Sri CH.Raja Gopala Rao

Prl. Sr. Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram

PDJ Court Complex ,Rajahmundry · East Godavari · Andhra Pradesh

Sri CH.Raja Gopala Rao, Prl. Sr. Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram, is posted at PDJ Court Complex ,Rajahmundry, East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh, India. 280 court orders on record since 2017. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, EP, OP cases.

280

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

OP/173/2014

Vakulabaranam Siripurapu Venkata Sai Lakshmi vs Vakulabaranam Siripurapu Sirish Kumar

22 Sep 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : AT

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT: Sri CH.RAJA GOPALA RAO,

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Friday, this the 22nd day of September,2017 ORIGINAL PETITION No.173/2014 Between:

Vakulabaranam Siripurapu Venkata Sai Lakshmi, wife of VSS Kumar, Hindu, Aged 24years,Occupation:Nil,C/o.IragavarapuRambablu,D.No.4130, Near:Narasimha Swamy Temple, Korukonda.

.. Petitioner

And

Vakulabaranam Siripurapu Sirish Kumar, son of late Narasimhacharyulu, Hindu, Aged 33 years, Purohit, R/o.D.No.212, Sannidhi Street, Dwaraka Tirumala Village, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal.

This petition is coming up before me, for hearing on 11.09.2017 in the presence of Sri K.S.Lakshminarayana, advocate for the petitioner, and Sri Nimmala Jyothi Kumar, advocate for respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed under Section 13(i)(a) and (i)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 to pass a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent, dated 05.11.2008.

2.The case of the petitioners in brief is as follows:

The marriage between the petitioner and respondent was performed on 05.11.2008 at Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Korukonda according to Hindu Rites and Customs. At the time of marriage, the respondent represented that he is working a Priest in Dwaraka Tirumala Devasthanam and that he was paid Rs.15,000/ per month and demanded dowry of Rs.1,00,000/ in addition to lanchanams. After negotiations, the respondent agreed for dowry of Rs.60,000/ apart from lanchanams. The parents of the petitioner paid the dowry amount to the respondent, performed the marriage in a decent manner, by spending Rs.2,40,000/ towards expenses and also presented four grams of gold to the respondent. Immediately, the marriage was consummated. The petitioner joined the respondent to lead conjugal life. After joining the respondent the petitioner came to know that the respondent is working as Archaka in a small temple and living by purohityam, but not in Devasthanam as represented and that he cheated them. Even within months of petitioner joining, the respondent started illtreating the petitioner by abusing and beat her for nothing and used to drink and also take nonveg in the house itself and never showed any affection towards her. The petitioner got pregnancy, the respondent did not take care about her health. During 7th month pregnancy, her parents took the petitioner to their house for delivery. The petitioner gave birth to a male child. Though informed, either the respondent or any members of his family did not come to visit the petitioner or the new born child, but to utter dismay of the petitioner and her parents, the respondent insisted for DNA test to the child. The petitioner along with her nine months child returned to marital home with a fond hope that there would be change in the respondent, but there was change in the attitude and behaviour of the respondent.

3.It is further averred in the petition that while so on 19.09.2011, the respondent and his brother by name Hari Kumar @ Jamu beat the petitioner indiscriminately with sticks and necked her out of the house in the mind night. In view of the cruel treatment, harassment, character assassination and sadistic nature of the petitioner, it became proof positive that it is impossible for a human beinge to lead marital life with the respondent apart from non safety for her life and the child. The petitioner deserted by the respondent for more than statutory period and on this ground also, she is entitled to seek a divorce from the respondent. The petitioner is filing this application without prejudice to her rights to claim maintenance for herself and her minor son in future. Hence, the petition.

4.Filtering out unnecessary details of counter of the respondent allegations are, that the petitioner is his legally wedded wife and their marriage was performed on 05.11.2008 at Narasimha Swamy Temple, Near Agraharam, Korukonda and after completion of three months from joining with the respondent, the petitioner went to her parents house, when the respondent bring back the petitioner to his house and later she again went to her parents house at 7th month pregnancy after performing Srimantham and later on 30.09.2009, the petitioner blessed a male child. After giving birth to said male child, the petitioner came to the respondent’s house in the month of August,2010 along with her parents. Later, the parents of the petitioner took away the said male child by leaving her with the respondent. Later, the respondent several times asked about the male child by keeping him at her parents, but the petitioner did not respond. The respondent is very much live and affection towards the petitioner and he got issued legal notice, dated 14.11.2014 to the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights by requesting her to come and join with him along with child for leading happy marital life. The petitioner received the said notice and got issued reply with false allegations and he reserves his right to file any additional counter and hence, prays to dismiss the petition with costs.

4.During the course of enquiry, the petitioner got examined herself as P.W.1 and one Iragavarapu Sreedevi was examined as P.W.2 and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6. On behalf of the respondent, no witnesses were examined and no documents are marked.

5.In her chief examination affidavit as P.W.1, the petitioner reiterated the same facts, which were averred in the petition. She states that in view of the cruel treatment, harassment, character assassination and sadistic nature of the respondent, it is highly impossible for her to lead marital life with the respondent apart from unsafely to her life and the child and deserted by the respondent for more than statutory period and on this ground also, she is entitled to a divorce from the respondent.

