Sri. C. Vikram

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ::JANGAON

Friday, 04th day of October, 2024

Present:-Sri C. Vikram,

Senior Civil Judge,

JANGAON.

H.M. O. P. No. 01 of 2024

Between:

Pokala Chaitanya Kumar, S/o. Pokala Poshanadham, Age:40 years, Occu: Not Working, R/o. H.No.5-25, Veldi village, Raghunathpally Mandal, Jangaon District. …. Petitioner

And

Pokala Nandini, W/o. Chaitanya Kumar, Age: 34 years, Caste: Software Employee,Accenture Software Solutions, R/o. Flat No.204, Duggirala Towers, Road No.12, Alakapuri Colony, Kothapet, Hyderabad, Telangana.

… Respondent

-o0o-

This petition is coming before me today i.e. on 04/10/2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.T.Rajaiah, Advocate for the Petitioner, and respondent remained exparte; Upon perusing the material papers available on record and upon hearing the arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

: : O R D E R : :

This is an application filed U/s.9 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 by the petitioner against the respondent, directing the respondent/ wife to join the conjugal society of the petitioner for leading happy matrimonial life and for costs.

1. The averments of the petition in nut shell are as follows:

The Petitioner/Pokala Chaitanya Kumar filed the present petition against his wife Pokala Nandini, Stating that their marriage was performed on 21-05-2014 at St. Pauls School, Jangaon District, as per their rites and customs prevailing in their caste. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent consummated. Outof their legal wed lock they were blessed with one female child.

2. The Petitioner completed his B.Tech and worked as a Private Employee in

Pune before his marriage and after marriage he was transferred to Mumbai. The

Respondent was working after completion of her B.Tech at Hyderabad. During working in Mumbai the Petitioner used to come to Hyderabad every week to the

Respondent and was providing monthly expenditure to the respondent as the salary of the Respondent was very low i.e., Rs.10,000/- per month. During

September 2015, she was transferred to Mumbai by her office. When the

Petitioner provided her accommodation and both lived together and she became pregnant and he has taken full care of her during her pregnancy. In the month of

April 2016, she was transferred to Hyderabad, while the Petitioner was retained in

Mumbai during her pregnancy. While she was in Hyderabad, the Petitioner took a flat in an Apartment at Nizampet Road on rent and he kept his mother to take care of the Respondent. Moreover, elder brother of the Petitioner, who was residing nearby, also used to provide his assistance to the Respondent and the mother of the Petitioner. The Respondent used to take her breakfast in the house of the elder brother of the Petitioner while going to her Office. The Petitioner used to come to Hyderabad and to take the Respondent for doctor checkups every week.

3.The respondent started demanding him to leave his job at Mumbai and to come down to Hyderabad, and searched a rented house in Hyderabad for living together with the Respondent. Respondent refused to live with him saying that he has no job and she was not interested to live with him. The matter was placed

before the elders of the both parties. Respondent and her mother refused to send

the Respondent to the house of the Petitioner unless and until the Petitioner makes fixed deposit in the name of the Respondent and the girl child. At that time, the mother-in-law of the Petitioner and the Respondent both abused the

Petitioner and the Respondent slapped Petitioner with footwear and also cursed to ruin of his heredity and bluntly refused to send the Respondent along with the

Petitioner and his family members. After sometime, the Petitioner along with the caste elders namely Pokala Lingaiah, Pokala Shiva Kumar, Oruganti Shankarlingam,

Sarabu Pedda Veeranna etc., went to the house of the parents of the Respondent at Jangaon and all of them tried to persuade the Respondent and her mother to send the Respondent for matrimonial house. But the Respondent and her mother refused to lead family life with the Petitioner. The elders advised the petitioner and respondent to take leave from the office for a week days and advised them to visit religious places or any convenience places.

4. The Respondent and her parents invited the Petitioner and his family members to Jangaon in connection with the 3rd birthday of their daughter in the year 2019,

The Petitioner along with his family members went to Jangaon. When the

Petitioner and his family members requested the Respondent and her mother

Jyothi, she refused to send her daughter to the family life and as such the

Petitioner with his family members went away. The mother of the Respondent sent a Whats app message to the Petitioner on 07-02-2020 to take the Respondent and their daughter Deshna to the matrimonial house to live happily. The reason for that message was marriage alliance was under processes for the elder brother of the Respondent. If their daughter is living in the house of the parents of the

Respondent, it may give a wrong message to the new relations of the marriage alliance. While the Petitioner was working in Vijayawada during the pandemic days, he again received a message from his mother-in-law Jyothi on 19-03-2020 viz "where he was". He replied that he was on work from home for 2 weeks. She again sent a message calling him to their house once.

