compensation Cases, page 272. He prays to allow the petition.

9. ISSUE No.1:- P.W.1 T.Subramanyam/petitioner has stated on oath in his Chief-examination affidavit about the averments in the petition. The Chief- examination affidavit of the petitioner is replica of the contents in the petition. He deposed that he spent amount towards medical expenses, filed medical bills for

Rs.2,05,311/- and prays to allow the petition. Ex.A-1 certified copy of F.I.R.,

Ex.A-2 certified copy of Charge sheet, Ex.A-3 certified copy of Wound Certificate,

Ex.A-4 Discharge Summary of Ruia Hospital from 09.06.2007 to 04.07.2007,

Ex.A-5 Discharge Summary issued by Sree Ramadevi Multi Super Speciality

Hospitals from 27.02.2011 to 11.03.2011, Ex.A-6 Discharge Summary issued by

Sree Ramadevi Multi Super Speciality Hospitals from 03.09.2012 to 16.09.2012,

Exs.A-7 to A-16 are medical bills for Rs.2,05,311/-, marked in his evidence. In the 4

Cross-examination, he has admitted that he retired from service on 31.08.2011 by reaching age of superannuation and he has got Driving Licence on the date of accident and his vehicle also insured. He has stated that place of accident is divided with a road divider and when he was crossing the road and stopped his vehicle at road divider, Pulsor motor cycle came from Bus Stand side, dashed his vehicle, which occurred at early hours. He denied the suggestion that he tried to cross the road without observing the traffic and he was solely responsible for the accident. He also denied the suggestion that he foisted false case against rider of motor cycle by influencing local police. He pleaded ignorance about motor cycle has no permanent Registration Certificate as temporary registration was expired on the date of accident. He denied the suggestion that 1st respondent violated the conditions of the Policy and he created medical bills at later stage and he has not sustained any functional disability due to injuries sustained in the accident.

10. P.W.2 Medical Officer of Sree Ramadevi Multi Super Speciality Hospitals, has deposed that the petitioner admitted in their hospital twice and petitioner underwent surgery on 09.11.2007 and at that time implants were inserted and removed on 27.02.2011. He deposed that petitioner is now walking with the help of stick, having pain of lower limb and sustained permanent disability of 50% and he gave disability as 35% in January, 2012 and the permanent disability is 50% as petitioner took further treatment having shortening of limb by 2 inches.

He admitted about issuance of Exs.A-4, A-5 Discharge summaries and Exs.A-7 to

A-9, A-11 and A-12 medical bills by their hospital and stated that petitioner needs life long treatment for the disability which includes surgery. In the Cross- examination, he admitted that petitioner referred by SVRRGG Hospital and admitted in their hospital on 09.11.2007, by that time he has undergone surgery of

IM nailing tibia. He denied the suggestion that he has not given any proper treatment and his assessment about percentage of disability is wrong and he is not eligible to give Disability Certificate. In the further examination, he has stated that petitioner required future treatment which may cost about Rs.1,00,000/- and the petitioner cannot do any normal duties like sitting cross-legged.

5

11. Against the aforesaid evidence of petitioner, Mr.J.V.Kiran Kumar (R.W.1),

Senior Executive (Legal) of 2nd respondent Company, has stated in his Chief- examination that 1st respondent vehicle covered with Insurance Policy issued by their Company valid from 20.01.2007 to 19.01.2008 subject to terms and conditions. He deposed that 1st respondent’s motor cycle not having any registration on the date of accident, thereby 1st respondent violated terms and conditions of the Policy, due to that, they are not liable to pay compensation. He has stated that claim of the petitioner is highly excessive. Ex.B-1 true copy of

Policy, Ex.B-2 office copy of Legal Notice, Ex.B-3 attested copy of temporary

Certificate of Registration, Ex.B-4 Registration extract of motor cycle, marked in his evidence. In the Cross-examination, he admitted about coverage of Insurance

Policy of their Company, to 1st respondent’s vehicle, valid from 20.01.2007 to 19.01.2008. It is the contention of R.W.1 that on the date of issuing Insurance

Policy 1st respondent’s vehicle was temporarily registered, but on the date of accident temporary registration has been lapsed.

12. R.W.2 K.Ramprasad, Regional Transport Officer, Nellore, has deposed that vehicle bearing No. AP-26-R-6790 was permanently registered on 23.07.2007 which was temporarily registered as KTR 3571. The temporary registration given for one month, which was not extended. He admitted that on 09.06.2007 the vehicle was not permanently registered. Ex.X-1 Permanent registration particulars of 1st respondent’s vehicle, marked in his evidence.

13. After perusing the evidence on both sides, it is pertinent to note that though 2nd respondent denied manner in which accident occurred, it is not stated by

R.W.1 in his evidence denying the manner in which accident occurred and nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner. P.W.1 has categorically deposed about the manner in which accident occurred and his version is supported by criminal case records marked as Exs.A-1 to A-3, which are unchallenged. Ex.A-1 F.I.R. which was lodged at 6.30 A.M. on 09.06.2007 shows that accident occurred when petitioner was crossing the road on his motor cycle due to the negligence of rider of 1st respondent’s motor cycle. Police, after due investigation, filed Charge sheet 6 against rider of motor cycle. The criminal case records are unchallenged. In motor vehicle accident claims, strict proof of the accident caused in particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants as the claimants are merely to establish their case on touch stone of preponderance of probability of standard of reasonable doubt could not have been applied. Further, though proof of negligence is a sine quo non to maintain a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act when

Criminal Case records proved on record, if remained unrebutted and unchallenged can be taken to be sufficient to establish the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. Even if any party wants the Court to believe that there was contributory negligence on the part of the victim, it has to prove the same by adducing cogent evidence and Court cannot substitute its own judgment with that of a witness. In the present case, 2nd respondent pleaded contributory negligence, in their Counter and also in the Cross-examination of P.W.1, failed to examine driver of motor cycle who caused the accident to prove that accident occurred due to contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner. P.W.1 categorically deposed that when he stopped the vehicle at road divider, the rider of motor cycle came and hit his vehicle, due to that, he sustained injuries. Admittedly

R.W.1 is not an eye witness to the accident. The evidence of P.W.1 coupled with

Exs.A-1 to A-3 Criminal Case records supports the contention of petitioner that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of motor cycle.

