Sri. D.V. Nageswara Rao

1 OF 10

OS.NO. 120 OF 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE

AT HUZURABAD

Present:- Sri D. V. Nageswara Rao

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

HUZURABAD

Thursday, this the 9th day of November, 2023

O.S. No. 120 of 2018

Between:-

Vangala Thirupathi Reddy, s/o. Venkat Reddy, aged:40 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Kanukulagidda village of Huzurabad Mandal of Karimnagar District. …Plaintiff.

Vs

1. Katanguri Savithri Devi, w/o. Late Krishna Reddy, aged: 64 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Balasamudram of Hanumkonda town and mandal, Warangal district.

2. Kakumanu Shailaja Reddy, w/o. K. Pratap Reddy, D/o Late Katanguri Krishna Reddy, Occ: housewife, R/o. Flat NO.402, Rachana Residency, Balasamudram, Hanumakonda, Warangal. … Defendants.

.. O ..

This suit came before me on 1-11-2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. K. Amarender Reddy, Counsel for the Plaintiff and Sri. K. Sudhakar, Counsel for the Defendants; and upon perusing the material papers on record; and on hearing both sides; and having stood over for consideration till day, this Court delivered following :-

J U D G M E N T

The plaintiff filed this suit against the Defendants for recovery of an amount of Rs.11,00,000/- basing on a demand promissory note, Dated 25-6- 2014.

2 OF 10

OS.NO. 120 OF 2018

2. The brief averments of the plaint that are required for just disposal of suit are that out of acquittance, the Defendant NO.1 borrowed an amount of

Rs. 20,00,000/- on 25-6-2014 and executed two promissory notes for

Rs.11,00,000/- and for Rs.9,00,000/- agreeing to repay within a short period while the Defendant NO.2 who is none other than the daughter of the

Defendant NO.1 stood as surety for the loan obtained by the Defendant NO.1; and that on his persistent requests, the Defendant NO.1 issued a cheque bearing NO.995504, Dated 16-9-2016 for Rs.11,00,000/-, however, on presentation for collection of amounts, the said cheque was dishonoured for the reason of insufficient funds and therefore, he filed a complaint vide CC

NO.10 of 2017 on the file of I Additional JFCM, Huzurabad; and ever after filing the said case, he requested the Defendants for repayment of debt amounts, but having made hallow promises, Defendants avoiding the same and hence the suit for recovery of amounts.

3. On the other hand, denying the very acquaintance with the plaintiff and borrowal of loan amount on execution of promissory note, and demands made by the plaintiff for repayment of loan amounts, and also denying issuance of cheque, the Defendants filed written statement contending that in a transaction with Md. Yasin, Advocate and Md. Ramzan, the Defendant NO.1 gave a blank signed cheque bearing NO.995504 and promissory note for security purpose under a memorandum of understanding to clear the disputes, however, the said two persons neither cleared off the disputes in terms of memorandum of understanding nor returned the blank signed cheque and 3 OF 10

OS.NO. 120 OF 2018

promissory note in spite of the demands made by the Defendant NO.1 for the last (5) years; and that having acquaintance with the said MD. Yasin and MD.

Ramzan, in their collusion, the plaintiff filed this suit and also C.C.NO.10 of 2017 to harass them and that after receipt of summons, the Defendant NO.1 approached the police, Subedari and lodged a report on which a case in

Cr.NO.42 of 2019 was registered against the plaintiff, MD. Yasin and MD.

Ramzan for the offense under section 420 of IPC and same was challenged by

MD. Yasin by filing a criminal petition bearing NO.932 of 2019 for quashment of

Crime NO.42 of 2019 and same is pending on the file of the Hon’ble High Court; and it is thus, in collusion with one another, the plaintiff created the promissory note and cheque and filed false cases; and that the suit is barred by limitation.

For the afore grounds, Defendants prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, on 17-9-2022, this court settled the following issues for trail; (1). whether the suit promissory note, Dated 25-6-2014 for Rs.11,00,000/-,true, valid and supported by consideration ? (2) if so, whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amounts ? (3) to what relief ?