6.As the respondent called absent and no representation, the evidence adduced by the petitioner remained unchallenged. The evidence of the petitioner makes it clear that she married the respondent out of compulsion and she is not interested to lead marital life with the respondent. As such, the petitioner is entitled to seek dissolution of her marriage with the respondent dated 26.02.2012.

7.In the result, this petition is allowed, granting divorce by dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent, which was solemnized on 05.11.2008. No costs. Typed to dictation by the StenoTypist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day of September,2017.

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Rajamahendravaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENT:

P.W.1: Vakulabaranam Siripurapu Venkata Sai Lakshmi None. P.W.2: Iragavarapu Sreedevi

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER:

Ex.A.1: Marriage invitation card, dt:05.11.2008 Ex.A.2: Two marriage photographs Ex.A.3: Study and conduct certificate Ex.A.4: Notice, dt:14.11.2014 got issued by the respondent. Ex.A.5: reply notice, dt:20.11.2014 Ex.A.6: Postal acknowledgment.

FOR RESPONDENT: Nil.

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Rajamahendravaram.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : AT

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT: Sri CH.RAJA GOPALA RAO,

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Friday, this the 22nd day of September,2017 ORIGINAL PETITION No.173/2014 Between: Vakulabaranam Siripurapu Venkata Sai Lakshmi, wife of VSS Kumar, Hindu, Aged 24years,Occupation:Nil,C/o.IragavarapuRambablu,D.No.4130, Near:Narasimha Swamy Temple, Korukonda.

.. Petitioner

And

Vakulabaranam Siripurapu Sirish Kumar, son of late Narasimhacharyulu, Hindu, Aged 33 years, Purohit, R/o.D.No.212, Sannidhi Street, Dwaraka Tirumala Village, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal.

Petition presented on 08.12.2014 and filed on 12.12.2014

This petition is filed by the petitioners, under Section 13(i)(ia) and (i)

(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 for dissolving their marriage dated 05.11.2008.

A fixed Court Fee of Rs.10/ is paid as per APCF Act. Cause of action for the petition arose on 05.11.2008 when the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent took place at Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Korukonda and immediately when the petitioner joined the respondent on all dates when the petitioner was subjected to harassment both mentally and physically by the respondent and on 19.09.2011 when the respondent along with his brother beat the petitioner and drove her from the house, since 20.09.2011 when the respondent deserted the petitioner and did not even enquire about the well being of the petitioner or their son; since then the petitioner is living with her parents at Korukonda separate from the respondent; on 14.11.2014 when the respondent got issued a notice falsely seeking restitution of conjugal rights; on 26.11.2014 when the petitioner got issued a reply, Korukonda village, whereat the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent took place and the petitioner presently residing, within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

i) that the marriage dated 05.11.2008 between the petitioner and respondent are hereby dissolved by granting divorce; ii) that there by no order as to costs.

Given under my hand, and the seal of this court, this the 22nd day of September,2017.

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Rajamahendravaram.

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

No costs P.S.C.J.

S.O.P/92/2016

XXXXX vs XXXXX

22 Sep 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : AT

RAJAHMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT: Sri CH.RAJAGOPALA RAO,

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Thursday, this the 21st day of September,2017 ORIGINAL SUIT No.327/2013 Between:

Nulu Varalakshmi, wife of Veeranna Babu, Hindu, Aged 35 years, Stridhana, Q.No.55618, 36 Jail Quarters, Suviseshapuram, … Plaintiff. Rajamahendravaram

And

Nulu Srinu Basava Raju, son of China Subrahmanyam @ Chinna, Hindu, Aged 55 years, Business, D.No.349, Vinayaka Temple, Injaram, Tallarevu Mandal.

.. Defendant

The suit coming on 11.09.2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri GUVB Raju, advocate for the plaintiff and Sri VSRS Naidu, advocate for defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a suit is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,05,300/ along with subsequent interest at 24% per annum and for costs.

2.The averments mentioned in the plaint in brief are as follows: The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/ from the plaintiff on 27.11.2011 for the purpose of his business investment executed an on demand promissory note at Rajamahendravaram in favour of plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same together with interest at 24%p.a., either to the plaintiff or on her demand. Thereafter, inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff personally and through mediators, the defendant did not pay any amount to the plaintiff. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice through her counsel on 29.03.2013 calling upon her to repay the entire amount. The defendant received the same on 02.04.2013 and got issued a reply with false and untenable allegations and failed to pay the amount. Hence, the suit.

3.Filtering out unnecessary details of written statement of defendant allegations are, that there is no necessity to borrow such amount from the plaintiff and the suit promissory note is a forged and fabricated one and that due to some disputes between the plaintiff’s father by name G.Gavarraju and the defendant and the said Gavarraju instigated his daughter with a bad and mala fide intention to file the suit against the defendant and hence, prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed:

i) Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount?

ii) To what relief?

5. To discharge the initial burden of proof, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and narrated the facts in a tune with her chief affidavit. The testimony of P.W.1 unchallenged and the plea of the plaintiff neither denied nor disputed. Therefore, the due execution and passing of consideration under Ex.A.1 proved by the plaintiff. Therefore, the plea of the plaintiff can safely be accepted.

