Sri D. Venkateswarlu Naik

1

 IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAPATLA.

Present: SRI D. Venkateswarlu Naik, B.A., L.L.M., Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla. FAC Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla.  Friday, this the 25th day of March, 2022.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.305 of 2014.

Between: Chennupati Srinivasa Rao S/o Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged about 48 years, resident of Appikatla village, Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District. 

...Plaintiff.

 Vs.

Devarapalli Venkata Shiva Rao S/o Raghavulu, Employee, Hindu, aged ab out 50 years, All India Salt Research Centre, Agricultural Farm, Bapatla. 

...Defendant

This suit has came before me on 10.03.2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri V. Rama Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff, and of Sri B. Leela

Krishna, Advocate for the defendant, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,05,200/­ (Rupees Two Lakhs Five Thousand, two hundred only) basing on the promissory note, dated 10.02.2013 for Rs.1,50,000/­ (Rupees One

Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) and also for costs of the suit.

2. The brief averments mentioned in the plaint are that:

The defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/­ (Rupees One

Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) from the plaintiff for his family expenses on 10.02.2013 and executed a suit promissory note in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per cent on demand either to plaintiff or to his order. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff personally and through mediators,though the admitting the borrowing and execution of the pronote, the defendant failed to discharge the promissory note debt and postponing the matter on some pretext or other. Having no other go, the plaintiff is constrained to issue a registered notice to the defendant on 21­06­2014 and 2 the same was received by the defendant and kept quiet without making any payment or reply to that effect. Hence, the suit. 

3.On the other hand, the defendant filed his written statement through his counsel by denying the plaint averments and suit is not maintainable either at law or on facts. It is further contended that the defendant approached the plaintiff for a loan. The plaintiff agreed to lend the amount on conditions that a blank signed pronote has to be given and to pay interest @ 60% p.a. on the borrowed amount. In the circumstances, as the defendant is in need of money, the defendant agreed for the conditions of the plaintiff and he borrowed an amount of Rs.37,000/­ from the plaintiff and gave a blank signed pronote to the plaintiff.

It is further averred in his written statement that as per one of the conditions of the plaintiff, the defendant regularly paid the interest at the rate of 60% p.a. i.e., a sum of Rs.1,850/­ per month to the plaintiff till April, 2014. The plaintiff received the same and promised that he will endorse the same on the back of the pronote. Believing the words of the plaintiff, the defendant kept quiet. Unfortunately due to financial crises, the defendant failed to pay interest, the plaintiff taking advantage of the possession of the blank signed pronote filled the said pronote with a huge amount of Rs.1,50,000/­ and filed this false, frivolous and vexatious suit to gain wrongful y. The defendant has no necessity to borrow such huge amount from any body much less from the plaintiff. Hence, he prays to dismiss the suit with costs. 

5.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial by my learned predecessor. 

1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant or not? 

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

6.During the course of trial, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1, in 3 support of his evidence, he also examined the attestor of suit promissory note as

PW.2 and also the scribe as PW.3 and Ex.A.1 to A4 got marked. On the other hand the defendant himself examined as D.W.1. No documents are marked on his behalf. In spite of conditional orders, the defendant did not turn and hence, the defendant evidence was closed. 

7.Heard arguments on both sides. 

8.ISSUE NO.1:

In order to prove the case, the Plaintiff filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination of P.W.1 and he reiterating the contents of the plaint. It is the evidence of P.W.1 is that the defendant had borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,50,000/­ on 10.02.2013 from him for his family expenses and executed promissory note in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum in the presence of PWs.2 and PW.3. In spite of demands, the defendant did not choose to repay the amount. Hence, the plaintiff constrained to file this suit. 

9.Whereas, during his cross examination P.W.1 suggested that he used to take empty promissory note at the time of giving amount with a condition that he has to repay with Rs.5/­ interest per month. Further suggested that the defendant has borrowed only Rs.37,000/­ from him and gave empty blank signed promissory note to him. Further suggested that the defendant regularly paid the interest @ 60% p.a. to him till April,2014, when the defendant unable to pay the interest amount, he filled up the empty promissory note and got filed the suit in order to get wrongful gain. Further suggested that there is no necessity to the defendant to borrow huge amount from him and that he is deposing false. 

