Smt. C. Sumalatha

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE: GUNTUR.

PRESENT: Smt.C.SUMALATHA, B.A., LL.M.,

PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE.

Thursday, the 19th day of January, 2017

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.516 of 2015

From what Court the Appeal is : V Additional Junior Civil Judge, preferred Guntur

No. of case in the Lower Court : C.C.No.396 of 2014

Name and description of the Appellant:

Raavinuthala Kristhuraju, son of Rajaratnam, aged 34 years, R/o.2nd lane, Israielpet, Guntur.

Name and description of the Respondent:

The State: Station House Officer, Arundelpet Police Station, Guntur, Represented by Pubic Prosecutor.

CONVICTION & SENTENCE PASSED BY THE TRIAL COURT

AND DATE : 30-9-2015.

The appellant was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.500-00 with default sentence for the offence punishable under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code and also sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay fine of Rs.500- 00 with default sentence for the offence punishable under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Whether reversed/Confirmed/: Modified, if modified, the REVERSED. Modification.

DATE OF

PresentatiFilingOn which On On which HearingOrder onNotice which date issued by bail appellant the Court bond ordered to to appearissuedappear 23-10-1526-10-1526-10-15--25-11-1512-1-1719-1-17

This appeal came up on 12-1-2017 for hearing before me, in the presence of Sri B.Krishna Kishore, advocate for appellant and learned

Public Prosecutor for respondent, and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

P.D.J. C.A.No.516 of 20152 GNT. Dated 19-1-2017

J U D G M E N T

Questioning the validity and legality of the judgment that is rendered by the court of V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur in

C.C.No.396 of 2014, dated 30-9-2015, the appellant who is the accused in the said calendar case, approached this court by way of appeal.

2.The finding of the trial court that the appellant is found guilty of the offences punishable under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code and

Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act and consequently, convicting him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of rupees five hundred for the offence punishable under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay fine of rupees five hundred for the offence punishable under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, resulted in the present appeal.

3.In the grounds of appeal, it is contended that the judgment of the trial court is erroneous, contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case and the trial court ought to have disbelieved the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 6 and Exs.P.1 and P.4 to P.7 and should have acquitted the appellant and it did not properly appreciate the provisions of law and the trial court roughly relied upon the judgments which are not applicable to the appellant’s case and as such, the judgment of the trial court has to be set aside by allowing the appeal and acquitting the appellant.

4.Notice given to the learned Public Prosecutor.

P.D.J. C.A.No.516 of 20153 GNT. Dated 19-1-2017

5.Heard on both sides.

6.Now the points for consideration are:

(1) Whether the prosecution established beyond all

reasonable doubt before the trial court that the appellant

herein has committed the offences punishable under

Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 181 of

the Motor Vehicles Act?

(2) Whether there exists any infirmity in the judgment of

the trial court as contended by the appellant herein and if

so, to what relief the appellant is entitled to?

7.POINTS 1 AND 2:

The case of the prosecution as borne out through the charge sheet is that, on 18-2-2013 at about 11-30 a.m., while P.W.1 was proceeding from chakali bazaar towards Amaravathi road, Guntur, the appellant being the driver of the car bearing registration No.AP 07AY 3969, drove the said vehicle at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and hit P.W.1 and his pushcart, due to which, P.W.1 fell down and sustained injuries and immediately the appellant shifted P.W.1 to

Dr.Laxmanaswamy hospital and got him admitted there and went away.

Record of the trial court goes to show that subjecting the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 and Exs.P.1 to P.7 to scrutiny, the learned Judge of the trial court came to conclusion that the prosecution proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt.

When the judgment of the trial court is looked into, this court finds that the learned Judge gave much weight to the evidence of P.W.1, who is the defacto-complainant-cum-injured.

It is the evidence of P.W.1 that on 18-2-2013 at about 11-30 a.m., while he was moving from chakali bazaar, Naidupet, towards

Amaravathi road, Guntur by pushing his pushcart, the appellant

P.D.J. C.A.No.516 of 20154 GNT. Dated 19-1-2017 approached him in a car from opposite direction by driving his vehicle at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and hit him and his pushcart and the accident occurred due to the negligence of the appellant and he fell down and sustained injuries and the appellant shifted him to Dr.Laxmanaswamy hospital and admitted there for half day.