Hence, this Issue is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

14. ISSUE No.2:- It is the contention of the petitioner that due to the accident, he received grievous injuries and sustained permanent disability. On perusal of Ex.A-3 Wound Certificate of the petitioner, which shows that petitioner has sustained commuted fracture of distal one third of tibia and fibula. P.W.2 also has deposed about the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner in the motor vehicle accident. The petitioner, who sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident, is entitled to claim compensation under following heads:

1.Pain and suffering as consequence of injuries.

2.Medical expenses.

3.Transportation and extra nourishment.

7

4.Loss of earnings during the period of treatment.

5.Permanent disability, if any, and Loss of amenities to the future life.

15. The petitioner, who sustained fracture of tibia and fibula, certainly must have suffered lot of trauma as a consequence of injuries. Therefore, a sum of

Rs.30,000/- is awarded as a compensation under the head of pain and suffering.

16. The petitioner has filed medical records to support his contention that he spent amount towards medical expenses. P.W.2 also deposed that petitioner has spent amount towards medical expenses. The medical bills filed by the petitioner which are not seriously disputed by 2nd respondent shows that the petitioner who was inpatient in the hospital on three occasions for a period of 62 days, certainly must have spent amount mentioned in the medical bills. Therefore, a sum of

Rs.2,05,000/- is awarded as a compensation towards medical expenses.

17. The petitioner is also admittedly inpatient in the hospital for a period of 62 days. After considering the period of treatment on three times and on three occasions, a sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded as a compensation under the head of transportation and extra nourishment.

18. The petitioner was said to be earning Rs.8,000/- per month, working as

Head Constable. The medical records coupled with evidence of P.W.2 shows that the petitioner was inpatient in the hospital for a period of 62 days. It is not suggested to P.W.1 that he has not sustained any loss of earnings when he was admitted as inpatient in the hospital during the period of treatment. After considering the period of treatment and nature of injuries sustained, a sum of

Rs.20,000/- is awarded as a compensation under the head of loss of earnings.

19. It is the contention of the petitioner that due to the injuries received in the accident he sustained permanent disability which is shortening of his right lower limb. P.W.2 also deposed that petitioner sustained disability of 50%, but he gave percentage of disability as 30% in January, 2012. The petitioner has not filed any document to support his contention that due to disability sustained by him, he incurred loss of future earnings and he has admitted that he retired from Service as 8 usual after reaching age of superannuation. When petitioner failed to prove that he sustained loss of future earnings due to alleged permanent functional disability, he cannot claim compensation under the head of permanent disability if any.

However, P.W.2 has deposed that petitioner is suffering from shortening of right lower limb and walking with support of a stick with pain, which certainly amounts to loss of amenities to future life of the petitioner. Therefore, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded as a compensation under the head of loss of amenities to the future life.

20. In total, the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident.

21. The main contention of 2nd respondent is that as 1st respondent’s vehicle temporary registration was expired on the date of accident, which amounts to violation of conditions of the policy by 1st respondent, due to that, their Company is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. The learned Advocate for petitioner contended that exoneration of Insurance Company from payment of compensation on the ground of non-registration is not available under Section 149 of Motor Vehicle Act. He relied on a decision reported in Joby Thomas & another, Respondents Vs. Annamma Augustine & another, Respondents 1(2012)

Accident and Compensation Cases, page 272, wherein, at para-6, it is held that:- “6. This matter can be viewed in another angle and it has been viewed so by the Karnataka High Court in the decision reported in Virupaksha v. Sivakumar, 2001 KHC 948. It was also a case where there was temporary registration for the vehicle till 30.11.1991. The vehicle was registered only on 24.1.1992. The accident took place on 12.1.1992 or in other words there was no valid registration for the vehicle on the date of accident. Whether the Insurance Company can raise the contention that it is not liable to pay the amount because of non-registration of the vehicle on the relevant date of the accident was considered. The learned Judge referred to Section 149 of the M.V.Act which deals with specific defences available to the Insurance Company under the Act. All the clauses had been extracted and the learned Judge came to the conclusion that non-registration of the vehicle is not one of the defences enumerated under Section 149 of the Act. Therefore the Insurance Company is not entitled to take defence of non- registration of the vehicle on the date of the accident. So viewed in both the angles viz., that as there is no breach of policy conditions and as there is no defence available to the Insurance Company on account of non-registration, it has to be held that the Insurance Company is not liable to be exonerated from the liability. The finding to the contra by the Tribunal is incorrect and it is liable to be set aside and I do so.” 9

22. In the present case also, though R.W.2 has stated that 1st respondent’s vehicle was permanently registered on 23.07.2007 and there was no extension of temporary registration of the vehicle on the date of accident, as per the ratio laid down in the decision referred supra non-registration of vehicle admittedly insured with 2nd respondent Company is not a defence available to 2nd respondent Company under Section 149 of Motor Vehicles Act. It is not fundamental violation of conditions of the policy by 1st respondent. Ex.B-1 copy of Policy also not shows that non-registration of the vehicle is one of the conditions. Admittedly Insurance Policy for 1st respondent’s vehicle issued by 2nd respondent Company was in force on the date of accident. Therefore, both respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Hence, this Issue is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