5. The maternal uncle of the Respondent called to the father of the Petitioner on 05-09- 2020 saying that they are intending to send the Respondent to the conjugal society of the Petitioner and he assured that they would treat the Petitioner and his family members in a proper mariner and requested to forget the bad incidents and humiliation caused to the Petitioner and his family members. Respecting his words, the Petitioner went to the house of parents of the Respondent and brought

Respondent and his daughter to his house at Raghunathpally Village and Revenue mandal, on 06-09-2020 when both the Petitioner and Respondent were working from home. Thus, time of 4 months passed on during which period the mother of the Petitioner looked after the Respondent and their grand-daughter well.

Thereafter the Respondent asked the Petitioner to search rented house in

Hyderabad saying that she would have to attend the Office in January-2021 and the Petitioner took a rented house in Vijaynagar Colony, Kukatpally and along with their child joined the rented house in December-2020. The Petitioner got adrnitted the child in the school, namely Altitude Pre School, Kukatpally during the academic year 2021-2022 In U.K.G. Subsequently, the child was shifted to another School namely, the Masterminds School for academic year 2022-2023. The Respondent started abusing Petitioner in un-parliamentary language and he bore all the humiliation and adjusted himself for the sake of his daughter. He used to help the

Respondent in all household works and works of the daughter such as getting ready his daughter by providing food, bath and dress-up to her, cutting of vegetables, washing vessels, cooking food by himself etc. When the Petitioner advised the Respondent not to spend more time on Facebook & Instagram, the

Respondent replied to the Petitioner saying him not to dominate her.

6. The Petitioner got vexed with attitude of the respondent. The petitioner bore all the humiliations put forth by respondent in order to maintain cordial matrimonial relationship with the respondent. The petitioner and his family members, as such there is no alternative left, the petitioner for restitution of conjugal right against the respondent, and petitioner approached the Hon'ble

Court for redresses.

7. After receipt of notices, respondent did not choose to appear before the

Court, No counter filed by the respondent. The petitioner was examined PW1 and

Ex.P1 got marked. Ex.P1 to P5, and PW2. Ex.P1: Wedding Card, Ex.P2: Legal Notice

dated: 18-02-2023. Ex.P3: Postal Receipt, Ex.P4: Jewellary Receipts, Ex.P5: School

Fee Receipts.

8.Heard arguments.

9.In view of the pleadings and evidence of the partie, the following points arise for consideration.

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for directions directing respondent to join back to the conjugal society of the petitioner?

2. To what relief?

10.POINT No-1:

The petitioner is examined as PW1 and Ex.P1 got marked. Ex.P1 to P5, and

PW2. Ex.P1: Wedding Card, Ex.P2: Legal Notice dated: 18-02-2023. Ex.P3: Postal

Receipt, Ex.P4: Jewellary Receipts, Ex.P5: School Fee Receipts. There is no dispute regarding the marriage of the petitioner with respondent and their marriage took place on 21-05-2014, at St. Pauls School, Jangaon District, as per their rites and customs prevailing in their caste. After the marriage the respondent joined conjugal society of the petitioner and started living with her at his residence, and their marriage was consummated. Outof their legal wed lock they were blessed with one female child.

11. Since the version of PW1 remained unchallenged, his version sounded cogent is worthy to believe the same.

12.Considering the evidence available on record, in support of the petitioners content this court is of the opinion that it is just and essential to direct the respondent to lead happy martial life with the petitioner as the petitioner is ready and willing to join back to the conjugal society of the respondent. Hence the respondent is directed to re-unite with his wife/respondent and live happily with her together. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the petitioner against the respondent.

13.IN THE RESULT: The petition is allowed, directing the respondent to join back into the conjugal society of the petitioner within three (3) months from the date of this order and decree and the petitioner is also accordingly directed to accept the respondent to his conjugal Society.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 04th day of October, 2024.)

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

JANGAON.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner: For Respondent:

PW.1: P. Chaitanya Kumar - None-

PW.2:O. Shankar Lingam

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioner: For Respondent :

Ex.P1: Wedding Card. -None- Ex.P2: Legal Notice dated: 18-02-2023. Ex.P3: Postal Receipt. Ex.P4: Jewellary Receipts. Ex.P5: School Fee Receipts.

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

JANGAON.

1 S.C.No.39 of 2024 SCJ, Jgn. Dt.08/10/2024

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE :: JANGAON

Tuesday, the 08 th day of October, 2024

Present: Sri C. Vikram,

Assistant Sessions Judge,

Jangaon.

S.C.No.39 of 2024

01Name and description The State of Telangana through the Sub- of the complainantInspector of Police, P.S. Palakurthy.

02Name and description Gayala Madhu, S/o. Somaiah, Age: 42 of the accusedYears, Caste: SC Madiga, Occu: Laborer, R/o. Palakurthy village and Mandal, Jangaon District.