If, as contended by the appellant, the car by proceeding at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, hit P.W.1 and his pushcart, the normal expectation would be that the pushcart also would have got damaged. But surprisingly, P.W.1 during the course of cross-examination stated that no damage was caused to his pushcart. As per the version of

P.W.1, the appellant drove the vehicle and came from opposite direction and hit P.W.1, but the fact that the vehicle came from opposite direction and hit him, is not stated anywhere in Ex.P.1 statement by P.W.1.

Admittedly, P.W.2 is not an ocular witness to the accident. P.W.3 failed to support the case of the prosecution. He stated that he did not witness any accident. Same is the case with P.W.4. The prosecution could establish through the evidence of P.W.5 that P.W.1 sustained grievous injuries. P.W.6 is the officer who investigated into the case.

Thus, the evidence of P.W.1 alone is on record to give a picture as to how the accident occurred. A bare statement that the driver of the vehicle drove it in a rash and negligent manner, does not bring the said driver within the ambit of Sections 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian

Penal Code. It is for the prosecution to establish the manner in which

P.D.J. C.A.No.516 of 20155 GNT. Dated 19-1-2017 the accident occurred, which ultimately comes under the purview of rash and negligent driving, but such an evidence is absent in this case.

Apart from that, the officer, who investigated into the case i.e.,

P.W.6, did not state as to how he fixed up the liability of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned Public Prosecutor stated that the charge sheet is filed under

Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. But, that ipsa facto would not amount to proof of any fact. Also, the investigation officer, who laid the charge sheet, himself at page 2 of the charge sheet contended that the crime car has got all valid records and the accused/driver has got valid driving licence. The learned Judge of the trial court, invoking Section 106 of the Evidence Act held that the appellant is punishable under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the humble opinion of this court, it is for the prosecution in a criminal case to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt and not the duty of the accused to prove his innocence.

Therefore, this court is unable to concur with the conclusion arrived at by the trial court with regard to the guilt of the appellant. Therefore, this court considers desirable to allow the appeal as prayed for.

These points are thus answered in favour of the appellant.

8. In the result, the appeal is allowed, setting aside the judgment of the court of V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur which is rendered in

C.C.No.396 of 2014, dated 30-9-2015. The appellant is found not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act and consequently, he is acquitted of the said offences. The bail bonds executed by the appellant

P.D.J. C.A.No.516 of 20156 GNT. Dated 19-1-2017 shall remain in force for a period of six months. The fine amount paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him after lapse of appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 19th day of January, 2017.

(Sd/-) C.SUMALATHA,

PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE

GUNTUR.

Copies to:

1. The Registrar (Judicial), High court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.

2. The V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE: GUNTUR.

PRESENT: SMT.C.SUMALATHA, B.A., LL.M.,

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE.

Thursday, the 19th day of January, 2017

O.S.No.299 of 2013

Between:

Vusthepalli Venkateswara Reddy....PLAINTIFF.

-And-

Dr.Pavuluri Siva Ramaiah.…DEFENDANT.

This suit came up on 4-1-2017 for hearing before me, in the presence of Sri M.Venkateswarlu Chowdary, advocate for plaintiff and Sri T.Purna Chandra Rao, advocate for defendant, and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a money suit based on a promissory note.

2.The plaint pleadings, in brief, are that, the defendant being a medical practitioner, borrowed a sum of rupees thirteen lakhs from one

Alla Veera Raghavamma for his family expenses and also to meet repairs of hospital on 4-10-2010 by executing a promissory note in her favour, promising to repay the same with interest at the rate of twenty four percent per annum and inspite of her repeated demands personally and through mediators, the defendant failed to discharge the amount due and subsequently, the said Veera Raghavamma transferred the promissory note in favour of plaintiff for collection on 20-7-2013 and transfer endorsement was made on the back of the promissory note on the same day itself and subsequently, the plaintiff demanded the defendant to discharge the amount due and he also issued a legal notice, but the defendant got issued a reply with false allegations and as such, the suit.

P.D.J. 2 O.S.No.299 of 2013 GNT. Dated: 19-1-2017

3.Summons served upon the defendant.

4.The defendant, who came up on record, filed written statement, denying all the averments in the plaint and stating that the plaintiff is an utter stranger to him and he has no capacity to lend such a huge amount to him and he has no necessity to borrow and the plaintiff never demanded him to repay the amount.