10.In order to support his case, P.W.1 also examined the attestor and scribe of Ex.A.1 as PWs.2 & PW.3. They deposed in voice that on 10.02.2013 defendant 4 borrowed Rs.1,50,000/­from the P.W.1 in their presence and the defendant executed Ex.A1 promissory note in his favour. On that day PW.2 and 3 signed on Ex.A1 promissory note as attestor and scribe and in their presence consideration was passed to the defendant under Ex.A.1 and also deposed that the entire transaction was took place in their presence. 

11.Whereas, during the cross­examination P.Ws.2 & PW.3 deposed that the

PW.1 to 3 are belongs to the same village. They do not remember the date and time of Ex.A1, but it was taken place about 7 years back. The defendant called

PWs.2 and PW.3 to the house of the PW.1 on the date of Ex.A1 and consideration was passed under ex.A1 in their presence. They do not remember the denominations given to the defendant by the plaintiff. PWs.2 and 3 were suggested that no transaction was took place in their presence. Further suggested that PWs.1 to 3 created Ex.A1 promissory note and that they are deposing false at the instance of PW.1. 

12. In view of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to PWs.3 coupled with Ex.A1 to Ex.A4, when P.W.1 proved the execution of suit promissory note by defendant, a statutory presumption under section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act comes to the aid of P.W.1 as the suit promissory note is deemed to be supported by consideration until the contrary is proved by the defendant. Apart from that even a passing of consideration under the suit promissory note is duly proved by

P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 and therefore, the onus of proof shifts on the

D.W.1 to prove contrary.

13.To prove the contrary, the defendant filed his chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination of D.W.1 by reiterating the contents of his written statement.

But, the defendant called absent, no representation. In spite of conditional orders, the defendant did not turn and hence, the defendant evidence was closed. 

5

14.Except formal defense taken by the D.W.1 as to the alleged borrowing of

Rs.1,50,000/­ from the P.W.1 on 10­02­2013 and he paid the interest at the rate of 60% p.a. i.e., a sum of Rs.1,850/­ per month to the PW.1 till April, 2014.

PW.1 received the same and promised that he will endorse the same on the back of the pronote. Believing the words of the PW.1, he is kept quite. Due to financial crises, he failed to pay interest. But, he did not place any peace of paper before this court to believe his version as put forth in his written statement. Further, if really the D.W.1 paid the interest of 60% p.a., a sum of

Rs.1,850/­ per month to the P.W.1 under Ex.A.1, who prevented him to take any legal action against the P.W.1 to endorse the same on the back side of the pronote. In this regard, there is no explanation from D.W.1. All these circumstances, clearly shows that the D.W.1 has taken formal defense.

15. Apart from the above, except the oral testimony, the D.W.1 did not place any believable evidence and he did not examine any one to support his contention as put forth in his pleadings. The evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 not shattered with regard to time, place of execution of Ex.A1 promissory note and also passing consideration to D.W.1. In the said circumstances, there is no hesitation to hold that the D.W.1 failed to disprove the case of P.W.1, as such this court hold that the suit promissory note is supported by cash consideration, which is true and valid and thus, the P.W.1 is squarely entitled for the suit amount and the D.W.1 is bound to pay the same. Accordingly, issue No.1 is decided in favour of plaintiff/P.W.1 and as against the defendant/D.W.1.

16.ISSUE NO.2:­As issue No.1 is answered against the defendant and taking into the consideration of evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 coupled with Ex.A1 to

Ex.A4 which clearly shows that Ex.A1 is supported by cash consideration, the

P.W.1/plaintiff is squarely entitled for recovery of the suit amount from the

D.W.1/defendant.

6

17. ISSUE NO.3:­

In view of the findings given for issues No.1 and 2, the P.W.1/plaintiff is entitled for decree. 

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the P.W.1/ plaintiff directing the D.W.1/defendant to pay a sum of Rs.2,05,200/­ (Rupees Two lakhs, Five Thousand and Two hundred Only) to the plaintiff with interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of the suit i.e. 28.08.2014 till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a. from the date of decree, till the date of realization on

principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/­ ( Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only). 

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade ­ III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 25 th day of March, 2022.

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAPATLA.

FAC PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAPATLA. 