5. In order to substantiate his case, the plaintiff himself alone is examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.A-1 to A-5. On the other hand, the

Defendant NO.1 herself alone is examined as DW-1 and got marked Ex.B-1 to

B-6 on their behalf. After closure of trail proceedings, the counsel for plaintiff and Defendant submitted their oral arguments.

4 OF 10

OS.NO. 120 OF 2018

6. Referring the pleadings and evidence on record, the learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the Defendant failed to elicitate anything in cross examination of PW-1. As regard to Ex.B-2 to B-6, the learned counsel submitted that those are depositions and therefore, the same are liable to be rejected from consideration. As per the learned counsel, having set up a case on memorandum of understanding, the Defendant failed to adduce any evidence and contrary raised a point on limitation. According to the learned counsel, as the Defendant issued Ex.A-3 to discharge the legal liability covered by Ex.A-1, the limitation is extended from the date of Ex.A-3 and therefore, the suit is within limitation. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in a case of Rajesh

Kumari Vs Prem Chand Jain, AIR 1998 Delhi 80. According to the learned counsel, the Defendant failed to rebut the presumption under Section 118 of

Negotiable Instruments Act and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount.

7. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the Defendants argued across the bench to the effect that having relied on Ex.A-1, promissory note,

Dated 24-6-2014 the plaintiff filed the suit in the year 2018 and therefore, the

suit is barred by limitation. Referring to Ex.A-3, the learned counsel argued that even though, the cheque limit is only for Rs.10,00,000/-, the plaintiff relied on

Ex.A-3 which showing the amount more than the limit of the amount, however, managing the bank authorities, the plaintiff got obtained the returned memo and that apart, Ex.A-3 is not a cheque, but it is a mere bill of exchange and 5 OF 10

OS.NO. 120 OF 2018

therefore, no suit would lie basing on Ex.A-3. It is argued that having failed to prove his case, PW-1 gave contradictory statement in his evidence. According to the learned counsel, the plaintiff has no financial capacity and same is well supported by pleadings in the present suit and in C.C.NO.10 of 2017. According to the learned counsel, in collusion with third parties, the plaintiff created Ex.A- 1 and A-2 basing on which, filed the suit and criminal case only to harass the

Defendant NO.1 who is an aged old lady and made her to round to the court unnecessarily. For the afore grounds, the learned counsel for the Defendant prayed to dismiss the suit.

8.ISSUE No.1 and 2: Since these two issues are inter-related to one another, both of them are taken up together for discussion. Referring to ExA-1 to A-3, the case of the plaintiff as PW-1 is that having borrowed the amount, the Defendant NO.1 executed a promissory note as in Ex.A-1 promising to repay within a short period while the Defendant NO.2 signed as surety for the

Defendant NO.1 as in Ex.A-2 and that on his persistent demands for repayment of debt, the Defendant NO.1 issued a cheque bearing NO.995504 on 16-9-2016 as in Ex.A-3. The oral evidence of PW-1 is well supported by Ex.A-1 to A-3. On the contrary, while denying the borrowal and execution of Ex.A-1 and issuing

Ex.A-3, the case of the Defendant NO.1 is that in a transaction with MD. Yasin and MD. Ramzan she issued blank signed cheque and a promissory note under memorandum of understanding for settlement of disputes, however, they failed to settle the disputes and also failed to return the blank cheque and promissory note and taking advantage of the same, they got filed the suit and C.C.NO.10 6 OF 10

OS.NO. 120 OF 2018

of 2017. Having set up such defenses, admitting her signatures on Ex.A-1 and

A-3, in her cross examination, DW-1 herself categorically stated that no memorandum of understanding was executed with MD. Yasin and MD. Ramzan as alleged in her written statement as well as in her chief examination affidavit.

This clear statement of DW-1 itself is sufficient to hold that she must have taken a formal plea for the sake of defense and made this court to believe the case of the plaintiff basing on the Ex.A-1 to A-3.