The defendant contended that he discharged all the dues due to his creditors by sale of his properties and by executing sale deeds and in the said documents, one Vusthepalli Koti Ratnareddy acted as an agent and as such, he is well-aware of all those facts and the plaintiff is none other than the son of Koti Ratnareddy and the said Koti Ratnareddy is behind the entire litigation and he is a chronic litigant and the plaintiff has come up with the present suit and also other suits basing on forged promissory notes and as such, the claim of the plaintiff is untenable and therefore, it has to be rejected and further, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and as such, the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

5.On the strength of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for discussion:

(1)Whether the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.13,00,000-00 from the plaintiff on 4-10-2010 and executed suit promissory note?

(2)Whether the transfer endorsement made on the suit promissory note by the original lender in favour of the plaintiff is sham and motivated as contended by the defendant?

(3)Is the plaintiff entitled for decree for recovery of the amount shown borrowed under the suit promissory note

P.D.J. 3 O.S.No.299 of 2013 GNT. Dated: 19-1-2017 with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of promissory note to the date of suit?

(4)To what relief the plaintiff is entitled?

6.During the course of trial, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1, examined P.W.2 on his side and also got marked Exs.A.1 to A.5.

The defendant did not choose to adduce any evidence on his side.

7.Both parties failed to submit their respective contentions.

8.ISSUES 1 AND 2:

Whether the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.13,00,000-00 from the plaintiff on

4-10-2010 and executed suit promissory note?

And

Whether the transfer endorsement made on the suit promissory note by the original lender in favour of the plaintiff is sham and motivated as contended by the defendant?

The case of the plaintiff is that, the defendant borrowed a sum of rupees thirteen lakhs from one Alla Veera Raghavamma and the said

Vera Raghavamma thereafter transferred the promissory note which was executed by the defendant, in his favour and on that, he demanded the defendant to discharge the amount due, but the defendant failed to discharge.

To establish these facts, the plaintiff produced oral as well as documentary evidence. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that the defendant being a medical practitioner, for his family expenses and also to meet repairs of hospital, borrowed a sum of rupees thirteen lakhs on 4-10- 2010 from one Alla Veera Raghavamma and executed promissory note in her favour and thereafter, the said Veera Raghavamma demanded the defendant personally and through mediators to discharge the amount

P.D.J. 4 O.S.No.299 of 2013 GNT. Dated: 19-1-2017 due, but the defendant did not choose to pay and subsequently, the said

Veera Raghavamma transferred the promissory note in his favour for collection and she endorsed the same on the back of the promissory note and though he subsequently attempted to get the amount from the defendant, could not collect and as such, he presented the suit.

The plaintiff examined the said Alla Veera Raghavamma as P.W.2.

It is her evidence that the defendant borrowed a sum of rupees thirteen lakhs from her on 4-10-2010 and executed the suit promissory note in the presence of attestors, by name, B.Satyanarayana and K.Subbareddy and though she demanded personally and through mediators to discharge the amount due, the defendant did not choose to pay and as she was going abroad, she transferred the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff for collection on 20-7-2013 and transfer endorsement was made on the back of the promissory note.

The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is not challenged by the defendant by subjecting them to cross-examination. The suit promissory note is marked as Ex.A.1 and the transfer endorsement which is present at page 2 of Ex.A.1 promissory note is marked as Ex.A.2. Office copy of legal notice that is issued to the defendant is Ex.A.3, the postal acknowledgment is Ex.A.4 and reply notice is Ex.A.5.

The defendant, who has taken a specific plea that one Vusthepali

Koti Ratnareddy, who is the father of the plaintiff, is behind the litigation and that the suit document is a forged one, failed to establish those facts by producing cogent and convincing evidence. Absolutely, no evidence is on record in support of the stand taken by the defendant. The plaintiff,

P.D.J. 5 O.S.No.299 of 2013 GNT. Dated: 19-1-2017 who has established the genuineness of Exs.A.1 and A.2 documents, is entitled to the benefit of claiming presumptions to be drawn under

Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Therefore this court concludes these issues with an observation that the defendant has borrowed an amount of rupees thirteen lakhs and the suit document is the outcome of the said transaction and also that

Ex.A.2 transfer endorsement is genuine and thereby, Exs.A.1 and A.2 are binding on the defendant.

These issues are accordingly answered.