6. To disprove the case of the plaintiff, the defendant did not file any material nor dent the probative value of Ex.A.1. Therefore, the presumption engrafted under Section 118(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act can safely be drawn in favour of plaintiff.

7.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for Rs.2,05,300/ (Rupees two lakhs five thousand and three hundred only) with subsequent interest @ 24% p.a. on principal amount of Rs.1,50,000 /(Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) from 27.11.2011 to 10.06.2013 subsequent interest 12% p.a. from 11.06.2013 to 20.09.2017 thereafter 6% p.a. till realization.

Dictated to the steno/typist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court, this the 21st day of September,2017.

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT :

P.W.1 : N.VaralakshmiNone.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A.1: Pronote executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff, dt:27.11.2011 Ex.A.2: Office copy of legal notice, dt:29.03.2013 Ex.A.3: Postal acknowledgment Ex.A.4: Reply notice got issued by defendant, dt:15.04.2013

FOR DEFENDANT : Nil.

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : AT

RAJAHMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT: Sri CH.RAJAGOPALA RAO,

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Thursday, this the 21st day of September,2017 ORIGINAL SUIT No.327/2013 Between:

Nulu Varalakshmi, wife of Veeranna Babu, Hindu, Aged 35 years, Stridhana, Q.No.55618, 36 Jail Quarters, Suviseshapuram, … Plaintiff. Rajamahendravaram

And

Nulu Srinu Basava Raju, son of China Subrahmanyam @ Chinna, Hindu, Aged 55 years, Business, D.No.349, Vinayaka Temple, Injaram, Tallarevu Mandal.

.. Defendant

Plaint presented on 10.06.2013 and filed on 14.06.2013.

Suit is filed to recover an amount of Rs.2,05,300/ being the amount of

principal and interest due on promissory note dated 27.11.2011 executed by the

defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.1,50,000/ agreeing to repay with interest at 24% p.a. for subsequent interest and costs.

Value of the suit:

Principle amount due under pronote dt:27.11.2011 Rs.1,50,000.00

Subsequent interest at 24% p.a. from 27.11.2011 to 10.06.2013 55,300.00 _______________ Total: Rs.2,05,300.00 ________________

Total court fee paid Rs.4,526/is paid U/Sec.20, SCh1, Art.1(c) of ACF Act.

Cause of action for the suit arose on 27.11.2011 when the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/ from the plaintiff by executing an on demand promissory note at Rajamahendravaram and on all dates of demands made by the plaintiff and when the defendant committed default in discharging the amount ldue, and on 29.03.2013 when plaintiff got issued registered notice and when the defendant received the notice and got issued reply with false allegations and failed to pay the amount and at Rajamahendravaram where the entire transaction took place and where the plaintiff is residing within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court.

i)that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed; ii)that the defendant Rs.2,05,300/ (Rupees two lakhs five thousand and three hundred only) with subsequent interest @ 24% p.a. on principal amount of Rs.1,50,000 /(Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) from 27.11.2011 to 10.06.2013 subsequent interest 12% p.a. from 11.06.2013 to 20.09.2017 thereafter 6% p.a. till realization; and iii)that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.15,047/ towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, on this the 21st day of September,2017.

Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

Stamp on vakalat2.00

Stamp on plaint4526.00

Stamp on process40.00 No memo of costs filed

Stamp on petition 7859.00

Advocate fee2620.00

Costs allowed Rs. 15047.00

Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

OS/327/2013

Nulu Varalakshmi vs Nulu srinu Basava Raju

21 Sep 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : AT

RAJAHMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT: Sri CH.RAJAGOPALA RAO,

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Thursday, this the 21st day of September,2017 ORIGINAL SUIT No.327/2013 Between:

Nulu Varalakshmi, wife of Veeranna Babu, Hindu, Aged 35 years, Stridhana, Q.No.55618, 36 Jail Quarters, Suviseshapuram, … Plaintiff. Rajamahendravaram

And

Nulu Srinu Basava Raju, son of China Subrahmanyam @ Chinna, Hindu, Aged 55 years, Business, D.No.349, Vinayaka Temple, Injaram, Tallarevu Mandal.

.. Defendant

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a suit is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,05,300/ along with subsequent interest at 24% per annum and for costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed:

i) Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount?

ii) To what relief?

Dictated to the steno/typist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court, this the 21st day of September,2017.

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT :

P.W.1 : N.VaralakshmiNone.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

FOR DEFENDANT : Nil.

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : AT

RAJAHMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT: Sri CH.RAJAGOPALA RAO,

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Thursday, this the 21st day of September,2017 ORIGINAL SUIT No.327/2013 Between:

Nulu Varalakshmi, wife of Veeranna Babu, Hindu, Aged 35 years, Stridhana, Q.No.55618, 36 Jail Quarters, Suviseshapuram, … Plaintiff. Rajamahendravaram

And

Nulu Srinu Basava Raju, son of China Subrahmanyam @ Chinna, Hindu, Aged 55 years, Business, D.No.349, Vinayaka Temple, Injaram, Tallarevu Mandal.