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined For Plaintiff:­ P.W.1: Chennupati Srinivasa Rao P.W.2: T.V. Chowdary P.W.3: V. Soma Malleswara Rao For Defendant:­ D.W.1: Devarapallil Venkata Siva Rao 

Documents marked For Plaintiff:­

Ex.A1: Promissory note, dated 10.02.2013 executed by the defendant in favour of P.W.1 for Rs.1,50,000/­,

Ex.A2 : Office copy of legal notice dated 21­06­2014 got issued to the defendant,

Ex.A3 : Postal receipt dated 21­06­2014,

Ex.A4 : Served postal acknowledgment of the defendant.

For Defendant :­ ­ N I L – 

ASCJ/BAPATLA,

FAC PSCJ. BAPATLA.

7

1

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

Present: Sri D. Venkateswarlu Naik,

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla.

Tuesday, this the 12 th day of April, 2022.

H.M.O.P.No.119 of 2021.

Between: Nadikoti Madhusudhana Rao S/o. Visweswara Rao @ Srinivasa

Rao, Hindu, aged about 35 years, R/o. Telagapalem, Near Ideal

Convent, 4th line, Ponnur town and Mandal, Guntur district.

...Petitioner

And

Nadikoti Nagamani W/o. Madhusudhana Rao, Hindu, aged about 32 years, D/o. Veeravalli Ananjeyulu, R/o. D. No.16-208/b,

Kondavari Street, Near PLP Park, Old Guntur, Guntur.

… Respondent

This petition has come up for hearing before me on 08-04-2022 in the presence of Sri I. Bala Krishna, Advocate for Petitioner and the respondent was set exparte and stood over for consideration till this day,Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the Petitioner / Husband against the Respondent /

Wife seeking decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage in between the petitioner and respondent performed on 25.08.2013 on the ground of desertion under section 13 (1) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act and for costs.

2]The averments of the petition-affidavit in brief are that:

The petitioner is the legally wedded husband of the respondent and their marriage was took place on 25-08-2013 at Vatticherukuru village,

Vatticherukuru Mandal and the petitioner did not take formalities under custom. After the marriage, the respondent has joined with the petitioner at

Telagapalem, Ponnur and the respondent has blessed with one female child by name Sai Anuhya. The petitioer used to do Tea Stall Business at Ponnur. The 2 respondent had lead conjugal life with the petitioner at about five years. The petitioner earning 3 to 4 hundred rupees per day. In spite of that, the respondent used to demand the petitioner to lead luxurious life in the society.

The petitioner reused the respondent on number of occasions for adjustable life , but the respondent did not heed the words of the petitioner at any point of time and she also used to behave like a sadist due to her egoist nature. The respondent did not care the petitioner at any point of time and she even did not provide food to the petitioner whenever he came to house after his work.

The petitioner requested the number of times to lead peaceful conjugal life within their purview but of no use.

It is further the petitioner submitted that the respondent used to listen her mother’s evil advises. The respondent behaved the petitioner that her mother is in dire need of money as such she requires 4 to 5 lakhs and if the petitioner arranged the said amount, she said her mother will return the said amount by selling her house. As such, believing the words of the respondent, the petitioner borrowed an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- from various persons by executing promissory notes and entrusted the said amount to the respondent at Ponnur. After receiving the said amount, the respondent left the company of the petitioner at Ponnur and went to Guntur to her mother’s house and since then she did not turn up inspite of requests made by the petitioner. Later, on the respondent also joined as computer operator in Mirch yard office and she is getting an amount of Rs.7,000/- per month. Since then, she evaded the petitioner in all respects and she did not behave as a dutiful wife and she neglected the petitioner and she frequently used to quarrel with the petitioner with the support of her mother as and when the petitioner called her. Oftenly the respondent's mother also used to abuse the petitioner and both the respondent and her mother tortured the petitioner mentally and physically unnecessarily. The respondent also avoid conjugal life with the petitioner. The 3 respondent also insisted the petitioner to sell the property situated at

Vatticherukuru Mandal, but the said house is not in the petitioner’s name and it is hid father’s own property.

It is further the petitioner submitted that the petitioner requested the respondent to set up family at Ponnur, but she had intentionally avoid to set up family at Ponnur. The respondent insisted the petitioner to join as an illoteum son in law. As such, the Respondent bluntly refused to join wt the petitioner at

Ponnur and since 27 months, the petitioner is residing at Ponnur. Since then, there are no contacts between the respondent and petitioner. All the mediations made by the petitioner for restitution of his conjugal life proved futile. The petitioner bear all the tortured meted out by the respondent with a fond hope since all these years, the respondent will change her atitude but of no use.