9.ISSUE NO.3:

Is the plaintiff entitled for decree for recovery of the amount shown borrowed under the suit promissory note with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of promissory note to the date of suit?

In view of discussion that went on in issues 1 and 2, this court holds that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of the suit amount along with interest as prayed for.

10.ISSUE NO.4:

To what relief the plaintiff is entitled?

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.22,36,000-00 (Rupees twenty two lakhs and thirty six thousand only) together with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum i.e., from the date of decree till the date of realization on Rs.13,00,000-00 (Rupees thirteen lakhs only).

P.D.J. 6 O.S.No.299 of 2013 GNT. Dated: 19-1-2017

Dictated to Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 19th day of January, 2017.

(Sd/-) C.SUMALATHA,

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

P.W.1 Vusthepalli Venkateswara Reddy. P.W.2Alla Veera Raghavamma.

FOR DEFENDANT: NONE.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A.1 Pronote dated 4-10-2010 executed by defendant in favour of Alla Veera Raghavamma for rupees thirteen lakhs.

Ex.A.2Transfer endorsement dated 20-7-2013 made by Alla Veera Raghavamma in favour of P.W.1.

Ex.A.3Office copy of registered notice dated 10-8-2013.

Ex.A.4Postal acknowledgment.

Ex.A.5Served copy of reply notice.

FOR DEFENDANT: NIL.

(Sd/-) C.SUMALATHA,

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

GUNTUR.

P.D.J. 1 G.W.O.P.No.399 of 2016 GNT. Dated: 18-1-2017

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE: GUNTUR.

PRESENT: SMT.C.SUMALATHA, B.A., LL.M.,

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE.

Wednesday, the 18th day of January, 2017

G.W.O.P.No.399 of 2016

Between: Pasam Kalpana. …Petitioner.

-And-

Pasam Koteswaramma. ...Respondent.

This petition came up on 2-1-2017 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Sravan Kumar, advocate for petitioner and respondent remained exparte, and upon perusing the material placed on record, and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

This is a petition filed under Section 8(2) of Hindu Minority and

Guardianship Act, seeking the court to permit the petitioner to sell the share of the minors in the petition schedule property.

2.The contents in the petition goes to show that the marriage of the petitioner was performed with one Nagavardhanarao in the year 2005 and out of wedlock, they gave birth to the minors, by name, Kushal

Sowmya and Varshini and father of Nagavardhanarao, by name,

Venkateswarlu sold some property to one Kola Srinivasarao and his wife

Nagalaxmi and the rest of the property was inherited by

Nagavardhanarao and his mother Koteswaramma i.e., the respondent herein and later, the respondent, Nagavardhanarao, the said Srinivasarao and one Adilaxmi got constructed apartments in the said site under the name and style ‘Vardhan Residency’ and subsequently, they all sold some flats and in respect of the remaining flats, they entered into registered

P.D.J. 2 G.W.O.P.No.399 of 2016 GNT. Dated: 18-1-2017 partition deed and while enjoying the said flats, Nagavardhanarao died intestate on 21-9-2015, leaving behind him, the petitioner, his daughters and the respondent as his legal heirs and subsequently, the respondent relinquished her right in the schedule mentioned property in favour of the petitioner through registered gift deed, thus the petitioner became entitled to half share in the said property and her children get one fourth share each and now, for education of those children, the petitioner wants to sell the petition schedule property and invest the same by way of fixed deposits and as such, permission, as prayed for, has to be granted.

3. Notice served upon the respondent. The respondent remained exparte.

4.During the course of enquiry, the petitioner examined herself as

P.W.1 and exhibited Exs.A.1 to A.6.

5. Heard.

6. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for permission for

sale of the petition schedule property to the extent

hich fell to the share of her minor children?

7. POINT:

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the life time of husband of the petitioner, he used to manage the property and now, there are none to manage the same and the petitioner is unable to protect the property which fell to the share of her minor children and therefore, the relief sought for, has to be granted.

Ex.A.1 death certificate reveals death of P.Nagavardhanarao.

Likewise, Ex.A.2 family members certificate reveals that the petitioner

P.D.J. 3 G.W.O.P.No.399 of 2016 GNT. Dated: 18-1-2017 and her daughters are the family members of the deceased

Nagavardhanarao. Exs.A.3 and A.4 establishes that the children of the petitioner are minors. The relief sought for is not objected by anyone and none appeared and raised objection even though general notice was effected.

