D. Naga Venkata Lakshmi

1

In the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division): Sattenapalli,

Present:-D. Naga Venkata Lakshmi,

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sattenapalli,

Wednesday, this the 03rd day of April, 2024,

Original Suit No.67 of 2018 Between:

01. Koganti Mastan Rao, S/o.Late Sita Ramaiah, Hindu, 59 years,

02. Kata Vijayalakshmi, W/o.Koteswara Rao, Hindu, 57 years,

Both are R/o.Medikonduru, Guntur District. ...Plaintiffs 1 & 2

And

01. Nelakuditi Venkata Rao (DIED),

02. Nelakuditi Srihari Babu, S/o.Late Venkata Rao, 60 years,

03. Nelakuditi Sakunthala, W/o.Late Venkata Rao, 80 years,

04. Mannava Renuka, W/o.Mohan Rao, 62 years,

All are R/o.Medikonduru, Guntur District. ...Defendants 1 to 3

This suit is coming on 05.03.2024 before me for arguments in the presence of Sri M. Jagannadham, Advocate for the

Plaintiffs and of Sri M.V. Chalapathi Rao, Advocate for the 2nd

Defendant and defendants 3 and 4 remained exparte, upon hearing and considering the material on record, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivers the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.This suit is filed by the plaintiffs for recovery of amount of

Rs.14,86,658/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 21% per annum, basing on the promissory note dated 23.03.2015 for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- executed by the first defendant and for costs.

02.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

a)The plaintiffs are the children of the Late Koganti Sita

Ramaiah, who died intestate on 30.03.2016, leaving behind him, the plaintiffs as legal heirs to him and to his estate. The 2 deceased first defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- from Koganti Sita Ramaiah on 23.03.2015 for his family expenses and executed promissory note on the even date in favour of

Koganti Sita Ramaiah in his own handwriting, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 21% per annum either to him or to his order on demand. In view of demands made by the plaintiffs, being the legal heirs of the deceased Koganti Sita

Ramaiah, the first defendant paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 05.04.2016 and made an endorsement on the back page of the suit promissory note, in his own handwriting. But he did not choose to repay the remaining debt amount and postponed the same on one pretext or the other. Then the plaintiffs got issued legal notice dated 14.03.2018, calling upon the deceased first defendant to discharge the debt with interest. The first defendant received the same on 15.03.2016, but kept quite, without giving reply notice. As he did not discharge the debt amount, the plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery of money.

b)During pendency of the suit, the first defendant died.

So, as per the orders in IA No.264 of 2021, dated 10.10.2022, the defendants 2 to 4 are added as legal representatives of the deceased first defendant and his estate. Therefore, the defendants 2 to 4 are liable to pay the suit amount out of the estate of the deceased first defendant.

03.The first defendant filed written statement by denying his liability. He took the following contentions:

3

a)The first defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.10,00,000/- from Koganti Sita Ramaiah, who is the father of the plaintiffs on 23.03.2015 and executed the suit promissory note in his own handwriting. Subsequently, the said Sita

Ramaiah died on 30.03.2016. Then the wife of Koganti Sita

Ramaiah i.e., K. Jaggamma approached the first defendant and demanded to discharge the debt, to meet the expenses of the ceremony of Koganti Sita Ramaiah. Accordingly, on 05.04.2016, the first defendant paid Rs.1,00,000/- to Koganti Jaggamma and the same was endorsed on the back side of the suit promissory note. On 09.04.2016 the first defendant approached the said K.

Jaggamma and her children i.e., the plaintiffs and calculated the interest to the amount borrowed by him. Then he paid the entire amount of Rs.11,11,000/- to K. Jaggamma on the same day,

before the elders. When the first defendant requested K.

Jaggamma to return the promissory note executed by him, she told that the same was misplaced in the house. She promised that she would return the same whenever it was traced. Then, on the request of the first defendant, K. Joggamma issued a receipt dated 09.04.2016 to the first defendant in respect of the payment made by him and put her thumb impression before the elders. So, the first defendant discharged the entire debt due under the suit promissory note.

b)After receipt of legal notice, the first defendant came to know that K. Jaggamma died. Then, the first defendant and his son (second defendant) approached the plaintiffs and 4 informed them about the discharge of the entire debt with interest and shown the copy of receipt dated 09.04.2016 and requested the plaintiffs to return the original promissory note.

Without returning the original promissory note, the plaintiffs said that the said Jaggamma is no way concerned to them and they demanded the first defendant to discharge the debt. They are fully aware about the discharge of the debt. But, the plaintiffs filed this suit for wrongful gain.

c)Further, the deceased Koganti Sita Ramaiah also married another person by name Hymavathi and he had one son by name Kumar Vishnu, aged about 16 years. The said

Hymavathi and her son Kumar Vishnu are also the legal representatives of the deceased Koganti Sita Ramaiah. The suit is not maintainable as those legal representatives are not added.

The plaintiffs filed this suit to harass the first defendant and for wrongful gain. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

04.Initially basing on the pleadings and documents, the following issues were settled on 14.03.2019, for trial:

01. Whether the defendant discharged the suit promissory note debt as contended by the defendant?

02. To what relief?

05.After impleadment of the defendants 2 to 4, the second defendant filed written statement with the same contents as that of the written statement of the first defendant.

06.The defendants 3 and 4 remained exparte to the suit proceedings.