9. As regard to acquaintance between the parties, the case of the plaintiff is that out of acquaintance with the Defendants, he lent the amount and same is denied by the Defendants. However, the version of DW-1 in her cross examination made this court to believe the case of the plaintiff that there is acquaintance between the parties. In her cross examination, DW-1 stated that she does not know whether her husband sold a plot ad measuring 553 sq.

yards situated at Thirumalagiri village of Suryapet to plaintiff under sale-cum-

GPA vide Doc.NO.7971 of 2008, Dated 16-10-2008. However, inspite of ignorance, DW-1 denied that even though, the plaintiff is close acquaintance with their family since 2008, she is deposing false intentionally. From the afore inconstancies in the evidence of DW-1, it must be held that the plaintiff proved the acquaintance with the Defendants since from the year 2008. In view of the afore facts and circumstances, the questioning on financial capacity of the plaintiff to lend amounts and elicitations on running financial business without license, is of no use for the defense put forth by Defendants for the first time in cross examination of PW-1.

7 OF 10

OS.NO. 120 OF 2018

10. On the limitation aspect, the case of the Defendants is that Ex.A-1 was allegedly executed on 25-6-2014 and the suit filed on 30-11-2018 is clearly barred by limitation. On the contrary, relying on a decision of the Hon’ble High

Court of Delhi in a case of Rajesh Kumari Vs Prem Chand Jain, AIR 1998 Delhi 80, the case of the plaintiff is that as the Defendant NO.1 issued cheque under

Ex.A-3, the plaintiff earned advantage of extension of period of limitation in terms of Section 19 of Limitation Act. In the said decision, the lower court held that a dishonour cheque can not be treated to be payment on account of debt within the meaning of Section 19 of the Limitation Act and hence the cheque would not extend or renew the period of limitation. When the said finding was challenged, referring Section 19 of the Limitation Act, his lordship, reversed holding that the payment by cheque having been accepted and the plaintiff having earned the advantage of extension of period of limitation, that advantage can not be wiped out or undone by the tortuous act of the

Defendant withholding the payment of the cheque and hence the suit can not be said to be barred by limitation. In the present case at hand, as already pointed out herein above, having set up a plea on memorandum of understanding, DW-1 in categorical terms stated that no memorandum of understanding was executed. In this view of the matter, relying on the ratio laid down in the case law cited by the plaintiff noted as above, it can be said that the question of limitation does not arise in this case and thus, the suit of plaintiff is not barred by limitation and hence, the contention of the Defendants is rejected.

8 OF 10

OS.NO. 120 OF 2018

11. Be that at it may, having contended that Ex.A-1 and A-3 are created and having admitted her signatures on both the documents, and also having stated that no memorandum of understanding was executed, the reasons best known, the Defendants have not adduced any evidence to disprove the genuineness or otherwise of Ex.A-1 to A-3 except relying on the judgment in

C.C. NO.10 of 2017 marked as in Ex.B-1 and Depositions marked as in Ex.B-2 to

B-6. It is settled law that the findings recorded by the criminal court are not binding on the civil court and therefore, no importance need to be given to

Ex.B-1. As regard to Ex.B-2 to B-6, those are the depositions of a witness in

C.C.NO.10 of 2017 and same are hit by provisions under Section 33 of the

Evidence Act. Therefore, Ex.B-2 to B-6 can not be considered and are liable to be rejected by invoking the powers conferred on court by virtue of provisions under Order 13 Rule 3 of CPC and accordingly, rejected. Having set up a specific defense as regard to memorandum of understanding to show as to how

Ex.A-1 and 3 came to the possession of the plaintiff, the Defendants failed to prove the same, and that apart, DW-1 herself stated that no memorandum of understanding was executed. From the afore discussion, it must be held that the plaintiff proved his case basing on Ex.A-1 to A-3 and therefore, issue NO. 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff.

12. ISSUE NO.3: By virtue of discussion made as above and findings arrived thereat in respect of issues NO.1 and 2, it must be held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount basing on Ex.A-1 to A-3. Accordingly, this court answered the issue NO.3.