Thus, Having regard to the justifiable grounds projected and urged, this court considers desirable to honour the request of the petitioner.

This point is thus answered in favour of petitioner.

8. In the result, the petition is allowed, permitting the petitioner to sell the petition schedule property to the extent that fell to the share of the minors, by name, Pasam Kushal Sowmya and Pasam Varshini.

However, this order does not create any independent right either to the minors or to the petitioner in the petition schedule property. The petitioner is entitled to sell the petition schedule property basing on the right that accrued to the minors, by name, Pasam Kushal Sowmya and

Pasam Varshini in view of the death of their father Nagavardhana Rao.

On such sale, the petitioner is directed to deposit the entire sale proceeds that fell to the share of the minors along with certified copies of sale deeds into the court within one month from the date of such sale transactions and the said amount shall be invested equally by way of fixed deposits in any nationalized bank till the minors, by name, Pasam

Kushal Sowmya and Pasam Varshini attain the age of majority and on their attaining the age of majority, they are entitled to withdraw their respective amounts along with accrued interest.

P.D.J. 4 G.W.O.P.No.399 of 2016 GNT. Dated: 18-1-2017

Orders passed accordingly.

Dictated to Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 18th day of January, 2017.

(Sd/-) C.SUMALATHA,

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER:

P.W.1 Pasam Kalpana.

FOR RESPONDENT: NONE.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER:

Ex.A.1 Death certificate of P.Nagavardhan Rao. Ex.A.2 Family members certificate of Pasam Nagavardhan Rao. Ex.A.3 Birth certificate of Pasam Kushal Sowmya. Ex.A.4 Birth certificate of Pasam Varshini. Ex.A.5 Copy of registered partition deed bearing document No.359 of 2013. Ex.A.6 Copy of registered relinquishment deed bearing document No.821 of 2016.

FOR RESPONDENT: NIL.

(Sd/-) C.SUMALATHA,

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE: GUNTUR.

PRESENT: SMT.C.SUMALATHA, B.A., LL.M.,

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE.

Thursday, the 19th day of January, 2017

D.O.P.No.140 of 2015

Between:

Kattupalli Sushma.…Petitioner.

-And-

Kattupalli Vamsi Kiran. …Respondent.

This petition came up on 9-12-2016 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Narasimha Rao, advocate for petitioner and respondent remained exparte and upon perusing the material placed on record, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

This is a petition filed under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act, seeking the court to dissolve the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent through a decree of divorce.

2.The facts of the case, in brief, as narrated in the amended petition are that, the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was performed on 19-6-2013 at Lutheran church, Singupalem village as per

Christian rites and customs and after marriage, the petitioner joined the respondent to lead marital life at his house and at the time of settlement of marriage, parents of the petitioner gave rupees one lakh and fifty thousand towards dowry and at the time of marriage, parents of the petitioner gave rupees ten thousand towards lanchanams and from the beginning, the respondent used to behave arrogantly and high-handedly with the petitioner and for most of the days, he used to keep distance from the petitioner without leading conjugal life and whenever the petitioner questioned, the respondent used to reply that he has no inclination to lead conjugal life with her and the in-laws of the petitioner

P.D.J. D.O.P.No.140 of 20152 GNT. DATED: 19-1-2017 demanded rupees one lakh and the parents of the petitioner gave rupees fifty thousand, promising to pay the balance within short period, but the respondent and his parents did not change their behaviour and attitude and finally, on 26-10-2014, the respondent picked up quarrel with the petitioner in a drunken state, beat her and drove her out of the house and having no other go, she went to her parent’s house and the attempts of village elders to settle the issue proved futile and thus, the petitioner is entitled for divorce.

3.Notice served upon the respondent. The respondent remained exparte.

4.During the course of enquiry, the petitioner examined herself as

P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.3.

5.Heard.

6.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of

divorce as prayed for?

7.POINT:

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent subjected the petitioner to cruelty and harassment and the petitioner bore all the said cruelty and harassment expecting change in the attitude of the respondent and even the amount that was demanded by the respondent and his parents was met by the parents of the petitioner, but the respondent did not change his attitude and behaviour and he finally drove the petitioner out of the house and in these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled for divorce.