5

07.In view of the adding of the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant, by considering the amended pleadings and written statement of the second defendant and the entire record, the issues are recasted on 31.03.2023 as follows:

01. Whether the first defendant discharged the debt under the suit promissory note as contended by the defendants?

02. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

03. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of the suit amount from the defendants 2 to 4 out of the estate of the deceased first defendant?

04. To what relief?

08.During the trial, the plaintiffs got examined the first plaintiff as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A5.

09.The second defendant got examined D.W.1 to D.W.3 and got marked Ex.B1.

10.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs argued that the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the documentary evidence as well as the admissions of the first defendant, clearly establish that the first defendant borrowed money and executed Ex.A1 suit promissory note in favour of the deceased Koganti Sita

Ramaiah. He further submitted that the defendants failed to establish the plea of discharge and as the plaintiffs are the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant, the suit is maintainable and that the defendants 2 to 4 are liable to discharge the debt due under the suit promissory note, out of 6 the estate of the deceased first defendant and thus, the suit may be decreed with costs.

11.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the second defendant argued that the evidence of D.Ws.1 to D.W.3 coupled with the Ex.B1-receipt clinchingly establishes that the first defendant had discharged the entire debt to the first wife of the deceased Koganti Sita Ramaiah, who is the mother of the plaintiffs and obtained Ex.B1 receipt and after death of Koganti

Jaggamma, the plaintiffs filed this suit for wrongful gain. He further argued that the admissions of P.W.1 clearly prove that the deceased Koganti Sita Ramaiah is also having other legal hairs and without adding those legal representatives, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable and that the plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief and thus, the suit may be dismissed with costs.

12.In view of these rival contentions, the entire evidence is perused.

13.Issue No.1:

It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the defendants 2 to 4, being the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant are liable to discharge the debt, due under the suit promissory note, executed in favour of their father i.e., the deceased-Koganti Sita Ramaiah. The defendants admitted the execution of this said promissory note and also the part payment of Rs.1,00,000/- made on 05.04.2016. They contended that the first defendant had already discharged the entire debt with 7 interest on 09.04.2016 to one Koganti Jaggamma, who is the mother of the plaintiffs and so they are not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiffs.

14.Since the defendants took the plea of discharge, it is their burden to establish the same. So, the defendants had initially adduced evidence and commenced the trial. The first defendant/sole defendant got examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked Ex.B1 receipt dated 09.04.2016. It discloses that

Koganti Jaggamma received Rs.11,11,000/- from the first defendant on 09.04.2016 in respect of the promissory note dated 23.03.2016 executed in favour of her husband K. Seetha

Ramaiah, for Rs.10,00,000/-. It further discloses about the earlier part payment endorsement of Rs.1,00,000/- dated 05.04.2016 and as the original promissory note was misplaced, she executed the said receipt in the presence of elders and affixed her thumb impression. It appears to be attested by one

Jada Srinivasa Rao and scribed by Yedlapalli Suresh Babu (D.W.3).

15.The evidence of D.W.1 is just replica of the written statement. After demise of the first defendant, the second defendant got examined himself as D.W.2 and also examined the scribe of Ex.B1 receipt as D.W.3. Their evidence goes in the same lines as that of D.W.1. In brief, their evidence goes to show that Koganti Sita Ramaiah died on 30.03.2016 and on 05.04.2016 D.W.1 paid Rs.1,00,000/- to Koganti Jaggamma, who 8 is the first wife of the deceased Sita Ramaiah as she demanded to discharge the debt to meet the expenses of the ceremony of

Koganti Sita Ramaiah and accordingly, D.W.1 made part payment endorsement (Ex.A2) on the back page of the suit promissory note (Ex.A1). Their evidence further shows that on 09.04.2016, the first defendant approached the said Jaggamma and paid the entire debt amount of Rs.11,11,000/- and as Jaggamma stated that the original promissory note was misplaced, he obtained

Ex.B1-receipt from Jaggamma in the presence of elders and so the defendants are not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiffs.

16.On the other hand, the plaintiffs also got examined the first plaintiff as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1 suit promissory note

dated 23.03.2016 and Ex.A2 part payment endorsement dated

05.04.2016 for Rs.1,00,000/-, during the cross examination of

D.W.1. They also got marked the office copy of legal notice

dated 14.03.2018 got issued by the plaintiffs to the first

defendant, postal receipt dated 14.03.2018 and postal acknowledgment addressed to the first defendant as Ex.A3 to

Ex.A5 respectively. As referred above, D.W.1 to D.W.3 categorically admitted the execution of Ex.A1 suit promissory note and Ex.A2 part payment endorsement by the first defendant. The contents of Ex.A3 to Ex.A5 also reflect the efforts made by the plaintiffs to demand the first defendant to discharge the debt, prior to the suit. The defendants also admitted the issuance of the said legal notice.

9

17.On coming to the oral evidence of P.W.1, it shows that the defendants are liable to pay the balance amount with interest due under the suit promissory note. Though, P.W.1 denied the contents of Ex.B1-receipt and discharge of debt, it was elicited in his evidence that Koganti Jaggamma is his mother and she was an illiterate. P.W.1 also admitted that himself and his mother demanded the first defendant to discharge the debt, to meet ceremony expenses of Seetha Ramaiah. Such admission of P.W.1 also supports the contentions of the defendant, regarding period of discharge.