It is further submitted that on 31-08-2021 the petitioner got issued a legal notice to the respondent, requesting her to come and join with him at

Ponnur to lead conjugal life keeping the future of her daughter in mind. The respondent received the notice and kept. So, the petitioner thought that the marriage between him and the respondent was irretrievably broken down and there is no hope that the respondent will join with the petitioner in future also.

Hence, the petitioner is constrained to file this petition for dissolution of the marriage with the respondent. Similar petition is not filed before any court and there is no collusion between the parties in filing this petition. Hence, the petition.

3]On the other hand, the notice was served to the respondent, but she called absent on 08-04-2022. No presentation. Hence, the respondent is set exparte.

4]To substantiate the petitioner case, the petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. Ex.P1 is the marriage 4 photographs (2 in number) along with CD, Ex.P2 is the weeding card, Ex.P3 is the legal notice dated 03-08-2021., Ex.P4 is the postal receipt dated 03-08- 2021, Ex.P5 is the postal acknowledgement dated 04-08-2021.

5]Heard.

6]Points that arise for determination are :

1) Whether there are sufficient grounds to dissolve the marriage, dated 25.08.2013 between Nadikoti Madhusudhana Rao (Husband) and Nadikoti Naga Mani (wife) and to grant decree of divorce ?

2) What is the result of petition?

7]POINT No.1:

The petitioner in his chief-examination affidavit reiterated the contents of the petition filed by him. The respondent was set exparte. Hence, the evidence of Pw.1 is remained unchallenged. Thus, from the contents of the chief- examination affidavit and from the documents covered under Exs.P1 to P5 filed by the petitioner, the petitioner proved his case that the respondent is his wife, the respondent subjected the petitioner with cruelty both physically and mentally coupled with desertion in the month on 31-08-2021. Hence, this

Court holds that the petitioner is entitled for dissolution of marriage with the respondent as prayed for.

8]POINT No. 2: In the result, a] The petition is allowed.

b] Marriage dated 25.08.2013 between petitioner and respondent is dissolved.

c] There shall be decree of divorce between petitioner and respondent.

d] No costs.

5

Typed to my dictation on computer by the Stenographer Grade - III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 12 th day of April, 2022.

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BAPATLA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS: FOR RESPONDENT: Exp

P.W.1: Koki Srinivasa Reddy

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS: FOR RESPONDENT: NIL

Ex.P1 is the marriage photographs (2 in number) along with CD,

Ex.P2 is the weeding card,

Ex.P3 is the legal notice dated 03-08-2021,

Ex.P4 is the postal receipt dated 03-08-2021,

Ex.P5 is the postal acknowledgement dated 04-08-2021.

P.S.C.J, BPTL.

6

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

Present: Sri D. Venkateswarlu Naik,

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla

Tuesday, this the 12 th day of April, 2022.

H.M.O.P.No.119 of 2021.

Between: Nadikoti Madhusudhana Rao S/o. Visweswara Rao @ Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, aged about 35 years, R/o. Telagapalem, Near Ideal Convent, 4th line, Ponnur town and Mandal, Guntur district.

...Petitioner

And

Nadikoti Nagamani W/o. Madhusudhana Rao, Hindu, aged about 32 years, D/o. Veeravalli Ananjeyulu, R/o. D. No.16-208/b, Kondavari Street, Near PLP Park, Old Guntur, Guntur. … Respondent

This petition is filed by the Petitioner / Husband against the Respondent / Wife seeking decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage in between the petitioner and respondent performed on 25.08.2013 on the ground of desertion under section 13 (1) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act and for costs.

Date of Presentation:7-9-2021 Date of Filing:22-09-2021

This petition has come up for hearing before me on 08-04-2022 in the presence of Sri I. Bala Krishna, Advocate for Petitioner and the respondent was set exparte and stood over for consideration till this day, and this Court doth the order;

D E C R E E

1. That the petition be and the same is hereby allowed; and

2. That the marriage between the petitioner and respondent took place on 25.08.2013 be and is hereby dissolved by way of “Decree of Divorce” from the date of this order; and

3. That there be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 12 th day of April, 2022.

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BAPATLA.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

No cost memo filed on either side

P.S.C.J, BPTL.

1

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

Present: Sri D. Venkateswarlu Naik,

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla.

Wednesday, this the 13 th day of April, 2022.

