Sri D.Venkateswarlu Naik

APAN060000722025Presented on : 30-12-2024 Registered on : 30-12-2024 Decided on : 14-05-2026 Duration : 1 years, 4 months, 15 days

Sessions Case No.285 of 2024 1 A.S.J Court, Hindupur.

Date : 14.5.2026

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE : HINDUPUR

Present : Smt. S.Hemalatha,

Asst. Sessions Judge, Hindupur.

Thursday, this the 14th day of May, 2026

Sessions Case No. 285 of 2024

1.Name of the ComplainantState : Represented by Inspector of Police, Hindupur II Town P.S.

2.(a) Name of the Accused1. S. Sardar, age 47 years, S/o S. Anwar R/o D.No. 5-11-828, Silk Colony, Hindupur Town. (A.1)

2. Shaik Shaheena, age 42 years, W/o S. Sardar R/o D.No. 5-11-828, Silk Colony, Hindupur Town. (A.2)

3. Afzal, age 30 years, S/o Sardar R/o D.No. 5-11-828, Silk Colony, Hindupur Town. (A.3)

4. Inayath @ Goru, age 25 years, S/o Sardar R/o D.No. 5-11-828, Silk Colony, Hindupur Town. (A.4)

3.Offences chargedAbetment to commit suicide with common intension, punishable under Section 306 r/w 34of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against A.1 to A.4.

4.Plea of the accused.Pleaded not guilty

5.Finding of the judgeFound not guilty

6.Sentence or OrderA.1 to A.4 are found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Accord- ingly, A.1 to A.4 are acquitted for the above

APAN060000722025Presented on : 30-12-2024 Registered on : 30-12-2024 Decided on : 14-05-2026 Duration : 1 years, 4 months, 15 days

Sessions Case No.285 of 2024 2 A.S.J Court, Hindupur.

Date : 14.5.2026

offence under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A.1 to A.4 shall remain in force for a period of six months, as required under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The un- marked case property shall be de- stroyed by the committal court, after ex- piry of appeal time. Office is directed to communicate copy of judgment to com- mittal court.

7.Accused defended bySri S. Abdul Raheem, Advocate

8.Prosecution conducted byAdditional Public Prosecutor.

9.Cr.No. and Name of the Crime No. 27 of 2023 of Hindupur II Police StationTown Police Station.

10.Committed byP.R.C. No.7 of 2024 of Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Hindupur.

11.Date of offence03.02.2023

12.Date of report03.02.2023

13.Date of remand27-02-2023 (A.1 to A.4)

14.Date of release on bail10-03-2023 (A.1 to A.4)

15.Date of committal to 05.12.2024

sessions Court

16.Date of commencement of 12.12.2025 trial

17.Date of close of trial.02-04-2026

18.Date of Judgment14.05.2026

APAN060000722025Presented on : 30-12-2024 Registered on : 30-12-2024 Decided on : 14-05-2026 Duration : 1 years, 4 months, 15 days

Sessions Case No.285 of 2024 3 A.S.J Court, Hindupur.

Date : 14.5.2026

Accused Details : Name of accused :1. S. Sardar, age 47 years, S/o S. Anwar R/o D.No. 5-11-828, Silk Colony, Hindupur Town. (A.1)

2. Shaik Shaheena, age 42 years, W/o S. Sardar R/o D.No. 5-11-828, Silk Colony, Hindupur Town. (A.2)

3. Afzal, age 30 years, S/o Sardar R/o D.No. 5-11-828, Silk Colony, Hindupur Town. (A.3)

4. Inayath @ Goru, age 25 years, S/o Sardar R/o D.No. 5-11-828, Silk Colony, Hindupur Town. (A.4) Date of Arrest :27-02-2023 (A.1 to A.4) Date of Release on bail:10-03-2023 (A.1 to A.4) Offences Charged with:Section 306 r/w 34of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against A.1 to A.4. Whether acquitted or : Acquitted. convicted Sentence Imposed :A.1 to A.4 are found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Accordingly, A.1 to A.4 are acquitted for the above offence under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A.1 to A.4 shall remain in force for a period of six months, as re- quired under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The un- marked case property shall be destroyed by the committal court, after expiry of appeal time. Office is directed to communicate copy of judgment to committal court.

PeriodofDetention : 27.02.2023 to 10.3.2023 (A.1 to A.4) undergone during trial for purpose of Section 428 Cr.P.C.

APAN060000722025Presented on : 30-12-2024 Registered on : 30-12-2024 Decided on : 14-05-2026 Duration : 1 years, 4 months, 15 days

Sessions Case No.285 of 2024 4 A.S.J Court, Hindupur.

Date : 14.5.2026

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

The State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Hindupur II Town

Police Station laid charge sheet against A.1 to A.4 in Crime No.27 of 2023 for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is as follows. The deceased Syed Babajan had three brothers and younger sisters, by names

Sardar (A.1), Moula (LW.4), Akbar, Habeebjan, Beebejan, Thathu and Sumiya.

Their father, by name Anwar Sab, had a residential house at Silk colony and

Rahamathpur and vacant site at Rahamathpur. In the partition effected before elders, plot No.7 and vacant site was allotted to the share of deceased and

A.1 and the house situated at Rahamathpur was allotted to the share of

Moulasab (LW.4), Akbar and Habeebjan, Beebejan, Thathu and Sumiya. Apart from that residential house and vacant site situated at Silk colony was shared among the deceased and A.1. A.1 and his family members (A.2 to A.4) were residing at Silk Colony in the house belonging to the deceased. In view of the partition, the deceased and his wife ie., de facto complainant, by name Syed

Gulnaj @ Gulas (LW.1), requested A.1 to A.4 to handover half portion of residential house situated at Silk colony to Syed Gulnaj. Upon which, A.1 to

A.4 abused the deceased Syed Babajan and his family members in filthy language and attacked the deceased, LW.1 Syed Gulnaj and LW.2. Syed

Asma Bhanu and LW.3 Syed Shabeena. Meanwhile, the elders and LW.4

Moula and LW.6 Akbar pacified the issue. A.1 to A.4 abetted the deceased to commit suicide to get property in the name of A.1. In view of the said

APAN060000722025Presented on : 30-12-2024 Registered on : 30-12-2024 Decided on : 14-05-2026 Duration : 1 years, 4 months, 15 days

Sessions Case No.285 of 2024 5 A.S.J Court, Hindupur.