23. ISSUE No.3:-

In the result, petition is allowed in part awarding compensation of

Rs.3,75,000/- (Rupees Three lakh Seventy five thousand only) to the petitioner payable by the 1st respondent and 2nd respondent jointly and severally, with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents shall deposit the compensation amount within thirty days from the date of this award. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- (Rupees One lakh Seventy five thousand only) with proportionate interest and entire costs. The balance compensation amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be kept in

Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized Bank for a period of three years. After expiry of

Fixed Deposit period, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the amount with accrued interest. The rest of the claim of the petitioner is dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, no order as to the costs. The Advocate’s fee is fixed at

Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only).

Dictated to the Stenographer, after his transcription, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 4th day September, 2015.

Judge, Family Court-cum-

V Additional District Judge , Tirupati, FAC: Motor Accident Claims Tribunal –cum- VI Additional District Judge (FTC), Tirupati.

10

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined.

For petitioner:For Respondents:-

P.W.1:T.SubramanyamR.W.1:J.V.Kiran Kumar P.W.2:Dr.D.B.Sasidhar Reddy R.W.2:K.Ramprasad (by Advocate-Commissioner)

Exhibits marked on behalf of petitioner:- Ex.A-1:Certified copy of F.I.R. in Cr.No.78/2007 of Traffic P.S., Tirupati, dated 9-6-2007. Ex.A-2:Certified copy of Charge sheet in Cr.No.78/2007 of Traffic P.S., Tirupati, filed before the II A.D.M.M.Court, Tirupati, dated 26-6-2007. Ex.A-3:Certified copy of Wound Certificate of petitioner issued by SVRR Govt.Hospital, Tirupati, dated 16-6-2007. Ex.A-4:Discharge slip issued by SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati, for the treatment given to petitioner from 9-6-2007 to 4-7-2007. Ex.A-5:Discharge summary issued by Sri Ramadevi Multi Super Speciality Hospital, Tirupati, for the treatment given to petitioner from 27-2-2011 to 11-3-2011. Ex.A-6:Discharge summary issued by Sri Ramadevi Multi Super Speciality Hospital, Tirupati, for the treatment given to petitioner from 3-9-2012 to 16-9-2012. Ex.A-7:Cash bill for Rs.19,110/- issued by Sri Ramadevi Multi Super Speciality Hospital, Tirupati, in the name of petitioner, dated 21-11-2007. Ex.A-8:Set of medical bills (5 nos.) for an amount of Rs.18,495/- issued by the Pharmacy of Sri Ramadevi Multi Super Speciality Hospital, Tirupati. Ex.A-9:Cash bill dated 17-12-2007 for an amount of Rs.51,440/- issued by Sri Ramadevi Multi Super Speciality Hospital, Tirupati. Ex.A-10:Set of bills (8 nos.) for an amount of Rs.32,816/- issued by the Pharmacy of Sri Ramadevi Multi Super Speciality Hospital, Tirupati. Ex.A-11:Cash bill for an amount of Rs.26,500/- issued by Sri Ramadevi Multi Super Speciality Hospital, Tirupati. Ex.A-12:Set of bills (5 nos.) for an amount of Rs.18,599/- issued by the Pharmacy of Sri Ramadevi Multi Super Speciality Hospital, Tirupati. Ex.A-13:Cash bill for Rs.12,000/- dated 16.09.2012 issued by Sri Ramadevi Multi Super Speciality Hospital, Tirupati. Ex.A-14:Set of Cash bills (9 nos.) for Rs.26,361/- issued by Sri Ramadevi Multi Super Speciality Hospital, Tirupati, etc. Ex.A-15:Permanent Disability Certificate for 35% disability of P.W.1 issued by Sri Ramadevi Multi Super Speciality Hospital, Tirupati, dated 2-1-2012. Ex.A-16:Set of Payment Receipts (16 nos.) for Rs.5,329/- issued by Sri Ramadevi Multi Super Speciality Hospital, Tirupati, etc..

Exhibits marked on behalf of respondents:- Ex.B-1:True copy of Insurance Policy dated 08.03.2007 issued by 2d respondent pertaining to Bajaj Pulsar motor cycle bearing Regn.No. AP26TR3571. Ex.B-2:Office copy of letter, dated 22.02.2009, from the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent. Ex.B-3:Copy of Temporary Certificate of Registration, pertaining to Pulsor motor cycle. Ex.B-4:Registration Extract of vehicle/motor cycle bearing No. AP-26-R-6790 (Form-24 B-Register of Motor Vehicle).

11

Exhibits marked through witness (R.W.2):- Ex.X-1:Permanent registration particulars (Form-24 B-Register of Motor Vehicle) of the vehicle bearing No. AP-26-R-6790.

Judge, FC-cum-V ADJ,

Tirupati, FAC: MACT-cum-VI ADJ(FTC), Tirupati.

V ADJ 1 AS.No.165/2009

 IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE ::

TIRUPATI.

Present: Sri B.Syamsunder, V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati.

Friday, the Fifteenth (15th) day of September, Two thousand Seventeen.

Appeal Suit No. 165 of 2009

Between:

1. D.Muniraja S/o Natarajan, Hindu, aged 45 years,

2. Smt D.Sobha,W/o D.Muniraja, Hindu, aged 35 years

Both are residing at D.No.11­162, S.V.Nagar, Tirupati, Chittoor District …APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS. And: D.Krishna Reddy, S/o D.Parpoornam Reddy, Hindu, Aged 60 years, retired ATO., residing at D.No.11­181, S.V.Nagar, Tirupati. …RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF.