03 Offence chargedU/S.307 IPC.

04 Cr. No. and Name of the Cr.No.25/2024 of P.S. Palakurthy. police station 05P.R.C.No.32/2024 06Case committed by Ms. K.Sandeepa, Addl. Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Jangaon.

07Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty 08Finding of the CourtFound not guilty 09 Sentence or order In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable U/S307 IPC. Accordingly, accused is acquitted u/S.235 (1) Cr.P.C., for the offence U/S.307 IPC. Accused bail bonds shall stands cancelled after appeal time is over. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time. The jail Authorities are required to release the accused forth which if he is not required in any other cases. 10Prosecution conducted by Smt.B.SreedeviAdditionalPublic Prosecutor 11Accused are defended bySri. Manchala Ravinder Chief Defence legal 2 S.C.No.39 of 2024 SCJ, Jgn. Dt.08/10/2024 aid counsel for accused.

-o0o-

This case is coming before me on 08-10-2024 for final hearing in the presence of Smt.B. Sreedevi, Additional Public Prosecutor,counsel for the State/ Complainant and of Sri.Manchala Ravinder Chief Defence legal aid counsel for accused; Upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Palakurthy, has filed the charge sheet in

Cr.No.25/2024 against the accused for the offence punishable U/S307 I.P.C.

2.The brief facts of the case of prosecution are:

Complainant /Gadepaka Venkatamma works as laborer in Palakurthy village. The accused i.e., Gayala Madhu, on 04-02-2024 the complainant husband Gadepaka Yakaiah sat on CC Road in front of their house, the accused/

G.Madhu brought an axe from his house and thrashed Yakaiah with axe in sudden provocation over right part of his face, with an intention to kill

G.Yakaiah, due to which G.Yakaiah sustained severe blood injuries over his face.

3.On 04-02-2024, narrating the above facts in detail, the complainant/PW1 filed complaint before S.H.O P.S. Palakurthy. Basing on which on 04-02-2024,

S.H.O. registered a case in Cr. No.25/2024 U/S.307 IPC. and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation SI Of police examined and recorded statements of witnesses Lws 1 to 9.(LW1/ G. Venkatamma, LW2/

G.Yakaiah, LW3/ G.Ganesh, LW4/ G.Yakamma, LW5/G.Lavanya, LW6/ G Yakaiah,

LW7/G.Raju, LW8/ Dr. Sanjay Naik, LW9/ T.Srikanth). After completion of investigation filed charge sheet.

3 S.C.No.39 of 2024 SCJ, Jgn. Dt.08/10/2024

4.Basing on the charge sheet filed along with the material placed by the SI of police, Addln. JFCM Jangaon took cognizance for the offence U/s.307 IPC. and registered the case as P.R.C. No.32/2024.

5. The learned Magistrate furnished copies of documents to the accused as required u/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. and having found that the offence punishable U/S.

307 IPC. are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, Learned Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions, Sessions Division, Jangaon, u/Sec.209 (a) Cr.P.C. for trial.

6. The Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Jangaon, pleased to made over the case to the Assistant Sessions Judge’s Court, Jangaon.

7. On appearance of the accused, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel were heard and a charge and framed charges for the offence U/S.307 IPC. against the accused. Thereby, read over and explained the charges to accused in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty to the said charges and claimed to be tried.

8. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 3 ( PW1/G. Venkatamma, PW2/ G.Yakaiah, PW3/ G.Ganesh_ and got marked

Exhibit P1 to P4. Ex.P1. Signature of PW1, Ex.P2.161 statement of PW1, Ex.P3.

161 statement of PW2, Ex.P4. 161 statement of PW3.

9. As there is no incriminating material in the evidence of PWs1 to 3 the examination of accused u/S.313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

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

for accused.

4 S.C.No.39 of 2024 SCJ, Jgn. Dt.08/10/2024

11. Now the points for consideration are :

1. Whether the Learned prosecution proved the guilt of

accused for the offence punishable U/S.307 IPC. beyond

all reasonable doubt?

2. To what relief?

12. POINT No-1:-

In order to prove the charge framed against accused for the offences punishable under section. U/S.307 I.P.C. the learned prosecution must be able to prove the alleged facts that: on 04-02-2024 the accused Gayala Madhu, on 04-02-2024 the complainant husband Gadepaka Yakaiah sat on CC Road in front of their house, the accused/ G.Madhu brought an axe from his house and thrashed Yakaiah with axe in sudden provocation over right part of his face, with an intention to kill G.Yakaiah, due to which G.Yakaiah sustained severe blood injuries over his face, and thereby committed an offence Punishable within the meaning of U/S.307 I.P.C.