Date : 14.5.2026

abetement and unable to bear the harassment of accused, Babajan informed to his wife, Syed Asma Bhanu and Shabeena that he will commit suicide to avoid harassment of A.1 to A.4. They consoled the deceased. Thereafter, on 03.02.2023 at 7-00 am, the deceased went to his share of house at

Rahamathpur in Hindupur Town and committed suicide by hanging. Syed

Gulnaj noticed the hanging of the deceased. After a while, Moula and A.1 rushed to the scene and broke open the doors of the house and found the suicide of deceased by hanging.

(a) Based on the report of de facto complainant – Syed Gulnaj

Lw.16 – C. Akbar Sab, Sub Inspector of Police of Hindupur II Town Police

Station registered a case in Cr.No.27 of 2023 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C.

and took up investigation. He conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased Syed Babajan in the presence of the panch witnesses and blood relatives of the deceased and also examined the witnesses.

(b) Later, Dr. Rohil Kumar, Civil Asst. Surgeon, District Government

Hospital, Hindupur conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued a report opining that the deceased died due to asphyxia due to hanging. The statements of the witnesses recorded by the investigation officer, revealed that the accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide and on account of the same and unable to bear the harassment of accused Nos.1 to 4, the deceased committed suicide. Therefore, on 27.02.2023, the Section of law was altered to Section 306 r/w 34 IPC against A.1 to A.4 from Section 174

Cr.P.C.

APAN060000722025Presented on : 30-12-2024 Registered on : 30-12-2024 Decided on : 14-05-2026 Duration : 1 years, 4 months, 15 days

Sessions Case No.285 of 2024 6 A.S.J Court, Hindupur.

Date : 14.5.2026

(c) On 27.02.2023 at 2-00 pm., the Sub Inspector of Police of

Hindupur II Town Police Station arrested A.1 to A.4 at Silk Colony, Hindupur

Town and produced them before the court for judicial custody. Thus, A.1 to

A.4 have committed the offence punishable under Section 306 read with

Section 34 of I.P.C.

3. The learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Hindupur, had taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code against A.1 to A.4. Since the offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Court,

Anantapuramu, under Section 209 (a) of Cr.P.C., by serving copies of documents on A.1 to A.4 under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Subsequently, the

Hon'ble Principal and District Judge, Anantapuramu registered the case as

S.C.No.285 of 2024 and made it over to this court for trial and disposal in accordance with law.

4. On hearing both sides, charge for the offence punishable under

Section 306 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 was framed against A.1 to A.4, read over and explained to A.1 to A.4 in Telugu language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During trial, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to Pw.11 and marked Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.15.

APAN060000722025Presented on : 30-12-2024 Registered on : 30-12-2024 Decided on : 14-05-2026 Duration : 1 years, 4 months, 15 days

Sessions Case No.285 of 2024 7 A.S.J Court, Hindupur.

Date : 14.5.2026

6. After closure of prosecution side evidence, A.1 to A.4 were examined under Section 313 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating material elicited against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same. They reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard the learned Additional Public prosecutor and learned defence counsel and perused the material on record.

8. Now the points for determination are :

1. Whether A.1 to A.4 have abetted the deceased - Syed Babajan to commit suicide ?

2. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A.1 to A.4 for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with section 34 of I.P.C., beyond all reasonable doubt ?

9. Points No.1 and 2 : The accusation made against A.1 to A.4 is that as the deceased Syed Babajan demanded A.1 to handover his share of house in which A.1 to A.4 were residing, A.1 to A.4 harassed and abetted the de- ceased to commit suicide to get the share of the deceased and an account of harassment and abetment of accused, the deceased committed suicide by hanging on 03.02.2023 at 7-00 am., at his share of house at Rahamathpur in

Hindupur. Thus, A.1 to A.4 have committed the offence with which they are charged. The defence of A.1 to A.4 is of total denial. Therefore, the prosecu- tion has to prove the guilt of A.1 to A.4 of the offence, with which they are charged, beyond all reasonable doubt.

10. Now it is to be seen whether the prosecution has proved the charge levelled against A.1 to A.4 beyond all reasonable doubt. In order to discharge

APAN060000722025Presented on : 30-12-2024 Registered on : 30-12-2024 Decided on : 14-05-2026 Duration : 1 years, 4 months, 15 days

Sessions Case No.285 of 2024 8 A.S.J Court, Hindupur.

Date : 14.5.2026

its burden, the prosecution relied on evidence of Pw.1 to 11 and Ex.P.1 to

P.15. Pw.1 is the de facto complainant and wife of the deceased. Pw.2 and 3 are the children of the deceased Syed Babajan Pws.4 to 6 are the younger brothers of the deceased Syed Babajan. As seen from the evidence of these witnesses, the deceased Syed Babajan committed suicide by hanging in his mother’s house at Rahamathpur at Hindupur. PW.8 is the panch for inquest.

He speaks that on 03.02.2023 at 2-30 pm., on the request of Hindupur II Town police he acted as panch witness and in his presence and also in the pres- ence of LW.13 Syed Ansar and LW.14 S. Khaleel Sab and blood relatives of the deceased, LW.16 the Sub-Inspector of Police, Hindupur II Town police sta- tion conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased under Ex.P.9 in- quest report.