On appeal filed against the decree and Judgment dated 14­09­ 2009 passed by I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati made in:

O.S.No.1548 of 2004

Between: D.Krishna Reddy, S/o D.Parpoornam Reddy, Hindu, Aged 60 years, retired ATO., residing at D.No.11­181, S.V.Nagar, Tirupati. …Plaintiff.

And:

1. D.Muniraja S/o Natarajan, Hindu, aged 45 years,

2. Smt D.Sobha,W/o D.Muniraja, Hindu, aged 35 years

Both are residing at D.No.11­162, S.V.Nagar, Tirupati, Chittoor District …Defendants.

This Appeal came up before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt M.Vani, Advocate for Appellants/Defendants and of Sri M.Purushotham Reddy, Advocate for Respondent/Plaintiff, and upon hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material available on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This appeal suit is filed by the appellants/D1, D2 against the judgment and decree in OS.1548 of 2004 dated 14­09­2009 on the file of

V ADJ 2 AS.No.165/2009

I Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Tirupati. The suit was originally filed by the respondent/plaintiff for relief of permanent injunction restraining the appellants/defendants and their men in any way renewing the work or constructing super structures over plaint ‘B’ schedule property and directing the defendants to remove the super structures mentioned in the plaint sketch in red colour wash along with pipe line by way of mandatory injunction which is shown in the plaint as ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule with reads as under:­

SCHEDULE –A

In Chittoor District, Balaji Registration District, Tirupati sub­District,

Tirupati town , M.R.palle Grama Panchayat, in S.V.Nagar, RCC building with vacant site on North west and southern side measuring East to West 25 feet, North to South 66 feet, within the following boundaries:­ 

East:­ Shop room of Manickyam Reddy and thatched house of B.Nataraja

Reddy,

West:­ House of D.Venugopal Reddy,

North:­ Road (TTD road)

South:­ House of Jyothi and Chiranjeevi

SCHEDULE –B

In Chittoor District, Balaji Registration District, Tirupati sub­District,

Tirupati town , M.R.palle Grama Panchayat, in S.V.Nagar, on North eastern side of plaint ‘A’ schedule property, recently constructed wall on the Eastern side measuring East to West 2 feet, North to South 16 feet, with a height of 2 feet, along with pipe line beneath the same, pipeline on the north eastern side within the following boundaries: ­

East:­ Shop room of Manickyam Reddy

West:­ Vacant site of plaintiff (A schedule property),

North:­ Road (TTD road)

South:­ Vacant site and house of plaintiff ( Plaint A schedule property),

02. The appellants and respondent herein after will be referred as defendants and plaintiff as they arrayed before the trial court for the sake of brevity and convenience.

V ADJ 3 AS.No.165/2009

03. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that one D.Paripoornam Reddy is his father who got three sons by name D.Govinda Reddy, D.Venugopal Reddy and himself and then the said three persons along with their father had no house or house sites or landed property of their own then plaintiff along with his brothers occupied the land in S.No.307/1, in the year 1952 which is about Ac.0­10 cents and constructed thatched house and lived separately by paying house tax to the Gram Panchayat. He submits that as said thatched houses were dilapidated, they removed the same and constructed pucca RCC houses and residing therein individually with their respective families without any objection from any person. It is the contention of plaintiff that he got an extent of 27 feet east to west and 66 feet north to south facing towards North and the said property is morefully described in the plaint ‘A’ schedule. He submits that originally in the plaint ‘A’ schedule there was a thatched hut and same was dilapidated, then he removed the same and applied for approval of plan for construction of RCC building in the year 1990. Then Tirupati Urban Development Authority, Tirupati approved the plaint to construct the house as per orders dated 17­09­1990 and issued proceedings in favour of the plaintiff. After taking due approval from TUDA authorities plaintiff said to be constructed the RCC building in the plaint ‘A’ schedule property. It is also the contention of plaintiff that he left 4.57 meters on the northern side, 3 meters on the southern side and 2.50 feet on the western side and on the north eastern side he dug a well and the same was converted as sump and taking water to his house. The plaintiff submits that his property and other adjacent properties on the east and northern side were also Gramakantam lands and no pattas were granted by the revenue officials and the land cannot be alienated to third parties and even if there are sale deeds, they are not binding on others. He submits that D1’s father who is also an occupier of the land existing on the eastern side and on the north eastern side of the plaint A schedule property, one Manikyam Reddy has got a shop facing towards northern side. He also submits that D1 proclaiming that he has purchased the said shop room which details is not aware and even if any sale deed is there in favour of defendants for the said property it is not binding on him. It is alleged that the defendants wants to encroach upon plaint B schedule property which is part and parcel of A schedule property highhandedly and