.. Defendant

Plaint presented on 10.06.2013 and filed on 14.06.2013.

Suit is filed to recover an amount of Rs.2,05,300/ being the amount of

principal and interest due on promissory note dated 27.11.2011 executed by the

defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.1,50,000/ agreeing to repay with interest at 24% p.a. for subsequent interest and costs.

Value of the suit:

Principle amount due under pronote dt:27.11.2011 Rs.1,50,000.00

Subsequent interest at 24% p.a. from 27.11.2011 to 10.06.2013 55,300.00 _______________ Total: Rs.2,05,300.00 ________________

Total court fee paid Rs.4,526/is paid U/Sec.20, SCh1, Art.1(c) of ACF Act.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, on this the 21st day of September,2017.

Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

Stamp on vakalat2.00

Stamp on plaint4526.00

Stamp on process40.00 No memo of costs filed

Stamp on petition 7859.00

Advocate fee2620.00

Costs allowed Rs. 15047.00

Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

OS/489/2013

Battula Veerabhadra Rao vs Pamidimukkala Venkata Ramana Kumari

22 Sep 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : AT

RAJAHMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT: Sri CH.RAJAGOPALA RAO,

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Friday, this the 22nd day of September,2017 ORIGINAL SUIT No.489/ 2013 Between:

Battula Veerabhadra Rao, son of Manga Raju, Aged 31 years, Hindu, Business, Velampet, Gokavaram… Plaintiff.

And

Pamidimukkala Venkata Ramana Kumari, wife of Chinna Kumar … Defendant. Reddy, Hindu, Aged 45 years, Employee, Back side of Petrol Bunk, Opp:Panchayat Office, Gokavaram.

The suit coming on 13.09.2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri A.Srinivasa Rao, advocate for the plaintiff and Sri K.L.Bhavani, advocate for defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a suit is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,80,600/along with subsequent interest at 24% per annum and for costs.

2.The averments mentioned in the plaint in brief are as follows: The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/ from the plaintiff on 24.06.2012 for the purpose of her family expenses, agreeing to repay the same together with interest at 24%p.a. either the plaintiff or to his order on demand and defendant executed an on demand promissory note in favour of plaintiff on even date i.e. on 24.06.2012 at the residence of the plaintiff at Gokavaram. Thereafter, inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not pay any amount to the plaintiff. Hence, the suit.

3.Filtering out unnecessary details of written statement allegations are, that the defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff muchless Rs.3,00,000/ on 24.06.2012 and has no need to borrow money from others and that the suit promissory note is a created by the plaintiff for unlawful gain with the help of the scribe and attestors and hence, prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed:

i) Whether the suit promissory note, dated 24.06.2012 is true, valid and supported by consideration?

2 ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the entire suit amount as prayed for?

iii) To what relief?

5. To discharge the initial burden of proof, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and narrated the facts in a tune with his chief affidavit. P.W.2(Attestor), who deposed in tune with the P.W.1. The testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 unchallenged and the plea of the plaintiff neither denied nor disputed. Therefore, the due execution and passing of consideration under Ex.A.1 proved by the prosecution. Therefore, the plea of the plaintiff can safely be accepted.

7.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for an amount of Rs.3,80,600/ (Rupees three lakhs eighty thousand and six hundred only) with subsequent interest @ 24% p.a. on principal amount of Rs.3.00,000/(Rupees three lakhs only) from 24.06.2012 to 07.08.2013 subsequent interest 12% p.a. from 08.08.2013 to 22.09.2017 thereafter 6% p.a. till realization.

Dictated to the steno/typist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court, this the 22nd day of September,2017.

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT : P.W.1 : Battula Veerabhadra RaoNone. P.W.2: Perisetty Lakshmana Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A.1: Pronote executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff, dt:24.06.2012

FOR DEFENDANT : Nil.

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

PRESENT:SRI M.RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU,

I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

(FAC)PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

Friday, this the 22nd day of September,2017

ORIGINAL SUIT No.489/ 2013 Between:

Battula Veerabhadra Rao, son of Manga Raju, Aged 31 years, Hindu, Business, Velampet, Gokavaram… Plaintiff.

And

Pamidimukkala Venkata Ramana Kumari, wife of Chinna Kumar … Defendant. Reddy, Hindu, Aged 45 years, Employee, Back side of Petrol Bunk, Opp:Panchayat Office, Gokavaram.

Plaint presented on 08.08.2013 and filed on 17.08.2013.

Suit to recover Rs.3,80,600/ being the amount of principal and interest due on promissory note, dated 24.06.2012 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.3,00,000/, agreeing to repay with interest at 24%p.a. for subsequent interest and costs.

Value of the suit:

Principle amount due under pronote Rs.3,00,000.00

Subsequent interest at 24% p.a. from 24.06.2012 to 07.08.2013Rs. 80,600.00 _______________ Total: Rs.3,80,60000 _______________

Total court fee paid Rs.6,326/is paid U/Sec.20, SCh1, Art.1(c) of ACF Act.