H.M.O.P.No.127 of 2021.

Between:

1. Kathari Leela Krishna S/o. Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged about 40 years, R/o. Kandepadu, H/o. Modukuru village, Tsunduru Mandal, Guntur District.

2. Kathari @ Konatala Naga Durga W/o. Leela Krishna, D/o. Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, aged about 35 years, House wife, R/o. Kattempudi village, Ponnur Mandal, Guntur district. … Petitioners

And

NIL… Respondent

This petition has come up for hearing before me on 12-04-2022 in the presence of Sri B. Ankamma Rao, Advocate for Petitioners and this matter has been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the Petitioners / Husband and Wife to pass a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage took place on 12-05-2013 between the

Petitioners by mutual consent under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act and for costs.

2]The averments of the petition-affidavit in brief are that:

The petitioners are husband and wife, whose marriage was solemnized on 12-05-2013 at the house of the 1st petitioner situated at Kandepadu,

H/o. Modukuru village, Tesunduru mandal, Guntur District, according to Hindu religious, rite and customs in the presence of both side family members, elders and well wishers. Their marriage was arranged marriage. Immediately after the marriage, the 2nd petitioner joined with the 1st petitioner at his parents house i.e.,

Kandepadu, H/o. Modukuru village to lead marital life. The marriage was consummated and during their wedlock they have no issues.

2 It is further submitted that after the marriage, the petitioners could live together for about 5 years after their marriage. Some disputes arose between the 2nd petitioner and the parents of the 1st petitioner. The elders of both parties intervened and settled the matter. As per the settlement, the petitioners put up their separate family at Ponnur town in a rented house. But serious difference arose between them as a result, they began living separately for more than a period of 2 years i.e., 06-04-2019 till this date and they could not live together and there is no possibility of reunion between them. The 2nd petitioner has been residing in her parents house since two years. The petitioners realized that they have not been able to live together as wife and husband due to the difference of opinion. All the efforts made by the elders to reconcile are ended in futile.

It is further submitted that the petitioners mutually agred that their marriage should be dissolved. As there is no likelihood of reunion in between them, the petitioners realized that they have not been able to live together as wife and husband due to the difference of opinion.

The petitioners further submitted that in spite of mediations by elders relative and friends the marital relationship could not be set on right track for leading happy, contended, harmonious marital life. As such, the petitioners desire to obtain divorce by mutual consent from a competent court of law. The 1st petitioner has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the 2nd petitioner towards her permanent alimony, full and final settlement and the 2nd petitioner has agreed for the same. Hence, this petition.

There is no collusion between the petitioners. No similar application was filed or pending before any other court.

4.To substantiate the claims of the petitioners 1 and 2, as the matter was not settled for reunion stipulated time is granted for six months. Hence, proceedings are commenced. Both parties have taken witness stand as P.W.1 and P.W.2. They 3 have relied on Ex.P1 is the wedding card, Ex.P2 is the lagnapatrika and Ex.P3 is the marriage photographs (3 in number) along with CD.

5.Heard the counsel for the petitioners.

6. Points that arise for determination are :

1) Whether there are sufficient grounds to dissolve the

marriage, dated 12-05-2013 in between Kathari Leela

Krishna (Husband) and Kathari @ Konatala Naga Durga

(wife) and to grant decree of divorce by mutual consent ?

2) What is the result of petition?

7.POINT No.1:

The marital relationship between the parties is not in dispute.

However the same evidenced by the oral assertion of both parties, as well as, the documentary evidence covered by Ex.P1 is the wedding card, Ex.P2 is the lagnapatrika and Ex.P3 is the marriage photographs (3 in number) along with

CD. Both parties are identified by their respective counsel. Long separate living and resolution of both parties to have dissolution of their marriage is consistently spoken by both parties. It is asserted that their marriage was took place on 06-04-2019 and they cannot live together even sufficient time is granted for reconciliation. It is further asserted that there is no chance for reconciliation and reunion in between them in future. In the light of the facts and circumstances mentioned as stated above and also the evidence adduced by parties, necessary ingredients for dissolution of marriage and grant of divorce on the ground of mutual consent are found clearly present in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, point No.1 is answered in favour of the petitioners accordingly.

8.POINT No. 2: In the result, a] The petition is allowed.

b] Marriage dated 12-05-2013 in between petitioners is dissolved.