V ADJ 4 AS.No.165/2009 illegally. The plaintiff filed rough sketch wherein he has show plaint schedule property A,B C D of and the plaint ‘B’ schedule is shown in red colour which is said to be part and parcel of ‘A’ schedule property. The plaintiff also stated that when he was not in town on 07­07­2004 as his daughter was admitted at CMC hospital, vellore and again she was taken for check up in the said hospital on 12­07­2004 and all his family members were at Vellore hospital, D1 illegally and highhandedly laid pipe line and constructed wall measuring 2 feet height with 16 feet length towards north to south which elder brother of plaintiff resisted but D1 used filthy language on him and completed the constructions highhandedly. He submits that the said constructions are temporary in nature and he reliably came to know that D1 wants to connect the said pipe line to septic tank which he has no right to do so and said illegal constructions are visible to naked eye. It is specifically alleged that D1 encroached plaintiff’s eastern side compound wall and pipe line were fixed highhandedly and then he issued legal notice to D1 calling upon him to remove constructions, pipe line on the north western corner of the plaint B­schedule property and called him not to interfere with his possession either by demolishing or by raising super structures in future. But 1st defendant managed and returned the said notice. After that knowing the contents of notice dated 26­07­2004 sent by him D1, D2 issued notice dated 30­07­2004 alleging that he purchased plaint ‘B’ schedule property and constructed super structures in the year 1996 though those constructions are recent one it is visible to naked eye. It is alleged that after issuance of notice defendant high handedly trespassed into plaint ‘B’ schedule property and white washed the new constructions and then plaintiff also got issued reply notice with actual facts on 05­08­2004. As the defendants said to be made super structures in the plaint ‘B’ schedule property which said to be belong to plaintiff, the suit is filed for permanent injunction and also for mandatory injunction 

04. The 1st defendant filed written statement which is adopted by 2nd defendant . The 1st defendant denied the allegations made in the plaint. It is the contention of D1 that the property described in the written statement schedule originally belong to D. Nataraja Reddy,

V ADJ 5 AS.No.165/2009

D.Varadareddy and D.Venkateswarulu who executed registered settlement deed in favour of one Dhanamma on 09­03­1970 and delivered possession of the property to her on the same day. Then on 12­02­1975 Dhanamma executed a registered Will in favour of Savithri and after the death of

Dhanamma , Savithri succeeded to the property. While so on 03­09­1992

Savithri sold the said property in favour of K.Radhakrishna Reddy under registered sale deed for valid consideration. Then on 21­08­1993

Radhakrishna Reddy sold the said property to M. Venkatasubbaiah under registered sale deed for valid consideration. It is also the contention of D1 that D2 purchased house bearing D.No.11/183 and 11/183/1 (originally bearing door No.11/183) described in the written schedule on 20­07­1995 from the said M.Venkatasubbaiah under registered sale deed for valid consideration with specific boundaries and measurements. He submits that since the date of purchase D2 has been continuous possession and enjoyment of property without any interruption. He also stated that after purchase of property they lead pipe line for septic tank with cement plastering on the western side in the year 1996 within the property purchased by them. He submits that there is a provision for flow of drain water from the first floor of the building to go outside through pipeline laid on the western side of the building which is in existence since the date of construction of the building by his predecessor in title. He has specifically stated that said pipes and constructions are within the measurements of the property purchased by D2 and D2 also mortgaged his building to Tirupati cooperative Bank limited, Tirupati and deposited all the original documents with the bank. It is alleged that plaintiff and his wife with the help of his brother tried to remove pipes existing on the western side of D2 building and then they also trespassed into the defendants house and abused them in filthy language and threatened them to remove the pipes erected long back but neighbours intervened due to that they left the place. Thereafter a legal notice was issued by the defendants to the plaintiff not to interfere with their possession of their property which plaintiff received and issued reply with false allegations. It is further alleged that plaintiff who failed in his attempts to remove the pipes illegally filed suit with false allegations.

He prays to dismiss the suit. 

V ADJ 6 AS.No.165/2009

05. On the basis of above pleadings, the trial court has framed the following issues :

1. Whether plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction or not?

3. To what relief?

Additional issue:­

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for ?

06. On behalf of plaintiff, PW­1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, DW­1 to 4 were examined,

Exs.B1 to B5 were marked. 

07. The learned trial judge after hearing submissions advanced by both sides and after going through the record held that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought for in the plaint and decreed the suit.

08. Aggrieved by the findings of the trial court, the appellants/ defendants herein preferred the present appeal contending that judgment and decree passed by the trial court is contrary to law weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. They submits that the trial court misread and misinterpreted the documentary and oral evidence let in by them and arrived at wrong conclusions. They also stated that the trial court failed to consider that the plaintiff has failed to prove his title, but based on approved plan the trial court decreed the suit without proper appreciation of the evidence let in by them. They have stated that the trial court failed to appreciate fact that the constructions over B­schedule property made by them as early as in the year 1996 and prays to allow the appeal and dismiss the suit.

09. The learned advocate for appellant contended that the property is gram kantam land and defendant share filed their title deeds and proved their primafacie title to the property, whereas respondent/plaintiff who is claiming that appellants made constructions in

V ADJ 7 AS.No.165/2009 their site failed to produce any title deed and no document is filed by him to show that plaint schedule property belong to him. She submits that plaintiff was not in possession of plaint schedule property on the date of filing of the suit and suit without seeking declaratory relief is not maintainable . She also argued that no person is examined by the plaintiff to support his contention and prays to allow the appeal.

10. The learned advocate for respondent contended that plaintiff after obtaining approval from TUDA in the year 1990 constructed his house by leaving space on all sides which includes on eastern side. He submits that advocate commissioner who visited the suit locality immediately after filing of the suit noticed that constructions are going on on the southern side of ‘B’ schedule property which supports the contention of the plaintiff that defendants made constructions recently and laid pipe line highhandedly, due to that trial court rightly granted relief in favour of plaintiff. It is also the contention of learned advocate for plaintiff that in respect of gram kantam land no declaration can be sought and additional evidence filed by them clearly shows that after decreeing the suit in favour of plaintiff D2 has again filed OS.No.216 of 2010 for declaration of their title and permanent injunction in respect of same property against the plaintiff herein which suit dismissed by the trial court on contest on 02­12­2015. He argued that defendants failed to prove their title to the property and trail court rightly decreed the suit. He prays to dismiss the appeal

11. In view of contentions raised by both sides, the following points will arise for determination:­

(1) Whether plaintiff is entitled to seek permanent injunction and

mandatory injunction against the defendants in respect of plaint ‘B’ schedule property?