Cause of action for the suit arose on 24.06.2012 when the defendant borrowed an amount of rs.3,00,000/ from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note in his favour on the even date and on all subsequent dates when the plaintiff repeatedly demanded the defendant to discharge the debt due to him and the defendant failed to pay any amount either towards principal or interest and on all subsequent dates when the defendant failed to pay any amount and at Gokavaram where the suit transaction took place is within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court.

i)that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed; ii)that the defendant do pay the to plaintiff a sum of Rs.3,80,600/ (Rupees three lakhs eighty thousand and six hundred only) with subsequent interest @ 24% p.a. on principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/(Rupees three lakhs only) from 24.06.2012 to 07.08.2013 subsequent interest 12% p.a. from 08.08.2013 to 22.09.2017 thereafter 6% p.a. till realization; and iii)that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.16,398/ towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, on this the 22nd of September,2017.

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, (FAC)Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

Stamp on vakalat2.00

Stamp on plaint6326.00

No memo of costs filed Stamp on process70.00

Advocate fee10000.00

Costs allowed Rs.16398.00

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, (FAC)Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram

OP/181/2014

Vemula Sobha Devi vs Vemula Raju

22 Sep 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : AT

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT: Sri CH.RAJA GOPALA RAO,

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Friday, this the 22nd day of September,2017 ORIGINAL PETITION No.181/2014 Between:

Vemula Sobha Devi, wife of Raju, Hindu, Aged 26 years, House Wife, D.No.166/B, Kothapalli, Gokavaram Mandal.

.. Petitioner

And

Vemula Raju, son of Suri Babu, Hindu, Aged 30 years, Cultivation, D.No.137, Pedda Veedhi, Kothapalli Village, Gokavaram Mandal.

.. Respondent

This petition is coming up before me, for hearing on 20.09.2017 in the presence of Sri A.Srinivasa Rao, advocate for the petitioner, and respondent being set exparte, upon hearing and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed under Section 13(i) & (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act,1955 to pass a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent, dated 26.02.2012.

2.The case of the petitioners in brief is as follows:

The marriage between the petitioner and respondent was performed on 26.02.2012 according to Hindu Rites and Customs at Bala Tripura Sundari Sametha Ramalingeswara Devasthanam, Kothapalli village and immediately after the marriage the petitioner joined the respondent at Kothapalli village, Gokavaram mandal and no issues were born out of their wedlock. Later, some disputes arose between them, the respondent used to pick up quarrels with the petitioner for silly reasons. The respondent addicted to vices like drinking and gambling and used to come late night and beat the petitioner. The parents of the petitioner placed the matter before the elders, but invain. The petitioner feels that it is no longer safe to continue the marital tie with the respondent as it is proving highly injurious to his health physical and mental well being and it is also not safe for her to lie with the respondent. The marital tie between the petitioner and respondent has irretrievably broken down. The petitioner is therefore constrained to file this petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty. Hence, the petition.

4.The respondent did not put any appearance and did not receive the notice. Therefore, he was set exparte.

4.During the course of enquiry, the petitioner got examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2.

5.In her chief examination affidavit as P.W.1, the petitioner reiterated the same facts, which were averred in the petition. She states that she has no interest to lead conjugal life with respondent and she has no claims over the respondent and his family members and she wants to dissolve the marriage.

6.As the respondent was set exparte, the evidence adduced by the petitioner remained unchallenged. The evidence of the petitioner makes it clear that she married the respondent out of compulsion and she is not interested to lead marital life with the respondent. As such, the petitioner is entitled to seek dissolution of her marriage with the respondent dated 26.02.2012.

7.In the result, this petition is allowed, granting divorce by dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent, which was solemnized on 26.02.2012. No costs. Typed to dictation by the StenoTypist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day of September,2017.

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Rajamahendravaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENT:

P.W.1: Vemula Sobha DeviNil.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER:

Ex.A.1: Wedding card. Ex.A.2: Marriage photo

FOR RESPONDENT: Nil.

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Rajamahendravaram.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : AT

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT: Sri CH.RAJA GOPALA RAO,

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Friday, this the 22nd day of September,2017 ORIGINAL PETITION No.181/2014 Between:

Vemula Sobha Devi, wife of Raju, Hindu, Aged 26 years, House Wife, D.No.166/B, Kothapalli, Gokavaram Mandal.

.. Petitioner

And

Vemula Raju, son of Suri Babu, Hindu, Aged 30 years, Cultivation, D.No.137, Pedda Veedhi, Kothapalli Village, Gokavaram Mandal.

.. Respondent

Petition presented on 29.12.2014 and filed on 30.12.2014

This petition is filed by the petitioners, under Section 13(1)(ia of Hindu Marriage Act,1955 for dissolving their marriage dated 26.02.02012.

A fixed Court Fee of Rs.10/ is paid as per APCF Act. Cause of action for the petition arose on 26.02.2012 when the marriage between the petitioner and respondent took place at Sivalayam, Kothapalli of Gokavaram Mandal and on all subsequent dates when the petitioner was subjected to cruelty by the respondent and in the last week of November,2014 when the respondent necked out the petitioner from the matrimonial home at Kothapalli village, Gokavaram Mandal where the petitioner has been residing ever since the last week of November,2014 are all within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

i) that the marriage dated 26.02.2012 between the petitioner and respondent are hereby dissolved by granting divorce; ii) that there by no order as to costs.