13.In order to prove the above alleged facts, learned prosecution relied on oral evidence of PW1 to PW3,( PW1/G. Venkatamma, PW2/ G.Yakaiah, PW3/

G.Ganesh), and documentary evidence i.e., Exhibit P1 to P4. Exhibit P1 to P4.

Ex.P1. Signature of PW1, Ex.P2.161 statement of PW1, Ex.P3. 161 statement of

PW2, Ex.P4. 161 statement of PW3. In the present case, PW1/ G.Venkatamma, and PW2/ Victim/G. Yakaiah are the star witnesses to deal with the commission of crime and the person responsible for such crime. In otherwise, any amount of evidence, can only stand next to the evidence of PW1/ G.Venkatamma, and

PW2/ Victim/G. Yakaiah, for the reason that PW2 is the only victim who alleged to have witnessed and offenders. Therefore, firstly it is the evidence of PW1/

G.Venkatamma, and PW2/G. Yakaiah, that requires appreciation. The oral 5 S.C.No.39 of 2024 SCJ, Jgn. Dt.08/10/2024 evidence of PW1 to PW3, is that the PW2 was suffering from blood pressure and about 6 months back while PW2 was out side of his house, he suddenly fell down by himself due to which he sustained injury on his right check. During cross examination, nothing elicited in favour of the learned Prosecution except getting marked Ex. P1 to Ex.P4 nothing elicited against their version.

14.Since, the material star witness i.e., PW1/ to PW3 turned hostile to the case of prosecution, any subsequent amount of evidence even if placed or adduced by the prosecution by way of examining remaining listed witnesses (LW4/ G.Yakamma, LW5/G.Lavanya, LW6/ G Yakaiah, LW7/G.Raju, LW8/ Dr.

Sanjay Naik, LW9/ T.Srikanth)., Will not be able to improve or prove and the charges levelled against accused for the offences punishable U/S.307 I.P.C.

beyond all reasonable doubts, for the reason that, apart from PW1 to PW3 no other witness directly witnessed in commission of crime and alleged criminal who committed it. Therefore, the learned prosecution given up the rest of witnesses, and reported no further prosecution evidence, thereby prosecution evidence is closed. Hence, in view of the above observations and in view of the fact that, no incriminating material evidence is available on record to deal with the guilt of accused for the offence punishable U/S.307 I.P.C., this court concluded that, the learned prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence punishable U/S.307 I.P.C.

Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of learned defence against the learned prosecution.

6 S.C.No.39 of 2024 SCJ, Jgn. Dt.08/10/2024

15.POINT No-2:

In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable U/

S307 IPC. Accordingly, accused is acquitted u/S.235 (1) Cr.P.C., for the offence

U/S.307 IPC. Accused bail bonds shall stands cancelled after appeal time is over. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time.

The jail Authorities are required to release the accused forthwith if he is not required in any other cases.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 8th day of October, 2024)

Sd/-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

JANGAON.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW1/G. Venkatamma, -Nil- PW2/ G.Yakaiah, PW3/ G.Ganesh)

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1.Signature of PW1.-Nil- Ex.P2.161 statement of PW1. Ex.P3.161 statement of PW2. Ex.P4.161 statement of PW3.

Material Objects

-None-

Sd/-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

JANGAON

1 of 6

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT JANGAON

Friday, this the 04thday of October, 2024

Present:-Sri C. Vikram,

Senior Civil Judge,

JANGAON.

H.M. O. P. No. 98 of 2024

Between:

Poshaboini Sampath, S/o. Yadagiri, Age: 35 years, Occu: Labour, R/o. Bandlagudem village, Lingala Ghanpur Mandal, Jangaon District. …. Petitioner

And

Smt. Poshaboini Bhagya Laxmi, W/o. Sampath, Age: 28 years, Occu: Housewife, Presently residing with her parents at Akunoor village of Cheriyal Mandal, Siddipet District.

.…Respondent -o0o-

This petition is coming before me on 04/10/2024 for final hearing in the presence ofSri K.Sathaiah; counsel for the Petitioner and respondent remained exparte, upon perusing the material papers available on record and upon hearing the arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

: : O R D E R : :

This is a petition filed U/S.13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the petitioner against the respondent for divorce by annulling the marriage took place on 07-05-2017 with the respondent.

1).The averments of the petition in brief are as follows:

The Petitioner/Poshaboini Sampath, filed the present petition against his wife/ Poshaboini Bhagya Laxmi, stating that their marriage was performed on 07-05-2017, at Veerachala Ramchandra Swamy Temple, Jeedikal village,

Lingala Ghanpur Mandal, Jangaon District, as per the rites and customs of

Hindu Marriages in the presence of family elders, well-wishers, friends and 2 of 6 relatives. Immediately after the marriage with the respondent, the respondent joined the conjugal society of the petitioner and lead marital life for a period of 5 years, out of their wed lock no children were born.