11. The evidence of PW.9, the medical officer, is to the effect of his conducting autopsy over the dead body of the deceased on 03.02.2023 and his opinion that the death is due to asphyxia due to hanging. There is no dis- pute about these facts and in fact, there is no cross-examination to any of these witnesses denying the death of Syed Babajan by suicide by hanging.

The evidence, the above witnesses coupled with Ex.P.9, proves suicide on

Syed Babajan.

12. The dispute is only regarding A.1 to A.4 harassing and abetting the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, it is to be seen whether prosecution is able to prove abetment of accused to the deceased Syed Babajan to commit suicide, beyond reasonable doubt. As seen from the evidence of PW.1 to 7, none of them have supported the prosecution. All of them have stated that

APAN060000722025Presented on : 30-12-2024 Registered on : 30-12-2024 Decided on : 14-05-2026 Duration : 1 years, 4 months, 15 days

Sessions Case No.285 of 2024 9 A.S.J Court, Hindupur.

Date : 14.5.2026

they do not how Babajan died and who are responsible for his death. They have further stated that the accused are not responsible for the suicidal death of Syed Babajan. As all these witnesses resiled from their earlier version, the learned APP., with the permission of the court, posed questions to these wit- nesses in the nature of cross – examination, but nothing could be elicited from them to prove the harassment or abetment of the accused to the deceased, except getting marked the relevant portion in their section 161 Cr.P.C state- ment, which is not substantive piece of evidence. Therefore, the evidence of these witnesses is not helpful to the prosecution to prove the guilt of the ac- cused.

13. The other evidence available on record is of the investigating agency. The evidence of PW.10 is to the effect of registration of crime based on the report of PW.1, conducting inquest and examination of the witnesses and also seizure of the thread and broken door lock in the presence of the panch witnesses. He also says about alteration of section of law based on the statements of the witnesses. The evidence of PW.11 is only his filing charge sheet on verification of the investigation done by PW.10. Undoubtedly, the evidence of PW.10 and PW,.11 is not going to help the prosecution, when the own wife, children and family members of the deceased total turned hos- tile, and did not attribute any anything against the accused and when the au- thor of Ex.P.10 hereself did not speak his contents, the evidence of Pws. 10 and 11 and Ex.P.10 can not be based to prove the guilt of the accused. So, there is no cogent and convincing evidence to prove that at any point of time any of the accused harassed deceased Syed Babajan, and abetted him to commit suicide. Thus, the prosecution utterly failed to bring home the guilt of

APAN060000722025Presented on : 30-12-2024 Registered on : 30-12-2024 Decided on : 14-05-2026 Duration : 1 years, 4 months, 15 days

Sessions Case No.285 of 2024 10 A.S.J Court, Hindupur.

Date : 14.5.2026

the accused of the offence punishable under Section 306 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. As such, accused/A.1 to A.4 are entitled to be acquitted.

Accordingly, these points are answered.

14. In the result, A.1 to A.4 are found not guilty of the offence punish- able under Section 306 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. Accordingly, A.1 to A.4 are acquitted for the above offence under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A.1 to A.4 shall remain in force for a period of six months, as required under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property shall be destroyed by the committal court after expiry of appeal time. Office is directed to communicate copy of judgment to committal court.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 14th day of May, 2026

Sd/-S. Hemalatha,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Hindupur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

List of Prosecution/Defence/Court Witnesses

A. Prosecution :

RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE

Pw.1 Syed Gulanj @ GulnasDefacto complainant

Pw.2 S. Asma BhanuDaughter of deceased

Pw.3 Syed ShabeenaDaughter of deceased

Pw.4Syed AkbarBrother of deceased

Pw.5Syed Habid JanBrother of deceased

APAN060000722025Presented on : 30-12-2024 Registered on : 30-12-2024 Decided on : 14-05-2026 Duration : 1 years, 4 months, 15 days

Sessions Case No.285 of 2024 11 A.S.J Court, Hindupur.

Date : 14.5.2026

Pw.6Syed Bibi JanBrother of deceased

Pw.7Syed SumiyaBrother of deceased

Pw.8T. YashodaPanch witness

Pw.9Dr. Rohil KumarMedical officer

Pw.10C. Akbar SabInvestigating officer

Pw.11G. VenkataramanaInvestigating officer

B. Defence Witnesses, if any : - None -

C. Court Witnesses, if any : - None -

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1: Signature of PW.1 on the report

Ex.P.2: Relevant portion in the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1

Ex.P.3: Relevant portion in the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2

Ex.P.4: Relevant portion in the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3

Ex.P.5: Relevant portion in the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4

Ex.P.6: Relevant portion in the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5

Ex.P.7: Relevant portion in the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.6

Ex.P.8: Relevant portion in the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW7

Ex.P.9: Inquest Report

Ex.P.10: Served summon on PW.8

Ex.P.11: P.M. Certificate issued by PW.9

Ex.P.12: Report given by PW.1, dt. 03.02.2023

Ex.P.13: F.I.R in Cr.No. 27/2023 of Hindupur II Town P.S.,

Ex.P.14: Rough Sketch of the scene of offence

Ex.P.15: Alteration Memo, dt.27-02-2023

APAN060000722025Presented on : 30-12-2024 Registered on : 30-12-2024 Decided on : 14-05-2026 Duration : 1 years, 4 months, 15 days

Sessions Case No.285 of 2024 12 A.S.J Court, Hindupur.

Date : 14.5.2026

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS

- Nil -

Sd/-S. Hemalatha,

A.S.J., HINDUPUR

Copies submitted to : -

1. The Hon'ble Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati through the Hon'ble Principal District Judge, Ananthapuramu.

2. The Hon'ble Principal District Judge, Ananthapuramu. Copies to : -

1. The Superintendent of Police, Puttaparthi, Sri Sathyasai District.

2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Assistant Sessions Judge, Hindupur.

APAN060002462023 1

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

HINDUPUR, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT (A.P.)

Present : - Sri D.Venkateswarlu Naik

Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Hindupur

Wednesday, the First (01st) day of April, 2026.