9 OF 10

OS.NO. 120 OF 2018

13. In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs for an amount of Rs.11,00,000/- with subsequent interest at 12% PA on Rs.11,00,000/- from the date of suit and till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% PA till the date of realization.

Typed dictation to the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 9th day of October 2023.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-cum

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

HUZURABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

PW-1: Vangala Thirupathi ReddyDW-1:K.Savithri Devi

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex.A-1:Original promissory note dated: 25.06.2014 for Rs. 11,00,000/- Ex.A-2:Surety bond executed by defendant No.2 Ex.A-3:Certified copy of cheque bearing No. 995504, dt: 16.09.2016 for Rs.11,00,000/- Ex.A-4:Pahani copy for the 1427 Fasli year obtained from Mee Seva. Ex.A-5:Encumbrance Certificate, dt: 06.03.2018 issued by Joint Sub- Registrar, Warangal.

10 OF 10

OS.NO. 120 OF 2018

FOR DEFENDANTS

Ex.B-1:Certified copy of Judgment in CC.No. 10 of 2017 dt: 03.08.2023 on the file of I-Addl. JMFC, Huzurabad. Ex.B-2:Certified copy of chief examination affidavit of PW-1 filed in CC.N. 10 of 2017 dt: 26.3.2019 Ex.B-3:Certified copy of cross examination affidavit of PW-1 filed in CC.N. 10 of 2017 dt: 15.07.2019 Ex.B-4:Certified copy of Addl. Chief examination affidavit of PW-1 filed in

CC.No.10 of 2017 dt: 20.02.2022

Ex.B-5:Certified copy of further chief examination affidavit of PW-1 filed in

CC.No.10 of 2017 dt: 28.12.2022

Ex.B-6:Certified copy of further cross examination affidavit of PW-1 filed in

CC.No.10 of 2017 dt: 16.03.2022.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-cum

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

HUZURABAD.

Page No. 1 of 4 HMOP 149 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM ASST. SESSIONS

JUDGE AT : HUZURABAD.

PRESENT:- D.V.NAGESWAR RAO,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-cum,

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,HUZURABAD.

Friday, this the 10th day of November, 2023.

H.M.O.P.No. 149 OF 2022

Between:-

Neerati @ Koppula Shravya, w/o Koppula Anjaneyulu, D/o Mahender, age: 27 yrs, occ: household, r/o Presently residing at her parents house at H.No.4-125, Malapally, Singapur village of Huzurabad mandal of Karimnagar district. …Petitioner AND

Koppula Anjaneyulu, s/o Meshak, age: 41 yrs, occ: Business r/o II Ward Dopthula Colony, near Hanuman Mandir, Rampu, Rajura mandal, Chandrapur district, Maharashtra State.

...Respondent

PETITION U/SEC. 13(1) (ia) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955

This petition is coming before me 07.11.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.Linga Reddy, advocate for the petitioner and the respondent remained exparte; and having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

:: O R D E R ::

1.This petition is filed by the petitioner U/Sec.13 (1) (ia) of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking for decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent.

Page No. 2 of 4 HMOP 149 of 2022

2.The brief facts of the petition are that the marriage of petitioner and respondent was performed on 02.04.2016 at the parents house of petitioner Malapally, Singapur village of Huzurabad mandal of

Karimnagar district, as per Hindu caste and customs. After the marriage, she joined the conjugal society of the respondent and lived happily for some period only later the respondent used to ill treat and humiliate her by picking up quarrels with her in trivial issues and harassed her physically and mentally with a demand to bring

additional dowry of Rs. 1 lakh from her parents house. The respondent

started leading adulterous life with another woman and thereby not lead happy marital life with the petitioner and came to the house in drunken condition and beat her severely and necked out from his house in the month of March, 2019. in this regard several panchayths were held between them, in the said panchayath the elders advised the respondent that not to to demand additional dowry and look after her well, but he did not change his attitude and continued the same.

Hence the petitioner had no other alternative except to seek divorce against the respondent. Hence this petition.

3.The Respondent is set ex.parte.