4 c] There shall be decree of divorce between petitioners.

d] No costs.

Typed to my dictation on computer by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 13 th day of April, 2022.

Sd/-D.Venkateswarlu Naik

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BAPATLA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS: FOR RESPONDENT: None

P.W.1: Kathari Leela Krishna

Pw.2 : Kathari @ Konatla Naga Durga

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS: FOR RESPONDENT: NIL

Ex.P1 is the wedding card,

Ex.P2 is the lagnapatrika,

Ex.P3 is the marriage photographs (3 in number) along with CD.

Sd/-D.Venkateswarlu Naik

P.S.C.J, BPTL.

5

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

Present: Sri D. Venkateswarlu Naik,

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla.

Wednesday, this the 13 th day of April, 2022.

H.M.O.P.No.127 of 2021.

Between:

1. Kathari Leela Krishna S/o. Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged about 40 years, R/o. Kandepadu, H/o. Modukuru village, Tsunduru Mandal, Guntur District.

2. Kathari @ Konatala Naga Durga W/o. Leela Krishna, D/o. Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, aged about 35 years, House wife, R/o. Kattempudi village, Ponnur Mandal, Guntur district. … Petitioners

And

NIL … Respondent

This petition is filed by the Petitioners / Husband and Wife to pass a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage took place on 12-05-2013 between the Petitioners by mutual consent under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act and for costs.

Date of Presentation:02-09-2021 Date of Filing:30-09-2021

This petition has come up for hearing before me on 12-04-2022 in the presence of Sri B. Ankamma Rao, Advocate for Petitioners and this matter has been stood over for consideration till this day, and this court doth the order;

D E C R E E

1. That the petition be and the same is hereby allowed; and

2. That the marriage in between the petitioners 1 and 2 took place on 12-05-2013 be and is hereby dissolved on mutual consent by way of “Decree of Divorce” from the date of this order; and

3. That there be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 13thday of April, 2022.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

No cost memo filed on either side

P.S.C.J, BPTL.

1

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

Present: Sri D. Venkateswarlu Naik,

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla.

Wednesday, this the 13 th day of April, 2022.

H.M.O.P.No.132 of 2021.

Between:

1. Somana Gopinath S/o. China Subba Rao, Hindu, aged about 36 years, Daily laborer, residing at D. No.10-69, High School Bazaar, Chebrolu village and Mandal, Guntur district.

2. Somana Sudha Rani @ Tupakula Sudha Rani W/o. Somana Gopinath, D/o. Tupakula Bhaskar Arao, Hindu, aged about 32 years, parents protection, residing at present at D. No.17-10-9(A), 1st lane, Mubarak Nagar, Ponnur town and Mandal, Guntur District. … Petitioners

And

NIL… Respondent

This petition has come up for hearing before me on 11-04-2022 in the presence of Sri N. Srinivasa rao, Advocate for Petitioners and this matter has been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the Petitioners / Husband and Wife to pass a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage took place on 15-05-2010 between the

Petitioners by mutual consent under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act and for costs.

2]The averments of the petition-affidavit in brief are that:

The petitioners are husband and wife, whose marriage was solemnized on 15-05-2010 at Sri Lakshmi Padmavathi Sametha Sri Venakteswara Swamy Vari

Sannidhi, Vykuntapuram village, Tenali Town and Mandal, Guntur District as per the Hindu rites and customs in the presence of their elders. After the marriage, 1st petitioner had taken the 2nd petitioner along with him to his home village,

Chebrolu and set up his family with her immediately after the marriage. Within a few days from their family set up there were differences arose between th 2 petitioner and as a result of which bickerings started between them. Day by day, the bickerings between them created distance between them and alter it turned into gulf between them. The situation between them turned into north pole and south pole. The petitioners led their marital life in Chebrolu village intentionally for a period of 2 years. Finally, 2nd petitioner left the house of 1st petitioner and she came to her parents house situated in Ponnur town on 07-07-2012. Both tier elders tired to re conciliate them to have them happy marital life. As a result of which, the petitioners again set up their family at Ponnur in the parents house of 2nd petition on 07-08-2013 at the instance of elders. They lived together three years in Ponnur town, but there is no change in them. In Ponnur also,t hey led marital life intentionally. Ultimately 1st petitioner let the 2nd petitioner’s house and went alone to Cherbolu leaving the 2nd petitioner at Ponnur on 08-08-2016.