H.M.O.P.No.168 of 2023

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Between –

Sukanya, W/o Gangadhar, D/o Sankarappa, Aged 26 years, Hindu, Coolie, Residing at Door No.2-118, Seetharamapuram, Parigi Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District. …. PETITIONER And –

Gangadhar S/o Siddappa, Aged 31 years, Hindu, Cultivation, Residing at D.No.9-163, Rathanagiri Village and Post, Rolla Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District. …. RESPONDENT

This petition came up on 16.03.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.N.Nagaraju and Sri U.Eswarappa, Advocates for the petitioner and Sri B.Nagendra and Sri B.Sathesh, Advocates for the respondent, and upon perusing the material available on record and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following –

O R D E R

1)The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 13(1) (ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking a decree of divorce

APAN060002462023 2 dissolving her marriage with the respondent, which was solemnized on 05.05.2018.

2)The contents of petition, in brief, are that, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 02.05.2018 at Sree

Subramanya Kalyana Mandapam, Rathanagiri, Rolla Mandal, as per Hindu rites and customs. From the very beginning, the marital life was not cordial, as the respondent showed no interest in cohabitation and the marriage was not consummated despite six months of living together. The petitioner states that during this period, there was no physical relationship or marital harmony. It is further submitted that the respondent developed suspicious behavior, used abusive language, consumed alcohol, returned home in an intoxicated condition and caused frequent quarrels, thereby subjecting the petitioner to mental harassment.

i) It is further submitted that the respondent deserted the petitioner in the year 2018 and has been residing with her parents ever since, with no intention to resume marital life. Efforts made by elders and panchayaths to reconcile the parties failed. The petitioner states that the marriage has irretrievably broken down due to willful desertion and continued misconduct of the respondent, leaving no possibility of reunion. The respondent is an agriculturist earning income from agricultural land and livestock. There is no collusion between the parties and no other petition has been filed elsewhere. Hence, the petitioner seeks a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage in the interest of justice and for peaceful living.

APAN060002462023 3

3) On the other hand, the respondent filed a counter denying the material allegations in the petition and he admits the marriage dated 02.05.2018 solemnized at Sree Subramanya Kalyana Mandapam, Rathnagiri,

Rolla Mandal, as per Hindu rites and customs, but denies all other allegations regarding lack of marital happiness and non-consummation of marriage. The respondent submits that he never deserted the petitioner and on the contrary, it is the petitioner who left the matrimonial home on her own accord. The allegations of bad habits, abusive behavior and harassment are baseless and invented for the purpose of obtaining a decree of divorce. The respondent further submits that he has always treated the petitioner with respect, especially considering that she is his niece, being the daughter of his elder sister.

i) It is further submitted that the petitioner was brought up with the care and support of the respondent’s family and the marriage was performed with their assistance and consent. After marriage, the petitioner lived with the respondent for a short period and later insisted that he shift residence to her native place, which he did not agree. Thereafter, the petitioner, without any valid reason, left the respondent and has been residing with her parents since 2018. The respondent submits that he is still willing to resume marital life and live peacefully with the petitioner. The petition is filed on false grounds without any merit and is liable to be dismissed.

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

PW.1 by filing her chief affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief, reiterating the averments made in the petition and Exs.P1 and P2 are got marked. The

APAN060002462023 4

Ex.P1 is the Wedding card of petitioner and respondent, dated 02.05.2018 and Ex.P2 is the Positive photos of the petitioner and respondent (2 in number). In support her claim, the petitioner also examined her father as

PW.2. On the other hand, none were examined on behalf of respondent and no documents were marked.

5)Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the material available on record.

6)Now, the point that arises for consideration is:

“Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce

dissolving her marriage with the respondent, solemnized on 02.05.2018,

as prayed for?”

7)POINT :

Upon careful consideration of the pleadings, evidence and material available on record, this Court is required to determine whether the petitioner has established valid grounds under Section 13(1)(ia) (ib) of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent, as well as the birth of two female children, is not in dispute. The core issue revolves around the allegations of cruelty, desertion and irretrievable breakdown of the marital relationship.

8)The petitioner, examined as PW.1, has reiterated the allegations made in the petition, alleging that though the marriage was solemnized on 02.05.2018, the marital life was not cordial from the beginning, as the respondent showed no interest in cohabitation, subjected her to mental harassment and the marriage was not consummated. It is further stated that

APAN060002462023 5 the respondent deserted the petitioner in 2018 and has been living separately since then. She also states that despite efforts by elders for reconciliation, the parties could not reunite and the petitioner contends that the marriage has irretrievably broken down with no possibility of resuming marital life. In the cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that she studied up to 10th class at

Rathnagiri and that her native place is Uthukur Village and also that the respondent is her maternal uncle. She denied the suggestions that she was brought up by the respondent’s family and that they bore her educational and marriage expenses. She stated that after marriage they lived together at

Rathnagiri for about three months and denied that she demanded the respondent to shift residence. She stated that the respondent beat her and sent her to her parental home and denied that she voluntarily deserted him.

She further stated that she has been residing with her parents since 2019 due to serious disputes and expressed her unwillingness to resume marital life.

9)The testimony of PW.2, the petitioner’s father, also supports the petitioner’s version regarding the alleged conduct of the respondent. In the cross-examination, PW.2 admitted that his wife’s native place is Rathnagiri and that the respondent is his wife’s younger brother and that his daughter was born and brought up at Rathnagiri and studied up to 10th class there. He denied the suggestions that the respondent’s family bore the petitioner’s educational and marriage expenses and that they insisted on the marriage.

He stated that the petitioner lived with the respondent for about six months after marriage and admitted that no police complaint was lodged regarding the alleged harassment. However, he denied all suggestions that the petitioner left the matrimonial home on her own, that the respondent never harassed her,

APAN060002462023 6 that the respondent is willing to take her back and that the petition was filed with false allegations and without valid grounds for divorce.