2) After the marriage the both the petitioner and respondent moved to

Bombay for their livelihood and there they worked as daily wage laborers in a construction work for two years, and again they came back to the native village of the petitioner Bandlagudem and started working as Agricultural laborers. After coming from the Bombay, the petitioner observed the difference in the respondent, and started going to her parents house situated at Akunoor village of Cheriyal Mandal, without intimating to the petitioner and she started developing the hatred towards the petitioner.

Every time the petitioner used to go to respondent parents home and used to bring back the respondent.

3. The petitioner further submits that, in the month of April 2022 when her parents came to relatives house to attend " Durgamma " festival at

Kallem village, Lingala Ghanpur Mandal, the respondent went to her parents house without proper information to the petitioner. When the respondent went to parent's house of the petitioner, petitioner bluntly refused to join the conjugal society of the petitioner. The matter was placed before the elders of the Akunoor and Bandlagudem villages.

4.The respondent without any reasonable excuse withdrew from the society of the petitioner. The petitioner got issued a legal notice dated:

22-12-2022 to the respondent and her parents but she gave a contentious oral reply with false and untenable allegations. Since, she did not join the 3 of 6 petitioner, the petitioner instituted H.M.O.P No. 20/2023 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. By Judgment and decree dated 13-06-2023, the said petition was allowed in favour of the petitioner against the respondent thereby granting a decree of restitution of conjugal rights ex-parte, directing the respondent to join the conjugal society of petitioner within three (3) months from the date of the order and decree and petitioner is also accordingly directed to accept the respondent to his conjugal society.

The order and decree copy of the Hon'ble Court was sent to the respondent by Registered post with Acknowledgment due on 17-08-2023. The article sent through the R.P. was returned by the postal department with an endorsement" REFUSED " Returned to sender.

5. Publication filed against respondent, respondent remained exparte on 06-09-2024.

6. During the course of enquiry, the petitioner himself examined as

PW-1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 Ex.P1: C.C. of decree and order Dated:

13-06-2023 in HMOP No.20/2023.Ex.P2: Returned Postal Cover with acknowledgment card, dated:19-08-2023 containing copies of decree and

Order, dated: 13-06-2023 sent to the respondent through registered post

dated: 17-08-2023 returned with an endorsement " Returned". Ex.P3:

Original Wedding card along with cover. Ex.P4: C.C. of Aadhar Card of the petitioner bearing No.8031 5594 8926 ( P.Sampath) Ex.P5: Aadhar Card of the Respondent bearing No.5196 7673 7515. Ex.P6: C.C. of Laganapathrika (

Manuscript).

7. Heard arguments of the petitioner.

4 of 6

7. Now the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to obtain decree

of divorce from respondent, as prayed for ?

2. To what relief?

8.POINT No-1:The Petitioner sought for divorce from his

Wife/respondent, on the ground that respondent made him to suffer cruelty and desertion to fulfill her demand, and inspite of holding several panchayats to settle the disputes nothing worked out and the respondent made petitioner to suffer cruelty and continues descents.

9.In the present case, in order to obtain Divorce, the petitioner spouse must be able to prove that the respondent subjected petitioner to grave and weighty and cruelty which reaches to the conclusion that, the petitioner spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with respondent spouse.

10.To prove the same, the petitioner relied on her oral evidence in the form of chief affidavit as per PW1 documentary evidence in the form of

Ex.P1and Ex.P2. Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 Ex.P1: C.C. of decree and order Dated: 13-06- 2023 in HMOP No.20/2023.Ex.P2: Returned Postal Cover with acknowledgment card, dated:19-08-2023 containing copies of decree and

Order, dated: 13-06-2023 sent to the respondent through registered post

dated: 17-08-2023 returned with an endorsement " Returned". Ex.P3:

Original Wedding card along with cover. Ex.P4: C.C. of Aadhar Card of the petitioner bearing No.8031 5594 8926 ( P.Sampath) Ex.P5: Aadhar Card of the

Respondent bearing No.5196 7673 7515. Ex.P6: C.C. of Laganapathrika ( Manuscript).

5 of 6

11.The Oral evidence of PW1 remained unchallenged. The Respondent remained exparte to entire proceedings of this case. The evidence of PW1 categorically proved, that the respondent spouse and petitioner spouse to suffer weighty and grave cruelty that led to the conclusion that, petitioner spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with respondent spouse.

Hence, under these circumstances and in view of above reasons it is concluded that the petitioner is entitled to obtain divorce from her husband on the ground of cruelty and repeated desertion. Accordingly, the point no-1 is answered in favour of petitioner against respondent.

12. POINT No-2: In view of the finding on point No-1, this Court is inclined to allow this petition by granting divorce by dissolving the marriage of petitioner and respondent held on 07-05-2017.