18.As adverted above, D.W.1 to D.W.3 categorically deposed that the first defendant had discharged the entire debt amount to Koganti Jaggamma i.e., the first wife of Koganti Sita Ramaiah and obtained Ex.B1 receipt on 09.04.2016. Inspite of grueling cross examination of D.W.1 to D.W.3, no inconsistency or infirmity was elicited from the evidence of D.W.1 to D.W.3, to shake the credence of their testimony. The evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2, supported by an independent witness i.e., D.W.3, who scribed Ex.B1 receipt is found to be consistent, reliable and corroborative, in all the material aspects. Thus, the court finds no reason to disbelieve their evidence, which proves the plea of discharge of the defendnat.

19.When such is the case, the burden shifts on to the plaintiffs to prove that the said receipt is a forged and fabricated document. Even though, P.W.1 deposed that he would send the 10 said receipt to the expert in order to prove that Ex.B1-receipt does not bear the thumb impression of his mother, no such step has been taken by the defendants.

20.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs argued that the defendants created Ex.B1 receipt with smudged impression, so, that there would not be an opportunity to compare the same by the expert. Except, giving suggestion to that effect, no effort was made by the plaintiffs to send Ex.B1 receipt to the finger print expert in order to elicit that the said receipt is a forged one.

In absence of such appropriate steps, the court is of the view that the self serving testimony of the P.W.1 is not sufficient to prove that Ex.B1 receipt does not bear the thumb impression of his mother Jaggamma and to discard the un shaken evidence of

D.W.1 to D.W.3.

21.At this juncture, it is relevant to note the admitted fact that

Koganti Sita Ramaiah was an agriculturist and he is close friend of the deceased first defendant, who was a retired school Head

Master and there was cordial relationship between their families, till the filing of the present suit. It is also an undisputed fact that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the children of the deceased Koganti

Sita Ramaiah and that the mother of the plaintiffs i.e., Jaggamma died prior to the suit. As seen from the evidence of P.W.1, the said Jaggamma died on 23.11.2017. P.W.1 failed to give the reason as to why he waited till March, 2018 without even giving legal notice to the first defendant for discharge of debt during 11 life time of his mother. Be that as it may, the plaintiffs failed to elicit any amount of doubt in the version of D.W.1 to D.W.3, so also the contents of Ex.B1 receipt. Moreover, P.W.1 admitted in the cross examination that he filed the suit, basing on the promissory note mentioned in Ex.B1 receipt. Such admission clearly shows that the contents of Ex.B1 receipt reflect about the discharge of debt due under the Ex.A1 suit promissory note.

22.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs argued that the defendants did not choose to issue reply notice, to the Ex.A3 by informing about the discharge of debt and they did not even issue legal notice for return of the discharged promissory note.

But as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendants, the reply notice sent by the plaintiff was served on the first defendant on 15.03.2018 and the plaintiffs filed this suit on 21.03.2018 i.e., within the seven days from the date of issuance of legal notice. Further, the defendants have specifically pleaded that after receiving legal notice, the defendants 1 and 2 approached the plaintiff and shown the copy of discharge receipt and informed about discharge of the debt to

Jaggamma, but the plaintiffs gave evasive reply. The evidence of

D.W.1 and D.W.2 also reflect the same. Not even a suggestion was given to them, by disputing the said fact. Further more, the first defendant filed Ex.B1 receipt along with the written statement. So, it cannot be said that the same is fabricated subsequent to the suit.

12

23.On coming to the non issuance of the legal notice to the mother of the plaintiffs for return of the discharged promissory note, apparently, the first defendant obtained Ex.B1 receipt, as the acknowledgment for discharge of the debt. More over, there was cordial relationship between the families of both the parties, till the filing of the suit. If such is the case, merely because the defendants did not issue any legal notice for return of the discharged promissory note, which was said to have been misplaced, the contention of the defendants which is supported by an independent witness i.e., D.W.3 and documentary evidence i.e., Ex.B1 receipt, cannot be discarded. So, viewed from any angle, the court finds no reason to disbelieve the evidence of D.W.1 to D.W.3 and Ex.B1-receipt.

24.For the foregoing reasons, the court holds that the evidence of D.W.1 to D.W.3 coupled with the Ex.B1 receipt clinchingly establishes that the first defendant discharged the debt due under the Ex.A1-suit promissory note and he obtained

Ex.B1 receipt from the mother of the plaintiffs, as contended by them. The plaintiffs failed to disprove the same. Accordingly, this issue No.1 is answered in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs.

25.Issue No.2:

The defendants took specific plea in the written statement that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e., the second wife-Hymavathi and one Kumar Vishnu, who is the son of 13

Koganti Sita Ramaiah through Hymavathi. No rejoinder is filed by the plaintiffs by disputing such relationship. However, as elicited from the suggestions given to D.W.1 to D.W.3, Koganti

Jaggamma who is mother of the plaintiffs is the first wife of

Koganti Sita Ramaiah and their marriage was not dissolved.

Even though it was suggested to D.W.1 to D.W.3 that the said

Hymavathi and her son are not related to Koganti Sita Ramaiah,

P.W.1 categorically admitted during the cross examination that his father lived together with one Hymavathi even during the life time of his mother (Jaggamma). But it was elicited in the evidence of D.W.2 that the said Hymavathi is no more. So, non adding of Hymavathi would not effect the plaintiffs’ claim.