Given under my hand, and the seal of this court, this the 22nd day of September,2017.

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Rajamahendravaram.

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

No costs

P.S.C.J.

Order Record 234 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
EP/104/2013	Chitturi Rajayalakshmi vs SPl.Deputy collector	22 Sep 2017	Order	—
OP/63/2015	Sirikonda Srinivas vs Smt Sirikonda satyasridevi	22 Sep 2017	Order	—
OP/173/2014	Vakulabaranam Siripurapu Venkata Sai Lakshmi vs Vakulabaranam Siripurapu Sirish Kumar	22 Sep 2017	Judgment	—
OP/181/2014	Vemula Sobha Devi vs Vemula Raju	22 Sep 2017	Judgment	—
OS/489/2013	Battula Veerabhadra Rao vs Pamidimukkala Venkata Ramana Kumari	22 Sep 2017	Judgment	—
S.O.P/92/2016	XXXXX vs XXXXX	22 Sep 2017	Judgment	—
OS/327/2013	Nulu Varalakshmi vs Nulu srinu Basava Raju	21 Sep 2017	Judgment	—
OS/357/2015	Indian Overseas Bank vs Koppireddy Trimurthulu	21 Sep 2017	Judgment	—
EP/292/2012	Uppuluri Bhaskara Rao vs Yenamadala Venkataratnam	20 Sep 2017	Order	—
EP/277/2014	Vijaya Bank vs LVemullapalli Hemalatha	19 Sep 2017	Order	—
OS/163/2013	Babulal Vijay Raj vs Nooli Venkata Narasimha Lakshmana Swamy	19 Sep 2017	Judgment	—
OS/207/2003	Kothapalli Krishnamurthy vs District Collector	19 Sep 2017	Judgment	—
OP/57/2015	Pemmaraju Venkata Satya Sankara Vijay Kumar vs Pemmaraju Bindu Madhavai	18 Sep 2017	Order	—
OP/115/2017	Battina Dharma Jyothi Kumar vs Battina Vijaya Jyothi	18 Sep 2017	Order	—
OS/353/2011	Athi Lakshmi vs Bheri Krishna Murthy	18 Sep 2017	Judgment	—
OS/463/2015	Goluguri Suryanarayana vs Koppula Meenakshi	18 Sep 2017	Judgment	—
OS/905/2010	Bolloju Satyanarayana vs Bolloju Basavalingam	18 Sep 2017	Judgment	—
OP/97/2016	Narendrapurapu Govardhana vs Narendrapurapu Veera Venkata Narasimha Naga Raju	14 Sep 2017	Order	—
OS/642/2007	Neelakantarao Naga Venkata Satya Raveendra Nath vs Adhuri Muralidhar Ram Kumar	14 Sep 2017	Judgment	—
SC/208/2016	Sub Inspector of Police I town L and O PS. vs Bommanamaina Chakravarthi	14 Sep 2017	Judgment	—
EP/74/2016	Guttula Veera Venkata Satyanarayana vs Thota Venkateswarlu	13 Sep 2017	Order	—
IP/8/2015	lMallidi Vekata Ramnareddy vs Kasa Bhagirathi	13 Sep 2017	Order	—
IP/20/2014	Golla Narasimha Rao vs Gopaldas Jawar	13 Sep 2017	Order	—
OP/173/2016	Guthula Srinivasa Satya Sivva Prasad vs Nil	13 Sep 2017	Judgment	—
OS/195/2016	Koyyalamudi Naga Varaprasad vs Cheemakurthi Subbarao	13 Sep 2017	Judgment	—
OS/441/2014	Malisetty Latha Rani vs Mrs Kommana Veera Venkata Lakshmi	13 Sep 2017	Judgment	—
OP/35/2017	Lingampalli Srinivas vs Nil	12 Sep 2017	Order	—
OS/261/2016	Bank of Borada vs Boppana Vimala	12 Sep 2017	Judgment	—
OS/277/2016	Bank of Borada vs Naripalli Kantha Rao	12 Sep 2017	Judgment	—
SC/114/2017	SHO, Rajanagaram P.s vs Kothapalli Venkanna	12 Sep 2017	Judgment	—
OP/33/2016	Podugu Veera Babu vs Pogugu VCeera Rajya Lakshmi	11 Sep 2017	Order	—
OS/1/2017	IDBI Bank ltd vs Bommanamaina Vinodha	11 Sep 2017	Judgment	—
OS/187/2017	Komarthi Chiranjeevi Venkata Srinivas vs Vadapalli Prem Kumar and another	11 Sep 2017	Judgment	—
S.O.P/145/2015	Deepala Ravi Kumar vs Deepala Durga Devi	11 Sep 2017	Order	—
EP/173/2014	Yatam Seetharayamayya vs Ankam Surya Lakshmi	02 Sep 2017	Order	—
OS/19/2016	State Bank of India vs Kaate Bapanamma	01 Sep 2017	Judgment	—
OS/197/2015	Penumaka Venkateswara Rao vs Margani Balaramakrishna	01 Sep 2017	Judgment	—
OS/365/2016	Janipireddy Vijaya Lakshmi Durga Bhavani vs Challabathula Venkata Ramana Venkanna	01 Sep 2017	Judgment	—
S.O.P/205/2016	Sanapala Venkata Sri Harsha vs Nil	01 Sep 2017	Order	—
EP/71/2016	Yalamachili Veera Venkata Satyanarayana vs Pithani Ramakrishna	31 Aug 2017	Order	—
OP/161/2015	Mummana Sri Venkata Srinivas vs Vsnil	31 Aug 2017	Order	—
OS/229/2012	Gurram Subbalakshmi vs Santhanaboyina Krishna Murthy	31 Aug 2017	Judgment	—
OS/279/2011	Gudise Suseela vs Sabbina Prasad	31 Aug 2017	Judgment	—
OS/299/2016	Bora Srinivasa Sitharam vs Valla Satuamarayana	31 Aug 2017	Other	—
EP/15/2016	Kapil Chit Funds Pvt ltd. vs G.Ratna Raju	30 Aug 2017	Order	—
OS/491/2016	Manukonda Vinod Raja vs Reddy Dhanalakshmi	30 Aug 2017	Judgment	—
OP/81/2015	Vannamreddy Arunakumari vs Vsnil	29 Aug 2017	Order	—
EP/39/2017	Pothula Venkateswararao vs Penupothula Hanumantha Rao and another	28 Aug 2017	Order	—