4.Petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to

Ex.P.3 documents. No documents are marked on behalf of the respondent.

Page No. 3 of 4 HMOP 149 of 2022

5.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the Petitioner is entitled for decree of divorce, as prayed for?”

6.POINT:

The petitioner/husband was examined as PW1. P.W.1 stated that their marriage was solemnized on 02.04.2016 at the parents house of petitioner Malapally, Singapur village of Huzurabad mandal of

Karimnagar district, as per the Hindu caste and customs. Thereafter, disputes arose between them, for which elders advised them, but the respondent did not change his attitude. In such event, there is no chance to lead their happy marital life under one roof.

7. The evidence of P.W.1 is unchallenged. As per the evidence of

P.W.1 that after the marriage, disputes and differences arose between them and respondent necked out from his society for petty reasons. in this regard several panchayaths were conducted before the elders, but the respondent did not changed his attitude. The evidence of PW-1 is not challenged or disputed. For the afore said reason, it can be said that, it amounts to cruelty and the petitioner is entitled for divorce, on these grounds. Accordingly, this point is answered.

Page No. 4 of 4 HMOP 149 of 2022

8.In the result, this petition is allowed and the marriage took place between the petitioner and respondent dated 02.04.2016 is hereby dissolved, by way of decree of divorce. No order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 10th day of November, 2023.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE- cum -

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

HUZURABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PETITIONER:- FOR THE RESPONDENT:-

PW1: Neerati @ Koppula Shravya --None--

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PETITIONER:-

Ex.P-1: Marriage invitation card Ex.P-2: Marriage photograph (1). Ex.P-3: Aadhar card of petitioner.

FOR THE RESPONDENT:-

-Nil-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE- cum -

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

HUZURABAD.

Page No. 1 of 4

HMOP 31 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT : HUZURABAD.

PRESENT: D.V.NAGESWAR RAO,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HUZURABAD.

Monday, this the 6th day of November, 2023.

H.M.O.P.No. 31 OF 2023

Between:-

Erelli Varaprasad, s/o Sampath, age: 29 yrs, occ: Agriculture, r/o H.No. 3-41, SC Colony, Singapur village of Huzurabad mandal of Karimnagar district.

… Petitioner No.1 AND

Erelli @ Elkapally Premavani @ Prema, w/o Varaprasad, d/o Elkapally Sampath, age: 25 yrs, occ: Housewife, presently residing at H.No. 15-2-53, Keshavapur village of Jammikunta mandal of Karimnagar district.

...Petitioner No.2

PETITION U/SEC. 13-B OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955

This petition is coming before me on 03.11.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri N.Srinivas, counsel for petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2; and having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

:: O R D E R ::

This petition is filed by the petitioners 1 and 2 for divorce under

Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, on mutual consent.

2.The brief averments of the petition are that the marriage of both petitioners 1 and 2 was solemnized on 01.03.2017 at the parents house

Page No. 2 of 4

HMOP 31 of 2023

of Petitioner No.2 at Keshavapur village of Jammikunta mandal of

Karimnagar district, as per their caste and customs. Out of their wedlock, no issues were born to them. After marriage, both of them lived together for onee month only. Thereafter, some differences arose between them, for which elder advised them, but in-vain. In view of the circumstances, they have been living separately since 10.4.2019.

Hence, they decided to take mutual divorce and hence this joint petition is filed for divorce.

3.This petition was presented on 08.03.2023 and the petitioners

No.1 and 2 waited for mandatory period. The reconciliation talks were held, but failed. Both the petitioners stated they have not withdrawn the petition and represented that there is no chance for re-union and prayed for grant of divorce.

4.Both petitioners 1 and 2 were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 respectively and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 documents.

5.Now the point for determination is :

“ Whether the petitioners 1 and 2 are entitled to seek mutual

divorce, as prayed for” ?