10)On careful consideration of the pleadings, evidence and material available on record, this Court finds that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is admitted and stands proved by Ex.P1 (wedding card) and Ex.P2 (photographs). It is further evident that the petitioner has consistently deposed about the conduct of the respondent in subjecting her to both physical and mental cruelty. Her testimony as PW.1 clearly discloses that the respondent showed disinterest in marital life, failed to maintain cordial relations and ultimately drove her out of the matrimonial home. The version of

PW.1 remained substantially unshaken in cross-examination and no material contradictions have been elicited to discredit her testimony. The evidence of

PW.2, though that of an interested witness being the father of the petitioner, corroborates the case of the petitioner on material particulars relating to harassment and separation.

11)It is also significant to note that though the respondent has taken specific pleas in the counter denying the allegations and attributing fault to the petitioner, he has not stepped into the witness box to substantiate the same.

No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced on his behalf. Mere suggestions put to the witnesses in cross-examination, without any supporting evidence, cannot be treated as proof of the defence set up by the respondent.

Hence, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the respondent for withholding himself from the witness box.

12)Further, the evidence on record establishes that the parties have been living separately since 2018 and there has been no resumption of

APAN060002462023 7 cohabitation. The petitioner has categorically expressed her unwillingness to join the respondent and continue marital life. The long period of separation coupled with the allegations of cruelty, which have remained unrebutted, clearly indicate that the marital relationship between the parties has broken down irretrievably and there is no possibility of reunion.

13)In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has successfully proved the grounds of cruelty and desertion as contemplated under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the petitioner, holding that she is entitled to a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage with the respondent.

14)In the result,

(a) The petition is allowed,

(b) The Marriage dt.02.05.2018 between the petitioner and respondent is dissolved,

(c) There shall be decree of divorce between the petitioner and respondent,

(d) No costs,

(e) The office is directed to furnish a copy of decree of divorce to the petitioner at free of costs, vide provision u/s.23(4) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Directly Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 01 st day of April, 2026.

Sd/- D.VENKATESWARLU NAIK

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Hindupur.

APAN060002462023 8

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

Petitioner Respondent

PW.1Sukanya.- None -

PW.2S.Sankarappa.

Exhibits marked for Petitioner

Ex.P.1--Wedding card, dated 02.05.2018. Ex.P.2--Positive photos of the petitioner and respondent (two in number).

Exhibits marked for Respondent

-- Nil --

Id/- DVN

CJ (SD), HUP.

APAN060000092025 1

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

HINDUPUR, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT (A.P.)

Present : - Sri D.Venkateswarlu Naik

Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Hindupur

Wednesday, the First (1st) day of April, 2026.

H.M.O.P.No.07 of 2025

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Between –

D.Sreenath, S/o Late D.Keshavaiah, Hindu, Coolie, Aged 36 years, Resident of D.No.27-8-1620, Subhash Nagar, Muddireddipalli, Hindupur, Sri Sathya Sai District.

…. PETITIONER And –

D.Gayathri @ M.Gayathri @ Dhanalakshmi, W/o D.Sreenath, D/o Late Manchala Anjaneyulu, Hindu, Housewife, Aged 35 years, Resident of D.No.28-124, Near Ramuni Temple, Behind Pothukunta Police Station, Dharmavaram Town and Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District, A.P.

…. RESPONDENT

This petition came up on 16.03.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri A.Gopalakrishna and Sri B.Rathna Kumar, Advocates for the petitioner and Sri E.Rajasekhar, Advocate for the respondent, and upon perusing the material available on record and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following –

O R D E R

1)The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking a decree of divorce dissolving his marriage with the respondent, which was solemnized on 04.06.2015.

APAN060000092025 2

2)The contents of petition, in brief, are that, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 04.06.2015 at

Shivalayam, Vamaddela Kona, C.K. Palli Mandal, Anantapur District, as per the customs prevailing in their community and religion, in the presence of elders, friends and relatives. After the marriage, the respondent joined the petitioner at his residence at Subhash Nagar, Muddireddypalli, Hindupur and the marriage was consummated. Out of the wedlock, the respondent gave birth to two female children, namely D. Chaitra and D. Pragna. The petitioner and respondent lived happily together at Hindupur until 26.02.2024.

i) It is further submitted that after the birth of the second child, the respondent, under the influence of her mother and elder sisters, started harassing the petitioner both physically and mentally without any valid reason.

The respondent used to pick up quarrels, abuse the petitioner in filthy language, neglect her marital obligations and even failed to take proper care of the children. It is submitted that the respondent threatened the petitioner with dire consequences and on 25.10.2024, after picking up a quarrel and assaulting the petitioner, the respondent left the matrimonial home along with the children without his consent and started residing at her parental house at

Dharmavaram. Despite repeated requests and efforts made by the petitioner, including issuance of legal notice dated 19.11.2024, the respondent refused to rejoin the petitioner.

ii) It is submitted that the petitioner and respondent last resided together at Hindupur and hence this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. It is further submitted that the acts of the respondent amount to cruelty and desertion and there is no possibility of reconciliation between

APAN060000092025 3 the parties. The petitioner has made sincere efforts to resume matrimonial life, but the same proved futile. There is no collusion between the parties and no prior proceedings have been filed seeking dissolution of marriage. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to a decree of dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

3) On the other hand, the respondent filed a counter denying the allegations of harassment, cruelty, desertion and misconduct attributed to her.