(2) Whether judgment and decree of trial court is legal, correct

and based on the evidence available on record?

(3) To what relief?

12. Point No.1:­ The plaintiff filed suit seeking equitable relief of injunction. It is settled law that plaintiff who is claiming equitable relief of injunction for which he has to establish the breach of an obligation or

V ADJ 8 AS.No.165/2009 infringement of his legal right. As a person seeking relief of injunction should show the violation of his right by the act complained of it and if that act is carried into the effect, it must result in infringement of his legal right.

In the present case there is no dispute about existence of house of plaintiff on the western side of defendants property. Exs. B1 to B5 title deeds produced by the defendants clearly shows that the western side property shown in those documents there is a house of father of plaintiff. Now the dispute is in respect of ‘B’ schedule property which the plaintiff is claiming that it is within his property, whereas defendants are claiming that it is within the property purchased by him under Ex.B1 sale deed . The plaintiff also filed Ex.A1 is an approved plan which discussed by learned trial judge in detail and held that plaintiff has left some site on eastern side while constructing the house property. The advocate commissioner visited the plaint schedule property immediately after filing of the suit and noted physical features and also prepared a plan, but rightly observed by learned trial judge that advocate commissioner not measured the site with the help of documents placed by either parties. The report of advocate commissioner and his plan which is part and parcel of the record clearly shows that he visited the suit locality in the presence of both parties and prepared a plan which clearly shows that pipe line is protruded beyond the point ‘A’ which is vacant site of plaintiff. The advocate commissioner also noted in that pipe line connection and constructions going on southern side at the time of his inspection which was stopped at the time of his visit which supports the contention of the plaintiff that in his absence defendants made some constructions.

13. On perusal of Ex.A7 positive photographs which are not in dispute also shows that constructions are new and recently white washed.

As dots of in positive photo shows that they are still existing near the newly constructed two feet height wall. It is no doubt true that plaintiff is not claiming any title basing on any documents whereas the defendants are claiming title basing on Ex.B1 to B5. But defendants have not taken any steps to produce their title deeds before advocate commissioner to measure the property. But the fact remains is that plaintiff’s house is in existence on the western side of the defendants house. The plaintiff after obtaining due

V ADJ 9 AS.No.165/2009 approval from TUDA and constructed his house leaving space on the eastern side which is now said to be occupied by the defendants and made some super structures. When there is no dispute about existence of plaintiffs house on the western side of defendants house and documents of defendants marked as Ex.B1 to B5 also supports the contention of plaintiff that there is a house of father of plaintiff on western side of the property shown in those documents, there is no necessity for plaintiff to seek declaration of title basing on any title deed in respect of plaint schedule property. Even otherwise though there is no dispute about Exs.B1 to B5, defendants have examined Dws­1 to 4 to prove their title to the property.

But the contention of plaintiff is that defendants encroached upon ‘B’ schedule property which is part and parcel of ‘A’ schedule property and made super structures and his version is supported by advocate commissioner report, his plan and Ex.A7 positive photographs filed by the plaintiff. Even otherwise, admittedly DW­1 admitted that in Ex.B1 western boundary shown as house of plaintiff’s father and vacant site. DW­2, DW­3 admittedly colleagues of DW­1 and they are not residents of that locality.

The evidence of DW­4 who is vendor’s vendor of D2 only deposed with regard to sale of property and existence of vacant site on western side to the property sold by her with sun­shade, ventilators and pipe line which admittedly not mentioned in Ex.B1 to B5. Further as rightly pointed out by learned trial judge that no approved plan is filed by the defendants to show that after obtaining due approval they made structures or his predecessors in title made constructions. The defendants failed to prove that the super structures which are made within the site purchased by them under Ex.B1.

Further more it is also not in dispute that after dismissal of the suit defendants having filed appeal before this court also chosen to file suit in

OS.216 of 2010 against the plaintiff herein for declaration of her title and

for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction which suit dismissed on 02­12­2015 after due contest. Which shows that the declaratory relief sought by the defendants in respect of property which now they are claim is rejected which also strengthens the case of plaintiff. The trial court after considering the oral and documentary evidence came to right conclusion and decreed the suit as prayed for.

V ADJ 10 AS.No.165/2009

14. Point No.2:­ In view of discussions in proceeding paras, the plaintiffs are certainly entitled to the relief which they claimed in the plaint as they able to prove that defendants made super structures just

before filing of the suit. There is no illegality or irregularity in the findings

arrived by the learned trial judge which needs no interference.

15.. Point No.3:­In the result, the appeal suit is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree dated 14­09­2009 passed in OS.No.

1548 of 2004 by the learned I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati. No order as to costs. 

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court this the 15th day of

September, 2017.

Sd/­ B.Syamsunder, V Additional District Judge,

Tirupati.

Appendix of evidence Nil

Sd/­ B.Syamsunder

V ADJ,

TPT.

//t.c.b.o//

Superintendent.

Copy to I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati to make necessary entries in concerned registers.

Prepared by Compared by:

Fair Judgment in AS.165 of 2009

Dt: 15­09­2017

V ADJ 11 AS.No.165/2009

//t.c.b.o//

Superintendent.

Copy to Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati to make necessary entries in concerned registers.