Since then, they re living separate at Chebrolu village and Ponnur town respectively. Even the interference of elders of both side, there is no use at all and they continued to live separately. It is due to the differences between them and their disinterest towards each other and they were not in a position to heed the words of their elders and as a result of which, the efforts of elders turned futile. As a result of which, the petitioners have been living separately at their respective parents house since 08-08-2016. However, their common elders tired their level best to re conciliate the petitioners to join them. But there is no use due to their strong disinterest towards each other. Finally, their common elders advised them not to waste their time nor spoil their youthful life by living separately. If there is no adjustment or reconciliation between the petitioners, they further advised the petitioners to dissolve their marriage through court of law by way of mutual consent and their lives with others by way of another marriage and lvie as their will and wish. Because there is no possibility of reunion between them. So that they intended to dissolve their marriage by way of mutual consent. Hence, this petition.

3 Petitioners further submitted that there is n o collusion between them to file the present petition for dissolution of marriage by way of mutual consent.

They are not blessed with any children out of their wedlock. No similar petition has been filed by either of them before any court.

4.To substantiate the claims of the petitioners 1 and 2, as the matter was not settled for reunion stipulated time is granted for six months. Hence, proceedings are commenced. Both parties have taken witness stand as P.W.1 and P.W.2. They have relied on Ex.P1 is the wedding card, Ex.P2 is the marriage photographs (4 in number) along with CD.

5.Heard the counsel for the petitioners.

6. Points that arise for determination are :

1) Whether there are sufficient grounds to dissolve the marriage, dated 15-05-2010 in between Somana Gopinath (Husband) and Somana Sudha Rani @ Tupakula Sudha Rani

(wife) and to grant decree of divorce by mutual consent ?

2) What is the result of petition?

7.POINT No.1:

The marital relationship between the parties is not in dispute.

However the same evidenced by the oral assertion of both parties, as well as, the documentary evidence covered by Ex.P1 is the wedding card, Ex.P2 is the marriage photographs (4 in number) along with CD. Both parties are identified by their respective counsel. Long separate living and resolution of both parties to have dissolution of their marriage is consistently spoken by both parties. It is asserted that their marriage was took place on 08-08-2016 and they cannot live together even sufficient time is granted for reconciliation. It is further asserted that there is no chance for reconciliation and reunion in between them in future.

In the light of the facts and circumstances mentioned as stated above and also 4 the evidence adduced by parties, necessary ingredients for dissolution of marriage and grant of divorce on the ground of mutual consent are found clearly present in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, point No.1 is answered in favour of the petitioners accordingly.

8.POINT No. 2: In the result, a] The petition is allowed.

b] Marriage dated 15-05-2010 in between petitioners is dissolved.

c] There shall be decree of divorce between petitioners.

d] No costs.

Typed to my dictation on computer by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 13 th day of April, 2022.

Sd/-D.Venkateswarlu Naik

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BAPATLA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS: FOR RESPONDENT: None

P.W.1: Somana Gopinath

Pw.2 : Somana Sudha Rani @ Tupakula Sudha Rani

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS: FOR RESPONDENT: NIL

Ex.P1 is the wedding card,

Ex.P2 is the marriage photographs (4 in number) along with CD.

Sd/-D.Venkateswarlu Naik

P.S.C.J, BPTL.

1

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

Present: Sri D. Venkateswarlu Naik,

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla.

Tuesday, this the 12 th day of April, 2022.

H.M.O.P.No.19 of 2022.

Between: Koki Srinviasa Reddy S/o. Venkateswara Reddy, Hindu, aged about 34 years, R/o. 8th ward, Railpet, Upparapalem, Bapatla town and Mandal.

...Petitioner

And

Pulugu @ Koki Swathi W/o. Srinivasa Reddy, Hindu, aged about 25 years, R/o. Dundivaripalem, Karlapalem Mandal.

… Respondent

This petition has come up for hearing before me on 07-04-2022 in the presence of Sri V. Rama Rao, Advocate for Petitioner and the respondent was set exparte and stood over for consideration till this day,Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the Petitioner / Husband against the Respondent /

Wife seeking decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage in between the petitioner and respondent performed on 23.11.2016 on the ground of desertion under section 13 (1) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act and for costs.

2]The averments of the petition-affidavit in brief are that:

The petitioner’s marriage was performed with the respondent on 23-11-2016 at Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam as per Hindu usage and custom.