26.On coming to Kumar Vishnu, P.W.1, admitted that he knows

Kumar Vishnu since 20 years and that the said Kumar Vishnu is also one of the legal heirs of his father Koganti Sita Ramaiah, but he did not add him as the third plaintiff in the suit. It is noted that P.W.1 gave a new version that another promissory note which was executed in favour of his father, was given to Kumar

Vishnu towards his share along with other properties. But there is no pleadings to that effect. It is also elicited in the cross examination of P.w.1 that the said Kumar Vishnu is residing at

Hyderabad and that the deceased Seetha Ramaiah executed gift deed in favour of the said Vishnu, out of love and affection. It is needless to say that the son either legitimate or illegitimate, is entitled for share in the property/estate of his Hindu father. So, 14 the presence of said Kumar Vishnu being the son of the deceased K. Seetha Ramaiah is also necessary for better adjudication of the matter.

27.Apart from this, it is pertinent to note that the plaintiffs have filed this suit for recovery of debt of K. Seetha Ramaiah as legal representatives of the deceased original creditor/i.e.,

Koganti Sita Ramaiah, without filing succession certificate, as mandated under section 214 (1( (b) (iii) of Indian succession act.

Inspite of the specific plea of the defendants regarding presence of other legal representatives of the deceased K. Seetha

Ramaiah, the plaintiffs did not even add all the legal heirs or representatives of their father. So, viewed from any angle, the court holds that the suit is not maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary parties. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs.

28.Issue Nos.3 and 4:

In view of the findings in issue Nos.1 and 2, the court holds that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the first defendant is liable to discharge the debt due under the suit promissory note and the defendants are able to establish their plea of discharge.

So, the court holds that the plaintiffs are not entitled for recovery the suit amount from the defendants 2 to 4 out of the estate of the deceased first defendant or any other relief. Accordingly, these issues are answered in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs.

15

29.In the result, suit is dismissed, with costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 03rd day of April, 2024.

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Sattenapalli. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For Plaintiffs:

P.W.1-Koganti Mastan Rao.

For Defendants:

D.W.1-Nelakuditi Venkata Rao, D.W.2-Nelakuditi Srihari Babu, D.W.3-Yadlapalli Suresh Babu.

Exhibits Marked For Plaintiffs:

Ex.A1-Promissory note dated 23.03.2016 for Rs.10,00,000/-, Ex.A2-Part payment endorsement dated 05.04.2016 for Rs.1,00,000/-, Ex.A3-Office copy of legal notice dated 14.03.2018, Ex.A4-Postal receipt dated 14.03.2018, Ex.A5-Postal acknowledgment addressed to the 1st defendant.

For Defendants:

Ex.B1-Receipt dated 09.04.2016 for Rs.11,11,000/-.

C J (Sr. D)., SAP., // True Copy //

1

In the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division): Sattenapalli.

Present:-D. Naga Venkata Lakshmi,

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sattenapalli,

Wednesday, this the 10th day of April, 2024,

HMOP No.17 of 2024

Between:

01. Rayapati @ Mandadi Nagamalleswari, W/o.Nagaraju, D/o.Mandadi Bhadraiah, Housewife, Hindu, 28 years, R/o.Kattamuru Village of Sattenapalli Mandal,

02. Rayapati Nagaraju @ Naga, S/o.Ramarao, Hindu, 32 years, R/o.Abbarajupalem village, Pedakurapadu Mandal,

Guntur District. ...Petitioners-1 and 2

And

- N I L - ...Respondent

This petition is coming on 08.04.2024 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Baggi Narasimha Rao, Advocate

for the Petitioners and Respondent – N I L -, upon hearing and

considering the material on record, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court makes the following:

O R D E R

01.This is a petition filed under Section 13 B of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioners/wife and husband performed on 02.04.2016 by mutual consent.

02.The brief averments of the petition are as follows:

a)The petitioners are the Hindus. They got married on 02.04.2016 at Abbarajupalem village of Pedakurapadu Mandal, as per Hindu caste and customs, in the presence of elders of both sides. At the time of marriage, the parents of the first petitioner gave Rs.1,50,000/- towards dowry and provided other 2 lanchanams besides land to an extent of Ac.4:00 cents. Soon after the marriage, the first petitioner joined with the second petitioner at his house in Abbarajupalem village, Pedakurapadu

Mandal. Their marriage was registered on 01.04.2012 vide

Serial No.23 of 2022 of Volume No.8 and page No.26 of Joint Sub

Registrar, Pedakurapadu. The petitioners are blessed with two children namely Thanvisri and Harshith Chowdary, aged about 7 years and 5 years respectively.

b)The first petitioner has discontinued MCA course. The second petitioner completed MBA. They lived happily for four years at Kattamuru village. Due to Covid-’19 pandemic they came to Abbarajupalem village and lived there till August, 2021.

Thereafter, some disputes and misunderstandings arose between them, for which they developed aversion against each other and could not lead marital life. Then the first petitioner left the house of the second petitioner on the ground that her father died. Since then she has been residing at Kattamuru village.

Later, the second petitioner went to Denmark for job. The first petitioner did not co-operate with the second petitioner to go to

Denmark. Both the petitioners tried to reconcile their differences with the intervention of the elders and well wishers, they could not do so. The marriage between the petitioners has been irretrievably broken, beyond reconciliation.

c)The petitioners have been living separately since 01.09.2021. The efforts made by the elders of both the petitioners, became futile, as the petitioners expressed that they 3 are not willing to live together. So, they decided to obtain divorce with mutual consent. No criminal case or maintenance or DVC case was filed by the first petitioner against the second petitioner and his family members. Both the petitioners exchanged their goods and belongings including the jewelery.