Fair Judgment in 

AS.74 of 2010

Dt: 11­08­2016

In the court of the Judge, Family Court – cum­ V Additional District

Judge, Tirupati

Present: Sri B.Syamsunder,

Judge, Family Court–cum­V Addl. District Judge,

Tirupati.

Saturday, the Sixteenth (16 th ) day of September, 2017.

F.C.O.P.No.30 of 2017

Between: S.Muthukumar, S/o S.Sivasankar, Hindu, aged 37 years, Occupation, Coolie, residing at H.No.7­240/A, Raghavendra Nagar, Sathyanarayanapuram Post, Tirupati, Chittoor Distri 

...Petitioner.

And: M.Jagadeeswari, W/o S.Muthukumar, Hindu, aged 32 years, Occupation Saree Business, Presently residing at H.No.1­77, Ward NO.1, Dammaiguda Nagaram, Keesara mandal Ranga Reddy District, Telengana State

...Respondent.

This petition came up before me for final hearing in the presence of K.Ajaya Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner, and the respondent remained exparte and upon perusing the relevant material on record and having stood over for consideration, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

This petition is filed by the petitioner/husband against the respondent/wife under section 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. 

02. The case of the petitioner in brief is that his marriage with the respondent solemnized on 01­04­2010 at Dammaiguda village, Keesara mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telengana State as per Hindu rites and customs prevailing in their community and the marriage was consummated and out of their wedlock a female child born to them on 01­07­2011 . It is the contention of petitioner that after the marriage they put their family at

Tirupati they lead marital life for a period of 8 months and on 18­11­2010, the brother of respondent got married at Tirupati and at that time the respondent was in third month of pregnancy .At the request of her mother, respondent was sent to Hyderabad and thereafter petitioner also visited the respondent at Hyderabad, but respondent continued her stay at her mother’s house. It is alleged that the respondent postponed to return to Tirupati on some ground or the other though he used to visit her when she was pregnant.

He further alleged that parents of respondent performed naming ceremony of the child on the 11th day, but the same is not informed him and when he questioned the same they have not given proper answer. After that elders said to be conducted mediation, wherein respondent informed that she will join him after three months, but she failed to do so. He further alleged that the respondent has not shown any interest to join him after the birth of a child and several mediations held, but failed. It is also the contention of the petitioner that parents of respondent asked him to live in their house as illitum son­in­law which he refused due to that misunderstandings arose between himself and respondent who always insulted him and his family members with vulgar language and picked up quarrel unnecessarily . He also alleged that the respondent used to insult and harass him and quarreled with him without any just cause. It is further held that on 01­07­2012 at the time of birth day of the child respondent picked up quarrel with him unnecessarily and called her brother and then on and then on 27­7­2012 on ‘Varalakshmi Vratham day’ , the parents of respondent came and taken the respondent to Hyderabad by quarreling with him and with his parents. Then parents of respondent said to be demanded the petitioner to shift his family to Hyderabad and live as illitam son­in­law but he refused as he has got old aged parents and mediation held by the elders also failed. The petitioner submits that the respondent without any just cause living separately and he vexed with her attitude and there is no possibility of reunion and filed this petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Hence the petition.

03. The respondent though received summons through court remained exparte and not chosen to contest the case. 

04. On behalf of the petitioner, PW­1 was examined, Exs.A1 to

A4 were marked.

05. I have heard learned advocate for petitioner.

06. Now the points for determination are ::

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek divorce from the respondent on the ground of cruelty and desertion ? 

2. To what relief?

07. Point:­ PW­1 S.Muthu Kumar /petitioner/ husband has stated on oath in his chief examination affidavit with regard to the averments in his petition. The chief examination affidavit of PW­1 is replica of contents in the petition. Ex.A1 positive photographs, Ex.A2 wedding invitation card, Ex.A3 attested photostat copy of his voter identity card and

Ex.A4 attested photostat copy of voter identity card of respondent marked in his evidence. On perusal of Ex.A1, A2 which shows that the marriage of petitioner with respondent solemnized on 01­04­2010 at Dammaiguda village, Keesara mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Ex.A3, Ex.A4 attested photostat copies of voter identity cards of petitioner and respondent dated 17­01­2011 shows that they have lastly resided at Tirupati. It is the contention of the petitioner that respondent without any just cause left his company on 27­07­2012 and thereafter she has not joined him and she also quarreled with him without any just cause and asked her husband to join her at her parents house as illatum son­in­law and unnecessarily quarreled with him which is certainly amounts to cruelty on the part of the respondent. Therefore petitioner is entitled to seek divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

10. Point No.2:­In the result, the petition is allowed. The marriage of the petitioner with the respondent which took place on 01­04­2010

Dammaiguda village, Keesara mandal, Ranga Reddy District is hereby dissolved by granting decree of divorce. No order as to costs.

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

pronounced by me in the open court this the 16 th day of September, 2017.

Judge,

Family Court –cum­V.Addl. District Judge,

Tirupati.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner:

PW.1: S.Muthu Kumar

Exhibits marked on behalf of the petitioner:

Ex.A1: Positive photographs, 

Ex.A2: Wedding invitation card, 

Ex.A3: Attested photostat copy of his voter identity card 

Ex.A4: Attested photostat copy of voter identity card of respondent 

V ADJ.,

TPT

prepared by: Compared by:

Fair orders in FCOP. 30 /2017

dt: 16­09

Fair order in FCOP. 38 of

2015

Dt: 12­04­2015

1. Two Photos

2. Medical certificates

3. Original driving license

4. Blood Group

5. Identification marks:­ (1) Small black mole left side of abdomen (3) Small black mole left side of chest

Fair order in FCOP. 56 of 2013

dt: 24­03­2015.