The allegations that the respondent quarreled without reason, abused the petitioner, neglected the children, threatened the petitioner and left the matrimonial home voluntarily are all denied in toto. On the contrary, it is submitted that the petitioner himself subjected the respondent to harassment and the averments made in the petition are only to mislead this Court and to obtain a decree of divorce.

i) It is submitted that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent and the birth of two female children are admitted. The respondent submits that it is a second marriage for both parties. The respondent married the petitioner after the death of her first husband, whereas the petitioner, after deserting and divorcing his first wife, married the respondent. It is further submitted that the petitioner, after the birth of the second female child, started harassing the respondent on the ground that she gave birth to female children and demanded that she bring property from her parental house. The petitioner also maintained contact and an illicit relationship with his first wife and under her influence, neglected the respondent and children, failed to provide food and clothing, demanded money for his bad habits, snatched the respondent’s gold chain and misused her earnings and government benefits.

APAN060000092025 4 ii) It is further submitted that the respondent has always been ready and willing to join the petitioner and lead a happy marital life, but the petitioner refused to allow her into the matrimonial home and demanded divorce. The allegations against the respondent’s family members are false.

There is no continuous desertion as alleged and the petition is not maintainable either on facts or in law. The petitioner ought to have sought restitution of conjugal rights instead of filing the present petition for divorce.

The respondent, being the mother of two minor daughters, is not willing for dissolution of marriage. Hence, it is prayes to dismiss the petition and direct the petitioner to take back the respondent and their children in the interest of justice.

4)During the course of enquiry, the petitioner himself examined as

PW.1 by filing his chief affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief, reiterating the averments made in the petition and Exs.P1 to P5 are got marked. The Ex.P1 is the Wedding card of petitioner and respondent, Ex.P2 are the Photographs of petitioner and respondent (2 in number) along with CD. Ex.P3 is the Office copy of legal notice dated 19.11.2024. Ex.P4 is the Postal receipt dated 19.11.2024 and Ex.P5 is the Returned unserved postal cover containing legal notice. In support his claim, the petitioner also examined his mother as PW.2.

On the other hand, none were examined on behalf of respondent and no documents were marked.

5)Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the material available on record.

APAN060000092025 5

6)Now, the point that arises for consideration is:

“Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce

dissolving his marriage with the respondent, solemnized on 04.06.2015,

as prayed for?”

7)POINT :

Upon careful consideration of the pleadings, evidence and material available on record, this Court is required to determine whether the petitioner has established valid grounds under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent, as well as the birth of two female children, is not in dispute. The core issue revolves around the allegations of cruelty, desertion and irretrievable breakdown of the marital relationship.

8)The petitioner, examined as PW.1, has reiterated the allegations made in the petition, alleging that the respondent subjected him to both physical and mental cruelty after the birth of the second child, frequently quarreled, used abusive language, neglected her marital duties and ultimately left the matrimonial home on 25.10.2024 along with the children. The documentary evidence marked as Exs.P1 to P5, particularly the legal notice and postal records, indicate that the petitioner made attempts to resume cohabitation, but the same did not yield any positive result. The testimony of

PW.2, the petitioner’s mother, also supports the petitioner’s version regarding the alleged conduct of the respondent.

9)On the other hand, the respondent, though filed a detailed counter denying all allegations, did not choose to step into the witness box nor

APAN060000092025 6 adduce any oral or documentary evidence to substantiate her claims. The counter allegations that the petitioner harassed her for giving birth to female children, demanded property, maintained illicit relations and neglected the family remain unproved due to lack of evidence. It is a settled principle of law that mere pleadings without supporting evidence cannot be taken as proof.

The failure of the respondent to subject herself to cross-examination leads to an adverse inference against her case.

10)In the present case, the unrebutted testimony of the petitioner coupled with the documentary evidence on record establishes that there has been considerable strain in the matrimonial relationship and that the parties have been living separately since 25.10.2024. The conduct attributed to the respondent, as deposed by the petitioner, amounts to mental cruelty. Further, the fact that the respondent left the matrimonial home and has not resumed cohabitation despite notice supports the ground of desertion. The cumulative effect of these circumstances clearly indicates that the marriage between the parties has broken down beyond repair and there is no possibility of reconciliation.

11)Accordingly, this Court holds that the petitioner has successfully proved the grounds of cruelty and desertion and is entitled to a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage solemnized on 04.06.2015. Hence, the point is answered in favour of the petitioner.

12)In the result,

(a) The petition is allowed,

APAN060000092025 7

(b) The Marriage dt.04.06.2015 between the petitioner and respondent is dissolved,

(c) There shall be decree of divorce between the petitioner and respondent,

(d) No costs,

(e) The office is directed to furnish a copy of decree of divorce to the petitioner at free of costs, vide provision u/s.23(4) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Directly Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 01 st day of April, 2026.

Sd/- D.VENKATESWARLU NAIK

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Hindupur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

Petitioner Respondent

PW.1D.Sreenath.- None -

PW.2D.Anjinamma.

Exhibits marked for Petitioner

Ex.P.1--Wedding card of the petitioner and respondent. Ex.P.2--Photographs of petitioner and respondent (2 in number) along with CD. Ex.P3--Office copy of Legal notice, dated 19.11.2024. Ex.P.4--Postal receipt, dated 19.11.2024. Ex.P.5--Returned unserved postal cover containing legal notice.

Exhibits marked for Respondent

-- Nil -- Id/- DVN

CJ (SD), HUP.

1APAN060002122025

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION), HINDUPUR,

ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT (A.P.)

Present : - Sri D.Venkateswarlu Naik,

Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Hindupur.

Wednesday, the First (01st) day of April, 2026.

Original Suit No.42 of 2025

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Between –

U.G.Venkatesh S/o Late U.Govindappa, Hindu, aged 42 years, Sasankota Village, Parigi Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District.

…. PLAINTIFF

And –

1.Smt B.N.Bharathi W/o Late B.N.Shiva Shankar, Hindu, Aged 40 years,

2.N.Yaswanth Minor Rep. by guardian his mother i.e., defendant No.1 S/o B.N.Shiva Shankar, Hindu, Aged 14 years,

Both are resident of D.No.14-6-10, Boyapeta, Hindupur Town, Sri Sathya Sai District. …. DEFENDANTS

This suit came up on 18.03.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri I.Seshu Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendants were called absent and set exparte, upon perusing the material available on record and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following –

J U D G M E N T

1)This suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking specific performance of contract directing the defendants to execute registered sale deed in respect to the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff in pursuance of the 2APAN060002122025 agreement to sell dated 09.10.2021 by receiving balance sale consideration and deliver possession of the suit schedule property, in default by the defendants to do so, plaintiff is at liberty to get the same done through the process of court and for costs.