They assured that they would not make rival claims in respect of their personal belongings and immovable property.

d)The second petitioner agreed to give an amount of

Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees eighteen lakhs only) to the first petitioner towards permanent alimony. The second petitioner had already given an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) to the first petitioner and deposited Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs only) in the national bank in the name of children of both spouses with a condition that the first petitioner can withdraw the same after completion of divorce and maintenance cases. The first petitioner accepted for the same and also agreed to relinquish of her rights against the second petitioner. She further agreed to brought up the children and to allow the second petitioner and his parents, to see the minor children. The second petitioner further agreed to register the land at Pedakurapadu village to an extent of Ac.1:50 cents each to the minor children i.e., total extent of Ac.3:00 cents represented by the second petitioner as guardian. The first petitioner agreed for the same. So, they approached the court for dissolution of the marriage.

4

03.The matter was posted to 16.08.2024, i.e., after expiry of six months from the date of filing petition. But both petitioners appeared before the Court prior to that date and filed an application to advance the matter and the same was allowed.

Further, as per orders in IA No.215 of 2024 dated 08.04.2024 the cooling period of six months, is waived as prescribed under section 13-B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Both of them reported that there is no change in their decision to obtain divorce by mutual consent.

04. In support of their contentions, the petitioners 1 and 2 got examined themselves as P.W.1 and P.W.2 respectively and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. Ex.P1 is the wedding card of the petitioners dated 02.04.2016, Ex.P2 is the marriage photograph of the petitioners, Ex.P3 is the marriage certificate dated 01.04.2022 issued by the Registrar of Marriage, Pedakurapadu,

Ex.P4 is the compared copy of Aadhaar card of the first petitioner (compared with original) and Ex.P5 is the compared copy of Aadhaar card of the second petitioner (compared with original).

05.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

06.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the petitioners are entitled for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent under section 13 B of Hindu

Marriage Act, 1956, as prayed for?

5

07.POINT:

The Petitioners seek to dissolve the marriage between them by mutual consent under section 13 B of Hindu Marriage

Act, 1955. So, it is the burden of the petitioners to establish that they are legally wedded couple and they have been living separately for a period of more than six months or more and that they have mutually agreed for dissolution of marriage, as they have not been able to live together.

08.To prove the same, the petitioners 1 and 2 got examined themselves as P.W.1 and P.W.2 respectively. The evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 2 clinchingly shows that they got married on 02.04.2016 at Abbarajupalem village of Pedakurpadu Mandal, as per Hindu, rites and customs and their marriage was consummated. Their marriage was registered on 01.04.2022 vide Sl. No.23 of 2022 volume No.8, page No.26 at Joint Sub-

Registrar, Pedakurapadu. During their wedlock, they are blessed with two children and after leading marital life for seven years, they felt unhappy with their marital relationship and unable to live together due to personal problems and non consonance of understandings. Their evidence further shows that they felt that it is not possible for them to lead marital life for a long time from 01.09.2021 and then the elders and relatives of both the petitioners intervened and tried their level best to settle the disputes between the petitioners, but their attempts became futile. Their evidence also shows that as there is no chance of 6 reunion, the elders advised the petitioners to obtain divorce by mutual consent. It is also apparent from their evidence that the efforts made by the elders of both sides for reunion became futile and as there is no chance or reunion, both the petitioners, with the intervention of the elders and relatives, decided to dissolve their marriage in a cordial manner and by mutual consent and so, they approached the Court praying that their marriage may be dissolved by way of divorce.

09.Apparently, the petitioners presented the present petition on 09.02.2024 i.e., after eight years from the date of marriage and they have been residing separately since 01.09.2021 i.e., for more than six months or above even by the time of filing petition. As per orders in IA No.215 of 2024 dated 08.04.2024 the cooling period of six months, is waived as prescribed under section 13-B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act. There is no withdrawal of the petition by the petitioners. They stated that there is no change in their decision for divorce with mutual consent. Hence, having regard to the petition averments and the above circumstances, as the petitioners 1 and 2 are living separately for a period of more than six months and they have not been able to live together and as they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved and both the petitioners settled their disputes and claims, towards permanent alimony of the first petitioner and children, the Court is satisfied that the marriage was solemnized between the petitioners 1 and 2 and 7 the averments made in the petition are true and it is just and proper to dissolve their marriage. Accordingly, point is answered.

10.In the result, petition is allowed and the marriage between the petitioners 1 and 2 dated 02.04.2016 is hereby dissolved under section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act and there shall be a decree of divorce on mutual consent between the petitioners. No costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 10th day of April, 2024.

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Sattenapalli.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Petitioners:For Respondent: - N I L -

P.W.1-Rayapati @ Mandadi Nagamalleswari, P.W.2-Rayapati Nagaraju.

Exhibits Marked

For Petitioners:For Respondent: - N I L -

Ex.P1-Wedding card of the petitioners dated 02.04.2016, Ex.P2-Marriage photograph of the petitioners, Ex.P3-Marriage certificate dated 01.04.2022, Ex.P4-Copy of Aadhaar card of the first petitioner (compared with original), Ex.P5-Copy of Aadhaar card of the second petitioner (compared with original).