P.D.J. D.O.P.No.140 of 20153 GNT. DATED: 19-1-2017

The petitioner, who examined herself as P.W.1, reiterated the contents of the petition in the chief-affidavit filed by her in lieu of her chief-examination. Ex.A.3 reveals solemnization of marriage between the petitioner and the respondent. Neither the evidence produced nor the ground urged is under challenge. The ground projected squarely falls under the ambit of cruelty, which is one of the grounds for dissolution of marriage.

Therefore, this court considers desirable to honour the request of the petitioner.

This point is thus answered in favour of the petitioner.

8.In the result, the petition is allowed with costs, dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent through a decree of divorce from this day i.e., from 19-1-2017.

Orders passed accordingly.

Dictated to Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open Court, this the 19th day of January, 2017.

(Sd/-) C.SUMALATHA,

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER:

P.W.1 Kattupalli Sushma.

FOR RESPONDENT: NONE.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER:

Ex.A.1 Wedding card. Ex.A.2Marriage photograph. Ex.A.3Marriage certificate issued by INA DIOCESE, Awake Church, Narasayaplem, Bapatla Mandal.

P.D.J. D.O.P.No.140 of 20154 GNT. DATED: 19-1-2017

FOR RESPONDENT: NIL.

(Sd/-) C.SUMALATHA,

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE:

GUNTUR.

PRESENT: SMT.C.SUMALATHA, B.A., LL.M.,

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE.

Friday, the 20th day of January, 2017

D.O.P.No.1013 of 2016

Between:

Prathuri Keerthi.…Petitioner.

-And-

Prathuri Prem alias Prem Kumar. …Respondent.

This petition came up on 17-1-2017 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri T.Balarama Murthy, advocate for petitioner and respondent remained exparte and upon perusing the material placed on record, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

This is a petition filed under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce

Act, seeking the court to dissolve the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent through a decree of divorce.

2.The facts of the case, in brief, as narrated in the petition are that, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place on 4-10-2014 at Namburu village as per Christian customs and usage and at the time of marriage, parents of the petitioner gave rupees one lakh and eighty thousand towards dowry, rupees five thousand towards Aadapaduchu katnam, rupees seventy five thousand worth household articles and

P.D.J. D.O.P.No.1013 of 20162

GNT. DATED: 20-1-2017

utensils and the marriage was consummated and the petitioner joined the respondent to lead marital life and they lived happily for few days and subsequently, the respondent being addicted to all sorts of vices, started harassing the petitioner and he suspected her fidelity and also demanded additional dowry of rupees fifty thousand and he beat the petitioner indiscriminately and finally, on 25-10-2014, he necked her out of the house and thereafter, the petitioner along with mediators, requested the respondent and his family members to allow her, but her attempts proved futile and the life of the petitioner is in danger in the hands of the respondent and his family members and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for divorce.

3.Notice served upon the respondent. The respondent remained exparte.

4.During the course of enquiry, the petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A.1.

5.Heard.

6.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree

of divorce as prayed for?

7.POINT:

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent subjected the petitioner to cruelty and

P.D.J. D.O.P.No.1013 of 20163

GNT. DATED: 20-1-2017

harassment suspecting her fidelity and he demanded additional dowry and though the petitioner after she was necked out of the house, tried to join the respondent again, he did not allow and in these circumstances, the petitioner approached this court for redressal.

The contents of Ex.A.1 reveals solemnization of marriage between the petitioner and the respondent. The respondent by remaining exparte, neither challenged the grounds urged nor the relief sought for. The narration of the petitioner about the case facts squarely falls under the ambit of cruelty, which is one of the grounds for dissolution of marriage.

Therefore, this court considers desirable to honour the request of the petitioner.

This point is thus answered in favour of the petitioner.

8.In the result, the petition is allowed with costs, dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent through a decree of divorce from this day i.e., from 20-1-2017.

Orders passed accordingly.

Dictated to Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 20th day of January, 2017.

(Sd/-) C.SUMALATHA,

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

P.D.J. D.O.P.No.1013 of 20164

GNT. DATED: 20-1-2017

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER:

P.W.1 Prathuri Keerthi.

FOR RESPONDENT: NONE.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER:

Ex.A.1 Certificate of marriage.

FOR RESPONDENT: NIL.

(Sd/-) C.SUMALATHA,

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

GUNTUR.