The marriage was consummated immediately. There is a close relationship between the families of the petitioner and the respondent. Since the beginning the respondent used to dress herself in a western culture. The petitioner and his parents hoped that she will change her living style. The petitioner used to spend huge money for beauty parlor. All the relatives and elders advised her to 2 change her living style but no use. From the beginning the respondent used to left the matrimonial house without any information to the petitioner. The respondent used to demand money for her personal use and when the petitioner did not provide the money she get angry and left the house without any cause. From the beginning, the respondent not cooperating the petitioner to lead for conjugal life and insulting the petitioner and his parents and abusing them with filthy language.

It is further submitted that on 18-02-2018 the respondent quarreled with th e petitioner so saying “Neevu nakku Taginavadivi kadu, nenu natho kapuram cheyanu” and left from the company of the petitioner without any reasonable cause. The mediation send by the petitioner to mend the ways of the respondent is proved futile. There is no change of reunion. There is no collusion in filling petition. Since 18-02-2018 the petitioner and the respondent are living separately. Hence, the petitioner is constrained to file this petition for dissolution of the marriage with that of the respondent by grating decree of divorce. Hence, the petition.

3]On the other hand, the notice was served to the respondent, but she called absent on 01-04-2022. No presentation. Hence, the respondent is set exparte.

4]To substantiate the petitioner case, the petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2. Ex.P1 is the Wedding card,

Ex.P2 is the marriage photographs (2 in number) along with CD.

5]Heard.

6]Points that arise for determination are :

1) Whether there are sufficient grounds to dissolve the marriage, dated 23.11.2016 between Koki Srinivasa

Reddy (Husband) and Pulugu @ Koki Swathi (wife) and to grant decree of divorce ?

3

2) What is the result of petition?

7]POINT No.1:

The petitioner in his chief-examination affidavit reiterated the contents of the petition filed by him. The respondent was set exparte. Hence, the evidence of Pw.1 is remained unchallenged. Thus, from the contents of the chief- examination affidavit and from the documents covered under Exs.P1 and P2 filed by the petitioner, the petitioner proved his case that the respondent is his wife, the respondent subjected the petitioner with cruelty both physically and mentally coupled with desertion in the month on 18-02-2018. Hence, this

Court holds that the petitioner is entitled for dissolution of marriage with the respondent as prayed for.

8]POINT No. 2: In the result, a] The petition is allowed.

b] Marriage dated 23.11.2016 between petitioner and respondent is dissolved.

c] There shall be decree of divorce between petitioner and respondent.

d] No costs.

Typed to my dictation on computer by the Stenographer Grade - III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 12 th day of April, 2022.

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BAPATLA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS: FOR RESPONDENT: Exp

P.W.1: Koki Srinivasa Reddy

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS: FOR RESPONDENT: NIL

Ex.P1 is the Wedding card,

Ex.P2 is the marriage photographs (2 in number) along with CD.

P.S.C.J, BPTL.

4

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

Present: Sri D. Venkateswarlu Naik,

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla

Tuesday, this the 12 th day of April, 2022.

H.M.O.P.No.19 of 2022.

Between: Koki Srinviasa Reddy S/o. Venkateswara Reddy, Hindu, aged about 34 years, R/o. 8th ward, Railpet, Upparapalem, Bapatla town and Mandal.

...Petitioner

And

Pulugu @ Koki Swathi W/o. Srinivasa Reddy, Hindu, aged about 25 years, R/o. Dundivaripalem, Karlapalem Mandal. … Respondent

This petition is filed by the Petitioner / Husband against the Respondent / Wife seeking decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage in between the petitioner and respondent performed on 23.11.2016 on the ground of desertion under section 13 (1) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act and for costs.

Date of Presentation:17-1-2022 Date of Filing:21-02-2022

This petition has come up for hearing before me on 07-04-2022 in the presence of Sri V. Rama Rao, Advocate for Petitioner and the respondent was set exparte and stood over for consideration till this day, and this Court doth the order;

D E C R E E

1. That the petition be and the same is hereby allowed; and

2. That the marriage between the petitioner and respondent took place on 23.11.2016 be and is hereby dissolved by way of “Decree of Divorce” from the date of this order; and

3. That there be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 12 th day of April, 2022.

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BAPATLA.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

No cost memo filed on either side

P.S.C.J, BPTL.