C J (Sr. D)., SAP., // True Copy //

1

In the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division): Sattenapalli,

Present:-D. Naga Venkata Lakshmi,

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sattenapalli,

Wednesday, this the 03rd day of April, 2024,

HMOP No.01 of 2023

Between:

Kamparaju @ Balaraju Sireesha, W/o.Venkateswara Raju, D/o.Kamparaju Srinivasa Raju, 22 years, R/o.D. No.2-74,

Rudravaram, Atchampet Mandal, Guntur District. ...Petitioner

And

Balaraju Venkateswara Raju, S/o.Ramachandra Raju, Hindu, 25 years, R/o.Reddychaerla Village, Komarolu Mandal,

Prakasam District. ...Respondent

This petition is coming on 02.04.2024 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Kolla Venkateswara Rao, Advocate

for the Petitioner and of Sri A. Venkateswarlu, Advocate for the

Respondent, upon hearing and considering the material on record, having stood over for consideration till this day, this

Court makes the following:

O R D E R

01.This is a petition filed under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner/wife and the respondent/husband on the ground of cruelty.

02.The brief averments of the petition are as follows:

(a)The marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized at the house of the petitioner in Rudravaram

Village, Atchampet Mandal, Guntur District on 11.06.2020 in the presence of elders, well wishers and family friends of both parties, according to Hindu customs, rites and usage. At the time of marriage, the parents of the petitioner gave cash of 2

Rs.3,00,000/- towards dowry and presented one sovereign of gold ring to the respondent on his request. The parents of the petitioner also gave house hold articles worth Rs.50,000/- to the respondent and Rs.20,000/- towards ‘Adapaduchu Lanchanam’.

Immediately, after the marriage, the petitioner joined with the respondent at Reddicherla village on 12.06.2020. On the same day, the respondent told that he is doing job as a manager in

NEOGEN and he has no leave. So, the respondent went to

Hyderabad along with the petitioner and lived for three days at

Hyderabad.

b)The petitioner was studying B.Tech, by the time of marriage. So, the respondent sent the petitioner to her parental house situated at Tudravaram village of Atchampet Mandal to attend the examination on 15.06.2020. The respondent used to visit the parental house of the petitioner. After completion of examinations, the petitioner again joined with the respondent at

Hyderabad. They lived happily for two months. But they are not blessed with any child. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that the respondent is having intimacy with another woman by name Raji. When the petitioner questioned the respondent about the same, the respondent and his mother

Venkata Lakshmi, sister Lakshmi Prasanna and brother-in-law

Srinivasa Rao harassed the petitioner both physically and mentally. On the instigation of the other family members, the respondent used to beat the petitioner in drunken state without any reason or fault on the part of the petitioner. The family 3 members of the respondent also abused the petitioner and demanded to get additional dowry from her parents. When the petitioner expressed her inability, the respondent and his family members necked out the petitioner from their house on 18.01.2021 by threatening that they will allow the petitioner only if she comes along with the additional dowry. Having no other go, the petitioner reached her parental house. Inspite of sincere efforts made by the petitioner both personally and through mediators by name Talatala Sathima Reddy and Gaddam

Anjaneyulu, the respondent bluntly refused to allow the petitioner into matrimonial home. Now the petitioner is residing at Rudravaram village of Muppalla Mandal, which is within the jurisdiction of this Court. Having lost hope of reunion, the petitioner filed this petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.

03.The respondent filed counter denying most of the contentions of the petitioner, except the matrimonial relationship. He took the following contentions:

The marriage of the respondent and the petitioner was performed without any formalities. The petitioner became pregnant, but she got aborted the same with the advise of her parents, without intimation to the respondent. The respondent is not having any bad habits. The petitioner used to quarrel with the respondent and his parents without any reason. The respondent never beat the petitioner. The respondent is the 4 supervisor of NEOGEN, but not the manager. The respondent spent money for the studies of the petitioner. Infact, the petitioner is not having interest to lead the marital life with the respondent. The parents of the petitioner also supported her and they abused the respondent in vulgar language. Further, the petitioner is having love affair with another boy. Even then the respondent agreed to marry the respondent. Now the petitioner is continuing the relationship with the said boy. The respondent is always ready to lead marital life with the petitioner. The parents of the petitioner are very poor. They have no capacity to give any dowry. The petitioner herself has no interest to lead marital life with the respondent. Hence, the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.

04.During enquiry, the petitioner got examined herself as

P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3.

05.The learned counsel for the respondent, reported no evidence on behalf of the respondent.

06.The learned counsel for the respondent reported that the respondent has no objection for granting of divorce.

07.Heard the arguments on both sides.

08.Now the point for consideration:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty?

5

09.POINT:

The Petitioner seeks to dissolve the marriage with the respondent on the ground of cruelty under section 13 (1) (ia) of

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. So, it is the burden of the petitioner to establish that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and she was subjected to cruelty by the respondent.

10.To prove the same, the petitioner got examined herself as

P.W.1 and got marked Lagnapatrika, Marriage photographs and compared copy of her Aadhar card as Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 respectively. Her evidence coupled with the Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 goes to show that her marriage was performed with the respondent on 11.06.2020, as per Hindu customs and usage. Her evidence also shows that her marriage was consummated, but she is not blessed with any children and after two months of leading marital life, she came to know that the respondent is having illegal intimacy with one Raji and when she questioned the same, the respondent and his family members harassed her both physically and mentally and finally, on 18.01.2021, the respondent and his family members necked out her from the matrimonial home by demanding for additional dowry and having no other go, she reached her parental house situated at

Rudravaram village of Atchampet Mandal i.e., within the jurisdiction of this court. Her evidence further shows that the efforts made by her both physically and mentally, became futile, as the respondent and his family members refused to allow her into her matrimonial home, without fulfillment of their illegal 6 demand of additional dowry and having lost hope of reunion, she approached the court for dissolution of the marriage, on the ground of cruelty.