13. IN THE RESULT: The petition is allowed without costs. The marriage of the petitioner with the respondent that took place on 07-05-2017 is hereby dissolved from this day i.e. 04-10-2024 by way of a Court decree under Sec.13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade- III, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 04th day of October, 2024.)

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

JANGAON

6 of 6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner: For Respondent:

PW1: P.Sampath. -None- PW2: Ch. Dayakar Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioner:

Ex.P1: C.C. of decree and order Dated: 13-06-2023 in HMOP No.20/2023.

Ex.P2: Returned Postal Cover with acknowledgment card, dated:19-08-2023 containing copies of decree and Order, dated: 13-06-2023 sent to the respondent through registered post dated: 17-08-2023 returned with an endorsement " Returned".

Ex.P3: Original Wedding card along with cover.

Ex.P4: C.C. of Aadhar Card of the petitioner bearing No.8031 5594 8926 ( P.Sampath)

Ex.P5: Aadhar Card of the Respondent bearing No.5196 7673 7515.

Ex.P6: C.C. of Laganapathrika ( Manuscript).

For Respondent:

-Nil-

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

JANGAON

1 of 6

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT JANGAON

Friday, this the 04th day of October, 2024

Present:- Sri. C. Vikram,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

JANGAON.

H.M.O.P. No. 113 of 2024

Between:- 1).Pujari Harish @ Harish Goud, S/o.Pujari Kumaraswamy, Age:27 Years, Occu: Photographer, R/o.H.No.5-57, Chinnapendyal village of Chilpur mandal, Jangaon District. 2). Smt. Pujari @ Ponnam Ruchitha, W/o. Pujari Harish, D/o. Ponnam Ramesh, Age: 23 Years, Occu: Housewife, R/o.H.No.2-62, Meedikonda Village of Station Ghanpur Mandal, Jangaon District. ….Petitioner No-1 & 2

And

NONE .…Respondent -o0o-

This petition is coming before me today i.e. on 04/10/2024 for final hearing in the presence of Nimmani Sekhar Rao; counsel for the Petitioner No-1 and Petitioner No-2 and there is no Respondent; upon perusing the material papers available on record and upon hearing the arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following

: : O R D E R : :

1.This is an application filed u/S.13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the petitioners No-1 and 2 praying this Court to grant divorce of mutual consent by dissolving their marriage held on 30-04-2023.

2. In petition, it is contended that, the petitioners No-1 and 2 got married on 30-04-2023 at Siripuram Gardens, Palakurthy Road market Office,

Stn. Ghanpur mandal, Jangaon District, as per the customs and traditions of 2 of 6

Hindu marriage. Their marriage was consummated, but the couple were not blessed with any children.

3. The petitioners further stated that they lead marital life happily for a period of one month only. Thereafter, due to serious differences between them, they are unable to live together, which results in the petitioners living separately since June 2023, till today. The matter was placed before elders and that several panchayats were held before caste elders, well-wishers and village elders and they have advised them to live happily without any disturbance, but the petitioners did not head their advice and the marriage between the petitioners broke irretrievably and there is no possibility of re-union. Keeping in view the disturbed family life of petitioners and that the couple have been living separately from June 2023, till today, in which the elders advised them to approach competent court for dissolution of their marriage on mutual consent. It is further stated that, in view of their compromise,they declared that they would not file any further cases against each other either civil or criminal, they further declared that they shall not interfere in the family affairs of each other and there is no collusion between them. As both the petitioners wish to lead their independent life without effecting other parties private life they filed this petition with mutual consent with any coercion or any force.

4.Both the petitioners already exchanged their belongings. cloths, gold ornaments, and articles of each other and nothing to left over to be exchanged.

The petitioners undertake that, they will not file any criminal and civil cases against each other and their family members either in movable or in immovable 3 of 6 properties. The petitioner No.2 shall not file any cases against the petitioner No.1 and his family members either against movable or immovable properties at any point of time, hereinafter they shall not interfere in the individual life of each other and liberty to lead their lives with their own choice. Since there are no claims outstanding and all claims have been full and finally settled.

5.While the matter stood pending for six (6) months statutory period observation the petitioners filed waive petition U/s 13-B, with a prayer to waive off six (6) months statutory period by relying on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Civil Appeal No.1158/2017, dt.12/09/2017 between Amardeep

Singh Vs. Harveen Kaur wherein it is held that:

“The court dealing with a matter is satisfied that a case is made out to waive the statutory period under Sec.13 B(2), it can do so after considering the following:

i) the statutory period of six months specified in Sec.13 B (2), in addition to the statutory period of one year under Section 13 B (1) of separation of parties is already over before the first motion itself; ii) all efforts for mediation/conciliation including efforts in terms of Order XXXIIA Rule 3 CPC/ Section 23 (2) of the Act/Section 9 of the Family Courts Act to reunite the parties have failed and there is no likelihood of success in that direction by any further efforts; iii) the parties have genuinely settled their differences including alimony, custody of child or any other pending issues between the parties.

iv) the waiting period will only prolong their agony.