2)The brief facts of the plaint are : -

The plaintiff submits that 1stdefendant and her husband, representing themselves as absolute owners of the plaint schedule property, entered into a valid agreement of sale dated 09.10.2021 in favour of the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs.20,25,000/-. Out of the said consideration, the plaintiff paid an advance of Rs.9,00,000/-, which was duly received by the defendants. It was mutually agreed that the defendants would execute a registered sale deed within 20 months upon receipt of the balance consideration. Subsequently, the defendants agreed to receive a further sum of Rs.11,00,000/- on 09.10.2023 and to endorse the same on the reverse of the agreement, leaving a balance of Rs.25,000/- payable at the time of registration. The plaintiff submits that time was never intended to be the essence of the contract and that he has, at all times, been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.

i) The plaintiff further submits that despite repeated requests, 1stdefendant and her husband failed to perform their part of the contract on one pretext or the other. It is further stated that the husband of 1stdefendant has died, leaving behind defendant Nos.1 and 2 as his legal heirs, who are equally bound by the terms of the agreement. The plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 27.09.2025, calling upon the defendants to execute the registered sale deed by attending the Sub-Registrar’s Office, Hindupur on 3APAN060002122025 06.10.2025 upon receipt of the balance consideration. Though the said notice was duly served, the defendants neither complied with the demand nor issued any reply. Therefore, the plaintiff, being ready and willing to perform his obligations and having no other efficacious remedy, is constrained to approach this Court seeking the relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale. Hence, the suit.

3)Despite of service of summons on the Defendants 1 and 2, they did not appear before the Court and therefore, they were set ex-parte to the suit proceedings on 28.11.2025.

4)In support of his claim, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 and to Ex.A3. In order to support his version, the plaintiff also examined the scribe of Ex.A1–Agreement of Sale by name

M.Naveen Kumar as PW.2.

5)Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff. Perused the material on record.

6.Now the point for determination is :

“Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of

Specific performance of contract against the defendants,

as prayed for?”

7)POINT :-

The plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 by filing chief affidavit reiterating the contents of the plaint and Exs.A1 to A3 are got marked. The

Ex.A1 is the Original Sale Agreement executed by the defendant No.1 and 4APAN060002122025 her husband in favour of the plaintiff, Ex.A2 is the Copy of Legal notice sent by plaintiff to the defendants along with postal receipts and Ex.A3 is the

Endorsement on the backside of Agreement of sale under Ex.A1, dated 09.10.2023.

8)In support of his case, the plaintiff also got examined the scribe of Ex.A1-Agreement of sale, dated 09.10.2021, as PW.2. The evidence of

PW.2 corroborates the testimony of PW.1 with regard to the execution of the agreement of sale and payment of consideration and lends assurance to the version of the plaintiff. PW.2 further stated that he prepared the Agreement of sale at the request of the 1stdefendant and her husband and he came to know that in spite of the demands made by the plaintiff, the defendants failed to perform their part of contract.

9)On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, this Court finds that the plaintiff has clearly established his case. Ex.A1 evidences the agreement of sale, agreed sale consideration and receipt of advance amount. Ex.A2 is the copy of the legal notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendants, along with postal receipts, evidencing that the plaintiff demanded the defendants to perform their part of the contract. Ex.A3 proves further payment made by the plaintiff and endorsement thereof. The oral evidence of

PW.1 is natural, cogent and trustworthy and is duly corroborated by the evidence of PW.2. The defendants, having remained ex-parte, did not contest the suit. Hence, the evidence adduced by the plaintiff remained unchallenged and unrebutted.

5APAN060002122025

10)From the above evidence, it is clear that the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, whereas the defendants have failed to perform their obligations under the agreement of sale dated 09.10.2021. Therefore, this Court holds that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance of contract, as prayed for.

11)In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendants to execute a registered sale deed in pursuance of agreement of sale dated 09.10.2021 by receiving balance of sale consideration amount of

Rs.25,000/- and deliver the possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff,failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to get the same executed through process of court. The plaintiff is directed to deposit balance of sale consideration amount within a month from the date of this judgment and thereafter the Defendant shall execute the sale deed within two months.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 01 st day of April, 2026.

Sd/- D.VENKATESWARLU NAIK

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Hindupur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

Plaintiff Defendants

PW.1U.G.Venkatesh.- Nil -

PW.2M.Naveen Kumar.

6APAN060002122025

Exhibits marked for Plaintiff

Ex.A.1--Original Sale Agreement, dated 09.10.2021 executed by the defendant No.1 and her husband in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A.2--Copy of legal notice, dated 27.09.2025, issued by the plaintiff to the defendants along with postal receipts (3). Ex.A.3--Endorsement on the backside of Agreement of sale under Ex.A1, dated 09.10.2023.

Exhibits marked for Defendants

-- Nil --

Id/- DVN

CJ (SD), HUP.

1 APAN060002092025Presented on : 13-10-2025 Registered on : 13-10-2025 Decided on : 08-05-2026 Duration : 0 years, 6 months, 26 days

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION), HINDUPUR,

ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT (A.P.)

Present : - Smt. S. Hemalatha,

Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Hindupur

Friday, this the 08th day of May, 2026.

H.M.O.P.No. 126 of 2025

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Between –

1. B. Ramesh, A/a 41 years, S/o B. Sreenivasa Murthy, Hindu, Private Employee in Meritrac Service Pvt., Ltd., Bangalore, R/o Bevanahalli Village, Hindupur Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District.