In the court of the Judge, Family Court – cum­ V Additional District

Judge, Tirupati

Present: Sri B.Syamsunder,

Judge, Family Court–cum­V Addl. District Judge,

Tirupati.

Saturday, the Sixteenth (16 th ) day of September, 2017.

F.C.O.P.No.30 of 2017

Between: S.Muthukumar, S/o S.Sivasankar, Hindu, aged 37 years, Occupation, Coolie, residing at H.No.7­240/A, Raghavendra Nagar, Sathyanarayanapuram Post, Tirupati, Chittoor Distri 

...Petitioner.

And: M.Jagadeeswari, W/o S.Muthukumar, Hindu, aged 32 years, Occupation Saree Business, Presently residing at H.No.1­77, Ward NO.1, Dammaiguda Nagaram, Keesara mandal Ranga Reddy District, Telengana State

...Respondent.

This petition came up before me for final hearing in the presence of K.Ajaya Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner, and the respondent remained exparte and upon perusing the relevant material on record and having stood over for consideration, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

This petition is filed by the petitioner/husband against the respondent/wife under section 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. 

02. The case of the petitioner in brief is that his marriage with the respondent solemnized on 01­04­2010 at Dammaiguda village, Keesara mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telengana State as per Hindu rites and customs prevailing in their community and the marriage was consummated and out of their wedlock a female child born to them on 01­07­2011 . It is the contention of petitioner that after the marriage they put their family at

Tirupati they lead marital life for a period of 8 months and on 18­11­2010, the brother of respondent got married at Tirupati and at that time the respondent was in third month of pregnancy .At the request of her mother, respondent was sent to Hyderabad and thereafter petitioner also visited the respondent at Hyderabad, but respondent continued her stay at her mother’s house. It is alleged that the respondent postponed to return to Tirupati on some ground or the other though he used to visit her when she was pregnant.

He further alleged that parents of respondent performed naming ceremony of the child on the 11th day, but the same is not informed him and when he questioned the same they have not given proper answer. After that elders said to be conducted mediation, wherein respondent informed that she will join him after three months, but she failed to do so. He further alleged that the respondent has not shown any interest to join him after the birth of a child and several mediations held, but failed. It is also the contention of the petitioner that parents of respondent asked him to live in their house as illitum son­in­law which he refused due to that misunderstandings arose between himself and respondent who always insulted him and his family members with vulgar language and picked up quarrel unnecessarily . He also alleged that the respondent used to insult and harass him and quarreled with him without any just cause. It is further held that on 01­07­2012 at the time of birth day of the child respondent picked up quarrel with him unnecessarily and called her brother and then on and then on 27­7­2012 on ‘Varalakshmi Vratham day’ , the parents of respondent came and taken the respondent to Hyderabad by quarreling with him and with his parents. Then parents of respondent said to be demanded the petitioner to shift his family to Hyderabad and live as illitam son­in­law but he refused as he has got old aged parents and mediation held by the elders also failed. The petitioner submits that the respondent without any just cause living separately and he vexed with her attitude and there is no possibility of reunion and filed this petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Hence the petition.

03. The respondent though received summons through court remained exparte and not chosen to contest the case. 

04. On behalf of the petitioner, PW­1 was examined, Exs.A1 to

A4 were marked.

05. I have heard learned advocate for petitioner.

06. Now the points for determination are ::

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek divorce from the respondent on the ground of cruelty and desertion ? 

2. To what relief?

07. Point:­ PW­1 S.Muthu Kumar /petitioner/ husband has stated on oath in his chief examination affidavit with regard to the averments in his petition. The chief examination affidavit of PW­1 is replica of contents in the petition. Ex.A1 positive photographs, Ex.A2 wedding invitation card, Ex.A3 attested photostat copy of his voter identity card and

Ex.A4 attested photostat copy of voter identity card of respondent marked in his evidence. On perusal of Ex.A1, A2 which shows that the marriage of petitioner with respondent solemnized on 01­04­2010 at Dammaiguda village, Keesara mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Ex.A3, Ex.A4 attested photostat copies of voter identity cards of petitioner and respondent dated 17­01­2011 shows that they have lastly resided at Tirupati. It is the contention of the petitioner that respondent without any just cause left his company on 27­07­2012 and thereafter she has not joined him and she also quarreled with him without any just cause and asked her husband to join her at her parents house as illatum son­in­law and unnecessarily quarreled with him which is certainly amounts to cruelty on the part of the respondent. Therefore petitioner is entitled to seek divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

10. Point No.2:­In the result, the petition is allowed. The marriage of the petitioner with the respondent which took place on 01­04­2010

Dammaiguda village, Keesara mandal, Ranga Reddy District is hereby dissolved by granting decree of divorce. No order as to costs.

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

pronounced by me in the open court this the 16 th day of September, 2017.

Judge,

Family Court –cum­V.Addl. District Judge,

Tirupati.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner:

PW.1: S.Muthu Kumar

Exhibits marked on behalf of the petitioner:

Ex.A1: Positive photographs, 

Ex.A2: Wedding invitation card, 

Ex.A3: Attested photostat copy of his voter identity card 

Ex.A4: Attested photostat copy of voter identity card of respondent 

V ADJ.,

TPT

prepared by: Compared by:

Fair orders in FCOP. 30 /2017

dt: 16­09

Fair order in FCOP. 38 of

2015

Dt: 12­04­2015

1. Two Photos

2. Medical certificates

3. Original driving license

4. Blood Group

5. Identification marks:­ (1) Small black mole left side of abdomen (3) Small black mole left side of chest

Fair order in FCOP. 56 of 2013

dt: 24­03­2015.