4 of 6

In view of the guide lines noted above, the parties, were made to attend counseling and meditations but none of them got materialized. The parties were found not living as husband and wife. Both parties genuinely settled their disputes including alimony. Parties were not blessed with any children, there is no possibility of reunion of parties and further waiting period amounts to prolonging agony among parties.

6.Both the petitioners appeared before Court on 04-10-2024and filed their respective chief-affidavits. This court again tried them for re-conciliation, but both the petitioners stated and represented in one voice that they are living separately since June 2023, till today, and there is no possibility of re-union and their intention to live separate is not changed since their separation and even after filing this petition. Hence, both the petitioners were examined before this Court as

PWs1 and 2 and Ex.P1 got marked.

7. The petitioner No-1 was examined as PW-1 and Ex.P1 got marked. The petitioner No-2 was examined as PW2.

8. Heard the counsel for the petitioners.

9. Now the point for consideration is:

Point No.1: Whether the petitioners are entitled for

the relief of dissolution of their marriage

held on 30/04/2023 by way of granting

divorce on mutual consent?

Point No.2: To what relief ?

10. POINT No: 1

Petitioners filed this petition on 22-07-2024.Their marriage was solemnized on 30-04-2023 at Siripuram Gardens, Palakurthy Road market

Office, Stn. Ghanpur mandal, Jangaon District, as per the customs and 5 of 6 traditions of Hindu marriage. But, the couple were not blessed with any children.

11.The oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 remained undisputed and the fact that the both the parties are wiling to dissolved their marriage between them that took place on 30-04-2023, also remained undisputed and unchallenged.

Further, the fact that all reconciliations went in vain and there is no possibility of re union between them. The record further reveals that, the petitioner No.1 and 2 are not living as wife and husband since June 2023, till today, and all the disputes and claims among them were genuinely settled. Hence, under these circumstances, in view of the oral evidence of PW1 and PW2, this court is of the opinion that, the petitioners No.1 and No.2 are entitled for dissolving their marriage that took place on 30-04-2023. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of both the petitioners.

12. Point No.2: To what relief ?

IN THE RESULT the petition is allowed without costs. The marriage took place between the petitioners No. 1 and 2 on 30-04-2023 is hereby dissolved from this day i.e. on 04-10-2024 by way of court decree by mutual consent under Sec. 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 04th day of October, 2024.)

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

JANGAON

6 of 6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner: For Respondent:

PW.1: P.Harish. -None- PW.2: P.Ruchitha

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioner:For Respondent :

Ex.P1: Wedding Card. -Nil-

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

JANGAON.

1 of 6

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT JANGAON

Thursday, this the 03rd day of October, 2024

Present:- Sri. C. Vikram,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

JANGAON.

H.M.O.P. No. 143 of 2024

Between:- 1).Sudigalla Sandeep Kumar Yadav, S/o.Parusharamaulu, Age: Years, Occu: Private Employee, R/o. Kadavendi village, Devaruppula mandal, Jangaon District. 2). Sudigalla @ Manda Sumalatha, W/o. Sandeep Kumar, D/o. Manda Gattu Mallaiah Yadav, Age: Years, Caste: Golla (BC-D)Occu: Housewife, R/o. Kadavendi village, Devaruppula mandal, Jangaon district, presently residing at Kundaram village, Lingala Ghanpur mandal, Jangaon District. ….Petitioner No-1 & 2

And

NONE .…Respondent -o0o-

This petition is coming before me today i.e. on 03/10/2024 for final hearing in the presence of A.Laxmanaswamy; counsel for the Petitioner No-1 and Petitioner No-2 and there is no Respondent; upon perusing the material papers available on record and upon hearing the arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following

: : O R D E R : :

1.This is an application filed u/S.13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the petitioners No-1 and 2 praying this Court to grant divorce of mutual consent by dissolving their marriage held on 03-09-2023.

2. In petition, it is contended that, the petitioners No-1 and 2 got married on 03-09-2023 at Sri Venkateshwara Gardens, Nidigonda village,

Raghunathapally mandal, Jangaon District, as per the customs and traditions of 2 of 6

Hindu marriage. Their marriage was consummated, but the couple were not blessed with any children.