2. K. Sowmya, A/a 34 years, W/o B. Ramesh, D/o K. Vishwanatha Babu, Now D.No. 3-173C, 3rd Road, Anantapuram Town & District.

….PETITIONERS

And –

Nil -….RESPONDENT

This original petition came up on 07.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K. Sudarsan, G. Venkatesh, Advocates for the petitioners, and after hearing the learned counsel of petitioners and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court made the following:-

:: O R D E R ::

This original petition is filed under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act 1955, seeking dissolution of the marriage of the petitioners 1 and 2, solemnized on 14.10.2016, by mutual consent.

2 APAN060002092025Presented on : 13-10-2025 Registered on : 13-10-2025 Decided on : 08-05-2026 Duration : 0 years, 6 months, 26 days

2. The averments of the petition, in brief, are as follows. Petitioners 1 and 2 are husband and wife, respectively. The marriage of the petitioners was solemnized on 14.10.2016 at Rajadhani Function Hall, Bangalore road,

Hindupur, as per the Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, the 2nd petitioner has joined the 1st petitioner to lead marital life at Bevanahalli.

The marriage was consummated. The petitioners lived happily for 7 years.

(a) Subsequently, misunderstandings cropped up between the petitioners. Therefore, they were unhappy with their marital life. They were sleeping separately for two years in the matrimonial home. Later the 2nd petitioner left the company of 1st petitioner and joined her parents at

Anantapuramu in the month of February, 2025. The effort of the elders to patch-up the broken marital tie of the petitioners was futile. The chances of reunion have been failed. Therefore, as there is no possibility of reunion, the petitioners filed this petition seeking to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent.

(b) In view of settlement, the 1st petitioner agreed to arrange permanent alimony of Rs.50,00,000/- to the 2nd petitioner with all gold ornaments and silver articles ie., one Silver plate, one Silver mug, one 3 APAN060002092025Presented on : 13-10-2025 Registered on : 13-10-2025 Decided on : 08-05-2026 Duration : 0 years, 6 months, 26 days

Uddarini, one Panchapatra, one Silver glass, four yellow saffron bowls, one

Harathi plate, two small lamps, one Lakshminarayana Idol, small baby milk feeding bowl, one small krishna idol, one ring and watch, to the 2nd petitioner.

The 2nd petitioner also agreed to return all the gold ornaments and other articles ie., one gold Mangalyam Chain weighing 35 grams, one gold ring weighing 12 grams to the 1st petitioner. On 03-10-2025 the 1st petitioner has issued a cheque bearing No.001675 for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- through his father’s account in Union Bank of India, Karim Nagar Branch, State of

Telangana in favour of the 2nd petitioner. The 1st petitioner has promised to pay the remaining amount of Rs.40,00,000/- to the 2nd petitioner before the court at the time of confirmation of affidavits.

3. As seen from the record, this original petition was filed on 06.10.2025 and it was registered on 10.10.2025. Both petitioners appeared

before the court on 10.04.2026. Both petitioners expressed dislike to reunite,

in spite of counseling by the court.

4. During enquiry the 1st petitioner is examined as P.W.1, and through him Ex.P1 to Ex.P.4 are marked and 2nd petitioner is examined as P.W.,2.

4 APAN060002092025Presented on : 13-10-2025 Registered on : 13-10-2025 Decided on : 08-05-2026 Duration : 0 years, 6 months, 26 days

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record.

6. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the petitioners are entitled for dissolution of their marriage, solemnized on 14.10.2016, by mutual consent as prayed for?

7. POINT: Petitioners, as P.Ws.1 and 2, have reiterated in their evidence that their marriage took place on 14.10.2016 at Rajadhani Function

Hall, Bangalore road, Hindupur, as per the Hindu rites and customs. They have filed Ex.P1 i.e, wedding card, Ex.P.2 the marriage photos, Ex.P.3 and

Ex.P.4 the copies of Aadhar cards of petitioners 1 and 2. These documents coupled with the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 proves the marriage between the petitioners.

8. P.Ws.1 and 2 further categorically deposed that 7 years after the marriage, misunderstandings arose between the petitioners and thereby it lead to their separation, mediation efforts were futile and ultimately both the petitioners decided to take divorce on mutual consent, by settling their claims, and that since two years prior to filing the HMOP the couple did not lead marital life. In spite of counselling by the court, both petitioners did not wish to reunite. It appears from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that petitioners 5 APAN060002092025Presented on : 13-10-2025 Registered on : 13-10-2025 Decided on : 08-05-2026 Duration : 0 years, 6 months, 26 days filed the present petition with mutual consent and out of their own accord and it is voluntary. Their evidence further discloses about settlement of financial transactions and exchange of valuables and also payment of permanent alimony by the 1st petitioner to the 2nd petitioner.Hence, the petitioners are entitled for divorce by mutual consent, as prayed for. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the petitioners.

9. In the result, this original petition is allowed and the marriage of the petitioners 1 and 2 performed on 14.10.2016 is hereby dissolved, by granting a decree of divorce by mutual consent. There shall be no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 8th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Smt S.Hemalatha

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Hindupur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

Petitioners Respondent

PW.1B. Ramesh -- Nil --

PW.2K. Sowmya 6 APAN060002092025Presented on : 13-10-2025 Registered on : 13-10-2025 Decided on : 08-05-2026 Duration : 0 years, 6 months, 26 days

Exhibits marked for Petitioners

Ex.P.1--Wedding card of the petitioners, dt. 14-10-2016

Ex.P.2--Marriage Photos (3 in numbers)

Ex.P3--Colour photostat Attested copy of the Aadhar card of the 1st petitioner.

Ex.P4--Colour photostat Attested copy of the Aadhar card of the 2nd petitioner.

Exhibits marked for Respondent

-- Nil --

Sd/- Smt S.Hemalatha

CJ (SD), HUP.