OS/33/2011	Sathinda syamala vs Union of India owning railways,	28 Aug 2017	Judgment	—
OS/199/2010	Pragallapati Surya Kameswararao vs Pragallapati Veera Venkata kata Subrahmanyam	26 Aug 2017	Other	—
OS/316/2011	Pragallapati Satya kameswara Rao vs Pragallapati Veeravenkata Subrahmanyam	26 Aug 2017	Judgment	—
OS/368/2009	Komalti Anajaneyulumma vs Akula Rambabu	24 Aug 2017	Judgment	—
OS/773/2012	Ganti Satyavathi vs Bonthu Bojji	24 Aug 2017	Judgment	—
IP/27/2011	Kala Veeraghavalu vs Manjegowda Navyasree	23 Aug 2017	Order	—
OS/827/2011	Smt Tamanampudi Naga Padmavathi Vani Manikyamba vs Surisetti Nageswararao	23 Aug 2017	Judgment	—
OS/281/2013	Smt Lanka Padmavathi vs Sheik Jani	22 Aug 2017	Judgment	—
OS/283/2013	Smt Lanka Padmavathi vs Kandregula Sankararao	22 Aug 2017	Judgment	—
OS/851/2012	Pilli Abbulu vs Madaboyina Chinnababu	22 Aug 2017	Judgment	—
OS/1/2014	Nainala Harichandra Prasad vs Chiddala Srirama Murthy	21 Aug 2017	Judgment	—
OS/509/2013	Cherukuri Ravi Teja vs Guthula Yesu Naidu,	21 Aug 2017	Judgment	—
SC/121/2015	AP State vs Mohammad Khader	21 Aug 2017	Judgment	—
SC/199/2015	AP State vs Vajrapu Praveen Kumar	21 Aug 2017	Judgment	—
OS/467/2011	Kimidi Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy vs Kimidi Surya Prabhavathi	18 Aug 2017	Judgment	—
OS/517/2008	Kovvuri Srinivasa reddy vs Kovvuri Praveena now remarried as Mallidi Praveena	18 Aug 2017	Judgment	—
OP/171/2016	Kollu Srinivas vs Nil	16 Aug 2017	Judgment	—
OS/215/2016	Yandam Venkateswara Rao vs Yandam Varalakshmi	16 Aug 2017	Judgment	—
OS/465/2012	Pinisetty Sambasiva Rao vs Jomb Gopalakrishna	16 Aug 2017	Judgment	—
OS/616/2011	Jamb Gopal vs Pinisetti Sambasiva rao	16 Aug 2017	Judgment	—
SC/121/2016	AP State vs Midiyam Muthayya	16 Aug 2017	Judgment	—
OS/167/2013	Sathi Ram Babu vs Nandaki Achayyamma	11 Aug 2017	Other	—
OS/613/2011	Kokkirigadda Tulasi Ratnam vs Tirumani Kasturi Bai	11 Aug 2017	Judgment	—
EP/65/2015	Karri Srinivasa Reddy vs Vemana Subrahmanyam	10 Aug 2017	Order	—
OS/371/2015	Vanapalli Srinivasa Rao vs Pachimola Satyanarayanamma	10 Aug 2017	Judgment	—
RCA/10/2014	Nandam Ramya vs Maniclherla Kantham	10 Aug 2017	Judgment	—
EP/12/2017	Kovvuri Lakshman Reddy vs Kothuri Bala Nageswara Rao	09 Aug 2017	Order	—
OS/317/2013	Velagala Veera Reddy vs Somabattula Prasana Kumar Zigma kumar	09 Aug 2017	Judgment	—
OS/357/2016	Mannem Subrahmanyam vs Penumatsa Kalyani	09 Aug 2017	Judgment	—
OS/358/2016	Devarakondaa Venkata Ramaraja Kumar vs Penumatsa Kalyani	09 Aug 2017	Judgment	—
EP/33/2017	Sathi Satyanarayana Reddy vs Sardar Quarsheed Anwar Pash	08 Aug 2017	Order	—
EP/34/2017	Mushini Anantha Lakshmi Padmavathi vs Pithani Satyanarayana and one another	08 Aug 2017	Order	—
EP/93/2016	Angadi Rama Tulasamma vs Guthula Satyanarayana	08 Aug 2017	Order	—
EP/211/2015	Medipudi Sathish Babu vs Nathipam Sesharatnam	08 Aug 2017	Order	—
OS/95/2017	Kondikatla Venkatarao vs Maddula Veera Venkata Satyanarayana	08 Aug 2017	Judgment	—
OS/97/2017	State Bank of Inida Korukonda Branc h Rep. by its Br.Manager Dwarampudi Venkata Krishna Reddy vs Kovvada Manga	08 Aug 2017	Judgment	—
OS/613/2015	State Bank of India vs Katti Sunitha Rani	08 Aug 2017	Judgment	—
OS/759/2011	Vasamsetti Balaji vs APEPDCL	08 Aug 2017	Judgment	—
OS/43/2013	Kasimkota Venkata Sai vs Mutyam Chandra Rao	07 Aug 2017	Judgment	—
OS/129/2017	Sri Reddy Ssiva Kumar vs Smt Mylapalli Prabhavathi	07 Aug 2017	Other	—
OS/43/2013	Kasimkota Venkata Sai vs Mutyam Chandra Rao	05 Aug 2017	Judgment	—
OP/183/2016	Kunam Raghuveera vs Nil	04 Aug 2017	Judgment	—
OS/143/2016	Kaki seshagiri vs Adapa Raju	04 Aug 2017	Judgment	—
EP/226/2011	B.V.S. Anjaneyulu vs Mandhapalli Saibaba	03 Aug 2017	Order	—
OS/183/2016	Karuturi Sri Lakshmi Bhupathi vs Kadali Srinivas	03 Aug 2017	Judgment	—
OS/189/2016	Karuturi Sri Lakshmi Bhupathi vs Pithani Prasad	03 Aug 2017	Judgment	—
OS/525/2012	Appari Muniyya vs Byvarapu Nageswara Rao	03 Aug 2017	Judgment	—
SC/219/2016	Sub Inspector of police vs Cherukuri Yesuratnam	03 Aug 2017	Judgment	—
OS/59/2012	Andhra Bank Credit Card Division vs Pendyala Chandrasekharam	02 Aug 2017	Judgment	—
OS/237/2016	Gonnuri Veera Veni vs Sandaka Satyanarayana	02 Aug 2017	Judgment	—
OS/327/2016	Vendra Gangisetti vs Kagithapu Veera Venkata Gowthami	02 Aug 2017	Judgment	—
EP/44/2016	Akula Satyanarayana vs Mangalagiri Durga Rao	01 Aug 2017	Order	—