3. The petitioners further stated that they lead marital life happily for a period of 15 days only. Thereafter, due to serious differences between them, they are unable to live together, which results in the petitioners living separately since 19-09-2023, till today. The matter was placed before elders and that several panchayats were held before caste elders, well-wishers and village elders and they have advised them to live happily without any disturbance, but the petitioners did not head their advice and the marriage between the petitioners broke irretrievably and there is no possibility of re-union. Keeping in view the disturbed family life of petitioners and that the couple have been living separately from 19-09-2023, till today, in which the elders advised them to approach competent court for dissolution of their marriage on mutual consent. It is further stated that, in view of their compromise,they declared that they would not file any further cases against each other either civil or criminal, they further declared that they shall not interfere in the family affairs of each other and there is no collusion between them. As both the petitioners wish to lead their independent life without effecting other parties private life they filed this petition with mutual consent with any coercion or any force.

4.Both the petitioners already exchanged their belongings. cloths, gold ornaments, and articles of each other and nothing to left over to be exchanged.

The petitioners undertake that, they will not file any criminal and civil cases against each other and their family members either in movable or in immovable 3 of 6 properties. The petitioner No.2 shall not file any cases against the petitioner No.1 and his family members either against movable or immovable properties at any point of time, hereinafter they shall not interfere in the individual life of each other and liberty to lead their lives with their own choice. Since there are no claims outstanding and all claims have been full and finally settled.

5.While the matter stood pending for six (6) months statutory period observation the petitioners filed waive petition U/s 13-B, with a prayer to waive off six (6) months statutory period by relying on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Civil Appeal No.1158/2017, dt.12/09/2017 between Amardeep

Singh Vs. Harveen Kaur wherein it is held that:

“The court dealing with a matter is satisfied that a case is made out to waive the statutory period under Sec.13 B(2), it can do so after considering the following:

i) the statutory period of six months specified in Sec.13 B (2), in addition to the statutory period of one year under Section 13 B (1) of separation of parties is already over before the first motion itself; ii) all efforts for mediation/conciliation including efforts in terms of Order XXXIIA Rule 3 CPC/ Section 23 (2) of the Act/Section 9 of the Family Courts Act to reunite the parties have failed and there is no likelihood of success in that direction by any further efforts; iii) the parties have genuinely settled their differences including alimony, custody of child or any other pending issues between the parties.

iv) the waiting period will only prolong their agony.

4 of 6

In view of the guide lines noted above, the parties, were made to attend counseling and meditations but none of them got materialized. The parties were found not living as husband and wife. Both parties genuinely settled their disputes including alimony. Parties were not blessed with any children, there is no possibility of reunion of parties and further waiting period amounts to prolonging agony among parties.

6.Both the petitioners appeared before Court on 03-10-2024and filed their respective chief-affidavits. This court again tried them for re-conciliation, but both the petitioners stated and represented in one voice that they are living separately since 19-09-2023, till today, and there is no possibility of re-union and their intention to live separate is not changed since their separation and even after filing this petition. Hence, both the petitioners were examined before this Court as

PWs1 and 2 and Ex.P1 got marked.

7. The petitioner No-1 was examined as PW-1 and Ex.P1 got marked. The petitioner No-2 was examined as PW2.

8. Heard the counsel for the petitioners.

9. Now the point for consideration is:

Point No.1: Whether the petitioners are entitled for

the relief of dissolution of their marriage

held on 03/09/2023 by way of granting

divorce on mutual consent?

Point No.2: To what relief ?

10. POINT No: 1

Petitioners filed this petition on 23-09-2024.Their marriage was solemnized on 03-09-2023 at Sri Venkateshwara Gardens, Nidigonda village, 5 of 6

Raghunathapally mandal, Jangaon District, as per the customs and traditions of

Hindu marriage. But, the couple were not blessed with any children.

11.The oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 remained undisputed and the fact that the both the parties are wiling to dissolved their marriage between them that took place on 03-09-2023, also remained undisputed and unchallenged.

Further, the fact that all reconciliations went in vain and there is no possibility of re union between them. The record further reveals that, the petitioner No.1 and 2 are not living as wife and husband since 19-09-2023, till today, and all the disputes and claims among them were genuinely settled. Hence, under these circumstances, in view of the oral evidence of PW1 and PW2, this court is of the opinion that, the petitioners No.1 and No.2 are entitled for dissolving their marriage that took place on 03-09-2023. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of both the petitioners.

12. Point No.2: To what relief ?

IN THE RESULT the petition is allowed without costs. The marriage took place between the petitioners No. 1 and 2 on 03-09-2023 is hereby dissolved from this day i.e. on 03-10-2024 by way of court decree by mutual consent under Sec. 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 03rd day of October, 2024.)

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

JANGAON

6 of 6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner: For Respondent:

PW.1: S.Sandeep Kumar -None- PW.2: M.Sumalatha

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioner:For Respondent :

Ex.P1: Wedding Card. -Nil-

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

JANGAON.