11.The evidence of P.W.1 remains unchallenged. Not even a suggestion was given to P.W.1 by disputing the allegations leveled against the respondent. So, the Court finds no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1. It is needless to say that the acts of the respondent as reiterated by P.W.1 are nothing but treating the petitioner with cruelty. Even though, the respondent filed counter, did not enter into witness box by denying the allegations made by the petitioner. Such conduct shows that he has no interest to continue marital life with the petitioner. Thus, it is evident that there is no chance for reunion. Apparently, the petitioner is residing at Rudravaram village of Atchampet

Mandal, i.e., within the jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, the court holds that the petitioner, who is able to establish that the respondent treated her with cruelty, is entitled for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. Accordingly, point is answered in favour of the petitioner.

12.In the result, petition is allowed, and the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent held on 11.06.2020 is hereby dissolved by decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty under section 13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. No costs.

7

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 03rd day of April, 2024.

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Sattenapalli.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner:For Respondent:

P.W.1-Kamparaju @ Balaraju Sireesha. - N O N E -

Exhibits Marked

For Petitioner:

Ex.P1-Lagnapathrika of the petitioner dated 11.06.2020, Ex.P2-Marriage photographs of the petitioner (four in number), Ex.P3-Copy of Aadhaar card of the petitioner (Compared with original).

For Respondent: - N I L -

C J (Sr. D)., SAP., // True Copy //

1

In the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division): Sattenapalli.

Present:-D. Naga Venkata Lakshmi,

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sattenapalli,

Monday, this the 08th day of April, 2024

HMOP No.93 of 2022

Between:

Sayampu @ Jagarlamudi Aruna, W/o.Murali, D/o.Sayampu Koteswara Rao, Hindu, 36 years, Housewife, R/o.Machavaram

Post and Mandal, Guntur District ...Petitioner

And

Jagarlamudi Murali, S/o.Durgaiah, Hindu, 44 years, Business, R/o.Dhulipalla Village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Guntur District.

...Respondent

This petition is coming on 04.04.2024 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Ullam Seshagiri Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri D. Bapaiah Chowdary, Advocate for the Respondent, upon hearing and considering the material on record, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivers the following:

O R D E R

01.This is a petition filed under Section 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of the marriage dated 15.03.2002 between the petitioner/Wife and the respondent/husband on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

02.The brief averments of the petition are as follows:

a)On 15.03.2002 the marriage of the petitioner was performed with the respondent at Machavaram village and Mandal,

Guntur District, as per Hindu customs and usage. After the marriage, the petitioner joined with the respondent at Dhulipalla village of

Sattenapalli Mandal. Their marriage was consummated. They led happy marital life for about ten years and blessed with two children namely Naga Lakshmi and Gopi Chand, aged about 18 and 15 years respectively. Subsequently, the respondent got addicted to bad vices 2 like drinking alcohol and gambling and started to harass the petitioner both physically and mentally, by demanding to get more money from her parents to meet his bad vices. The respondent also neglected the petitioner.

b)While so, on 10.04.2012, the respondent and his family members cruelly beat the petitioner and necked out her from the house along with the children, by demanding to get more money from her parents. Having no other go, the petitioner reached her parents house. Since then, she has been residing at her parental house. She sent mediators for reunion, but the respondent did not heed their words and refused to receive the petitioner into the matrimonial fold.

Having waited for all these years, the petitioner lost hope of reunion and so she approached the court for dissolution of the marriage.

03.On receipt of notice, the respondent appeared and engaged counsel. But inspite of being given several opportunities, the respondent did not file counter. So, his right to file counter was forfeited on 24.03.2024.

04. During enquiry, the petitioner got examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3.

05.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the entire record.

06.Now the point for consideration is:

01.Whether the petitioner is entitled for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty, as prayed for?

02.Whether the petitioner is entitled for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of desertion, as prayed for?

3

07.The Petitioner seeks to dissolve the marriage with the respondent on the grounds of cruelty and desertion under section 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. So, it is the burden of the petitioner to establish that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and that the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty and also deserted her for more than two years from the date of petition, without any reasonable excuse.

08.POINTS:

To prove her contention, the petitioner got examined herself as

P.W.1, which is just replica of the petition. She also got marked the wedding card of the petitioner and respondent, dated 15.03.2002, family photograph of the petitioner and the respondent and compared copy of Aadhaar card of the petitioner as Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 respectively.

The evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the contents of Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 goes to show that her marriage was performed with the respondent on 15.03.2002, as per the Hindu customs and usage. Her evidence further shows that after the marriage, she joined with the respondent at Dhulipalla village of Sattenapalli Mandal i.e., within the jurisdiction of this court and led marital life for ten years and got blessed with two children. Her evidence also shows that after leading marital life for ten years, the respondent being addicted vices, subjected her to cruelty both physically and mentally, by demanding to get money from her parents to meet his vices and finally on 10.04.2012, the respondent and his family members beat her and necked out her along with the children from the matrimonial home by demanding to get money from her parents and since then she has been residing with her parents and that her sincere efforts made for reunion, became futile, as the 4 respondent refused to take her into the matrimonial fold and thus, she filed this petition for dissolution of the marriage.