6.POINT:-

The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 reveals that bitter misunderstandings took place between them, it became impossible for them to live under one roof, as husband and wife. Out of their wedlock,

Page No. 3 of 4

HMOP 31 of 2023

no issues were born to them. During the reconciliation talks also they did not turn up for amicable settlement and they have not withdrawn petition which is filed under Sec.13-B of H.M.Act for grant of divorce by mutual consent. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are willing to take divorce by mutual consent. In the above circumstances, this court is of the considered view that there are no chances of reunion of the petitioners and it is thus, they proved their case and they are entitled for the relief of dissolution of marriage by granting of decree of divorce by mutual consent. Accordingly, this point is answered.

7.In the result,this petition is allowed and the marriage took place between the petitioners No.1 and 2 dated 01.03.2017 is hereby dissolved by way of decree of divorce. No order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 6th day of November,

2023.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HUZURABAD.

Page No. 4 of 4

HMOP 31 of 2023

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PETITIONERS:

P.W.1 : Erelli Varaprasad P.W.2 : Erelli @ Elkapally Premavani @ Prema

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PETITIONERS:

Ex.P.1: Wedding invitation card Ex.P.2: Wedding Photographs (2) Ex.P.3: Aadhar card of petitioner No.1 Ex.P.4: Aadhar card of petitioner No.2

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HUZURABAD.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-ASSISTANT SESSIONS

JUDGE AT HUZURABAD

Present :- Sri D.V. Nageswar Rao,

Senior Civil Judge-Cum-Asst. Sessions Judge,

Huzurabad.

Thursday, this the 9th day of November, 2023.

H.M. O.P. NO. 36 OF 2023.

Between :

Gougula Sudheer S/o Rajaiah, age: 36 years, Occ: Coolie, r/o H.No. 19-29/1, SW Colony, LIC Office, Huzurabad village, Huzurabad mandal of Karmnagar District.

… Petitioner. A N D

Gogula @ Battula Sravanthi W/o Gogula Sudheer D/o Battula Sambaiah, age: 30 years, presently residing her parents house at H.No. ST2-149, Bus stand Colony, Godavarikhani village of Ramagundam mandal and Peddapalli District.

… Respondent.

Sub :- Petition fled under Sec. 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act.

This petition is coming before me on today for fnal hearing in the presence of Sri R. Madhu Babu, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri B. Kaladhar, Advocate for the respondent; and having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following :- :: O R D E R ::

Both parties are present. Reporting that the matter is settled in the presence of elders, both of them fled a memo and also made such endorsement on the petition itself and duly identifed by the counsel for petitioner. In view of the same, petition is dismissed for default as not pressed in view of settlement.

Written and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 9th day of November, 2023.

Senior Civil Judge-Cum-

Asst. Sessions Judge, Huzurabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-ASSISTANT SESSIONS

JUDGE AT HUZURABAD

Present :- Sri D.V. Nageswar Rao,

Senior Civil Judge-Cum-Asst. Sessions Judge,

Huzurabad.

Monday, this the 6th day of November, 2023.

H.M. O.P. NO. 137 OF 2021.

Between :

Lokini Venkatesh S/o Sammaiah, age 30 years, Occ: Labour, r/o H.No. 3-37, Pothireddypet village of Huzurabad mandal of Karimnagar District.

… Petitioner. A N D

Lokini @ Pallakonda Ashwani @ Padmaja W/o Lokini Venkatesh, age 27 years, Occ: Private Employee, r/o H. No 3-37, Pothireddypet village of Huzurabad mandal of Karimnagar District, presently residing at H.No. 35-6-605, Amaravathi Nagar, Opp: Tulasi Bar and Restaurant, Road No.1, Near Gayatri Medical Stored, Hanamkonda of Warangal District.

… Respondent.

Sub :- Petition fled under Sec. 13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act-1955.

This petition is coming before me on today for fnal hearing in the presence of Sri M. Ram Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri P. Satya Prakash, Advocate for the respondent; and having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following :- :: O R D E R ::

In spite of conditional order, petitioner did not present and no representation till 3.30 PM. Hence, the petition is dismissed for default.

Written and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 6th day of November, 2023.

Senior Civil Judge-Cum-

Asst. Sessions Judge, Huzurabad.