Showing 100 of 234 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Sep 2017		44
Aug 2017		77
Jul 2017		97
Jun 2017		61
May 2017		1

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri CH.Raja Gopala Rao handled?

Sri CH.Raja Gopala Rao has handled 280 court orders since 2017 at PDJ Court Complex ,Rajahmundry. The average disposal rate is 60 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri CH.Raja Gopala Rao hear?

Based on available records, Sri CH.Raja Gopala Rao primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Sessions Cases, SCC) at PDJ Court Complex ,Rajahmundry.

Where is Sri CH.Raja Gopala Rao currently posted?

Sri CH.Raja Gopala Rao is posted as Prl. Sr. Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram at PDJ Court Complex ,Rajahmundry, East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Sri CH.Raja Gopala Rao available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Sri CH.Raja Gopala Rao are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri CH.Raja Gopala Rao dispose cases?

Sri CH.Raja Gopala Rao disposes approximately 60 cases per month, based on 280 orders handled over their tenure at PDJ Court Complex ,Rajahmundry.

Since when is Sri CH.Raja Gopala Rao serving?

Sri CH.Raja Gopala Rao has been serving at PDJ Court Complex ,Rajahmundry since 2017.

Case Types

OS 58%

EP 25%

OP 9%

SC 5%

IP 1%

S 1%

RCA 1%

SCC 0%

Posting History

May 2017 — Sep 2017

Prl. Sr. Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram · 280 orders

Other Judges at this Court

Smt. Sunitha Gandham

Prinicipal District And Sessions Judge,Rajamahendr...

2,245 orders

SRI R. Siva Kumar

I Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Rajamahendrava...

176 orders

S Uma Sunanda

Spl. Judge For SC And ST, Rajamahendravaram

577 orders

Smt. S.Sujatha

V Addl.District Judge-FTC, Rajamahendravaram

11 orders

Smt. B.Nirmala

VIII Addl. District and Session Judge- Cum- Spl....

13 orders

B Padma

Prl. Sr. Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram

0 orders

Sri K.Ratna Prasad

I Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram

0 orders

K.Prakash Babu

II Addl. Sr. Civil Judge,Rajamahendravaram

325 orders

← View all judges at PDJ Court Complex ,Rajahmundry