09.The petitioner also examined her father as PW2. His evidence also goes in the same lines as that of PW1. Since the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 remains unchallenged, the Court finds no reason to disbelieve the same. Their unchallenged evidence clearly shows that the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty and further it is evident that the respondent voluntarily deserted P.W.1 on 10.04.2012, without any reasonable cause i.e., for more than ten years from the date of filing petition i.e., 18.04.2022 and there is no chance of reunion. As referred above, the respondent, who is having knowledge about this proceedings, did not even file counter by denying the contentions of the petitioner. In these circumstances, the Court feels that it is just and proper to dissolve the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. Accordingly, the points are answered in favour of the petitioner.

10.In the result, petition is allowed and the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent held on 15.03.2002, is hereby dissolved by decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion under section 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. No costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 08th day of April, 2024.

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Sattenapalli.

5

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner:For Respondent:

P.W.1-Sayampu @ Jagarlamudi Aruna, - Exparte - P.W.2–Sayimpu Koteswara Rao.

Exhibits Marked

For Petitioner:

Ex.P1-Wedding card of the petitioner dated 15.03.2002, Ex.P2-Family photograph of the petitioner and respondent, Ex.P3-Aadhaar card of the petitioner(Compared with original).

For Respondent: - N I L -

C J (Sr. D)., SAP., // True Copy //

1

In the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division): Sattenapalli.

Present:-D. Naga Venkata Lakshmi,

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sattenapalli,

Monday, this the 08th day of April, 2024,

HMOP No.75 of 2023

Between:

Pachalla Kotesh, S/o.Laazar, Hindu, 31 years, R/o.D. No.3-6A, Sivalayam Road, Gollapalem of Repudi Village, Phirangipuram

Mandal, Guntur District. ...Petitioner

And

Pachalla Divya @ Divya Teja, W/o.Kotesh, D/o.Sundra Rao, Hindu, 28 years, R/o.d. No.10-312, Vignanapuram,

Phirangipuram Mandal, Guntur District. ...Respondent

This petition is coming on 03.04.2024 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Y. Seetha Rami Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and Respondent, having remained exparte and upon hearing and considering the material on record, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivers the following:

O R D E R

01.This is a petition filed under Section 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner/husband and the respondent/wife on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

02.The brief averments of the petition are as follows:

On 04.05.2015 the marriage of the petitioner was performed with the respondent at the house of the petitioner in Repudi village of

Phirangipuram Mandal, as per the Hindu customs and usage. Their marriage was consummated. They lived happily at Gollapadu of

Repudi for about six months. Thereafter, the respondent started to ill treat the petitioner without any reason, by saying that the petitioner is not suitable match to her. The respondent used to insult the petitioner

before his family members and elders. On 12.12.2015, the respondent

2 went away to her parental house, without knowledge and consent of the petitioner or his parents. The efforts made by the petitioner for reunion, became futile, as the respondent and her parents abused the petitioner and mediators. There is no cohabitation between the couple for the last eight years. There is no chance of reunion. So, the petitioner is constrained to file the petition for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

03.Despite receipt of notice, the respondent remained exparte to the proceedings on 25.03.2024.

04. During enquiry, the petitioner got examined P.W.1 and got marked

Ex.P1 to Ex.P3.

05.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the entire record.

06.Now the points for consideration are:

01.Whether the petitioner is entitled for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty, as prayed for?

02.Whether the petitioner is entitled for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of desertion, as prayed for?

07.The Petitioner seeks to dissolve the marriage with the respondent on the grounds of cruelty and desertion under section 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. So, it is the burden of the petitioner to establish that the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and that the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty and also deserted him from more than two years preceding the date of petition, without any reasonable excuse.

3

08.POINTS:

To prove his contentions, the petitioner got examined himself as

P.W.1 and got marked his wedding card dated 04.05.2015, marriage photographs and his Aadhar card as Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 respectively. The evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the contents of Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 clearly show that his marriage was performed with the respondent on 04.05.2015, as per Hindu customs and usage and that himself and the respondent led marital life at Repudi village for about six months. His evidence further shows that after six months of the marriage, the respondent developed aversion and started to ill treat him by insulting him and by saying that he is not suitable match to her and finally on 12.12.2015, the respondent left the matrimonial home without his consent and knowledge and that his efforts made for reunion, became futile, as the respondent did not change her attitude and thus, he approached the court for dissolution of marriage.

09.Since the evidence of P.W.1 remains unchallenged, the Court finds no reason to disbelieve the same. His unchallenged evidence clearly shows that the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty and further, it is evident that the respondent left his society on 12.12.2015 without any reasonable cause and deserted him from more than eight years prior to the date of filing petition i.e., 20.06.2023 and there is no chance of reunion. In these circumstances, the Court feels that it is just and proper to dissolve the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the petitioner.

4

10.In the result, petition is allowed and the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent held on 04.05.2015, is hereby dissolved by decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion under section 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. No costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 08th day of April, 2024.

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Sattenapalli.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner:For Respondent:

P.W.1-Pachalla Kotesh. - Exparte -

Exhibits Marked

For Petitioner:

Ex.P1-Wedding card of the petitioner dated 04.05.2015, Ex.P2-Marriage photographs of the petitioner (two in number), Ex.P3-Aadhaar card of the petitioner.

For Respondent: - N I L -

C J (Sr. D)., SAP., // True copy //