Sri D. Vijaya Saradhi Raju

APCH07000IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE 5342025(SENIOR DIVISION), AT TIRUPATI

Present: Sri. D. Vijaya Saradhi Raju, LL.M.,

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tirupati.

Wednesday, the 29th day of April, 2026

H.M.O.P. No.251 of 2025

Between:-

A.Vijaya, W/o A. Bujji Babu, Hindu, aged about 36 years, House wife, residing at D.No.9-1-43, G.M. Street, Tirupati Town & District, presently residing at D.No.10-1-56, Akuthota Street, Tirupati Town and District. . . . Petitioner.

And :-

A. Bujji Babu, S/o Late A. Krishnamoorthy, Hindu, aged about 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.11-1-260/A, Gandhi Road, Beside to Jamuna Store, Tirupati Town & District. . . . Respondent.

-o0o-

(Page 1 of 8 )

This Hindu marriage original petition came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri M. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner, and none on behalf of respondent, as the respondent set exparte, and upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel for petitioner, and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following;

O R D E R

[1] This is a petition filed by the petitioner under section 13(1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act,1955 with a prayer to dissolve the marriage held on 20-03-2011 in between petitioner and respondent, and to award costs.

[2] The brief averments of petition are like this; the love marriage in between petitioner and respondent taken place on 20-03-2011 at TTD Kalyana Mandapam,

Srinivasamangapuram, Chandragiri Mandal, Tirupati District as per Hindu rites and customs. Prior to fixing of marriage, respondent and his parents stated that they are having own business under name and style “GR Cosmetics”, having house plots around Tirupati vicinity and that father of respondent is TTD employee, having good source of income. After two months of marriage, respondent shown his true colour by coming to home by consuming alcohol and beat the petitioner, subjected her to cruelty both

(Page 2 of 8 )

physically and mentally. Respondent further stated that for the sake of marriage they lied. Petitioner conceived in the month of December, 2011 and went to her parents house for delivery by keeping her 10 sovereigns of gold at in-laws house. On 01-01-2012 she gave birth to female child by name Devi Rishika, after five months returned to in laws house and found her gold ornaments missing and when asked respondent he stated that he sold the said gold to clear his debts. Respondent and his parents neglected the petitioner from maintaining instead they told her to earn by doing job. On 11-06-2014 petitioner gave birth to male child by name Nandan Sai. There was no change in the attitude of respondent, petitioner committed suicide in the month of

December, 2016 but she survived. Petitioner brought

Rs.2,00,000/- from her sister Venkata Lakshmi and

Rs.1,25,000/- from her father and cleared debts of respondent. The parents of petitioner gave Rs.2,00,000/- and petitioner borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- and started new fancy and cosmetic shop under name and style VR cosmetics and looking after the family. By showing the shop of petitioner, respondent borrowed amounts and failed to discharge the debt, as such creditors used to come to shop and altercate with her. Respondent also involved in cheating with a false promise to provide job to others and used to collect amounts. Respondent beat the petitioner

(Page 3 of 8 )

indiscriminately and tried to kill her, as she failed to transfer house property stands in her name to respondent, which was purchased by her parents. She was admitted in Vidyu

Hemanth Hospital, Tirupati and underwent treatment.

Petitioner bear all the harassment in the hands of respondent with a fond hope that he will change in future but in vain. The marriage tie between petitioner and respondent is irretrievably broken down. Hence the petition.

[3] Notice sent to respondent through court and post served. Respondent present and engaged Smt V Yamuna,

Advocate on his behalf. On 27-04-2026 respondent was called absent. There was no representation on his behalf.

Counter not filed inspite of grant of number of adjournments, as such he was set exparte on 27-04-2026.

[4] To prove the case of petitioner, she herself got examined as P.W.1, and marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5 documents, and those are Ex.P-1 is Wedding card, Ex.P-2 is

Two marriage photos, Ex.P-3 is Prescription issued by Vidyu

Hemanth Hospital, Tirupati, Ex.P-4 is Pendrive consists of shop video damaged by the respondent dated 05-04-2025 and Ex.P-5 is Petitioner injury photo(2 in number).

[5] Heard the learned counsel for petitioner.

(Page 4 of 8 )

[6] Now, the point that arises for determination is that;

“ Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief

prayed.?” [7] POINT:- In her chief affidavit, petitioner reiterated the version in petition. According to the petitioner, her marriage was held with respondent, and the respondent harassed her both physically and mentally. Thus the petitioner is seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. The oral evidence of P.W.1 coupled with documents exhibited by her is proving the fact of her marriage with the respondent.

The respondent did not choose to contest the petition proceedings, as such he was set exparte. The conduct of the respondent in not contesting the matter suggesting that he has no point to say regarding the averments of petition.

Further more respondent reported no objection to grant divorce in favour of petitioner. As the respondent was set exparte, the version claimed by petitioner remains unchallenged and unrebutted. Hence the petitioner is entitled for the relief prayed. The point is decided in affirmative.

[8] In the result, petition is allowed exparte, granting decree of divorce in favour of the petitioner by dissolving her marriage with the respondent, from the date of this

(Page 5 of 8 )

order. Under the circumstances, there is no order as to costs, and the parties are left to bear their own costs.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer (Gr-2), and the order is corrected by me. The order is delivered and operative part of the same is pronounced in the open court, today, this the 29th day of April, 2026 under the hand and seal of this court.

Sd/- D.Vijaya saradhi raju,

Principal Civil Judge ( Senior Dvn),

Tirupati.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined:-

For petitioner:

PW1: A. Vijaya.

For respondent:

Exparte

Documents marked:-

For petitioner:

Ex.P-1 :Wedding card. Ex.P-2 :Two marriage photos. Ex.P-3 :Prescription issued by Vidyu Hemanth Hospital, Tirupati. Ex.P-4 :Pendrive consists of shop video damaged by the respondent dated 05-04-2025. Ex.P-5 :Petitioner injury photo(2 in number).

(Page 6 of 8 )

For respondent:

Exparte.

Sd/- D.Vijaya saradhi raju,

Prl.C.J (S.D)

Tirupati.

(Page 7 of 8 )

Fair Order in

HMOP No.251/2025

dated 29-04-2026

(Page 8 of 8 )

APCH070000IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE 442026(SENIOR DIVISION), AT TIRUPATI

Present: Sri. D. Vijaya Saradhi Raju, LL.M.,

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tirupati.

Wednesday, the 29th day of April, 2026

H.M.O.P. No.26 of 2026

Between:

1. A. Chiranjeevi, son of A. Prabhakar, Private Employee, aged 44 years, resident of D.No.2-28, B. Kongaravaripalle Village, Chandragiri Mandal, Tirupati Mandal, Tirupati District.

2. G. Kalpana, Wife of A. Chiranjeevi, daughter of G. Babu, House-wife, aged 33 years, resident of D.No.4, Chinnaramapuram Village, Bhimavaram Post, Chandragiri Mandal, Tirupati District. . . . Petitioners.

And :

None. . . . Respondent.

-o0o-

This Hindu marriage original petition came before me for final

(Page 1 of 6 )

hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri B. Narahari Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners, and none on behalf of respondent, and upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel

for petitioners, and upon perusing the material papers on record,

and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :-

O R D E R

[1] This is a petition filed by the petitioners No.1 and 2

U/sec.13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, with a prayer to grant divorce by dissolving the marriage dated 02-06-2013 held in between them, under mutual consent, and to grant such other reliefs which may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

[2] The brief averments of petition are like this; that the love cum arranged marriage in between the petitioners was solemnized on 02-06-2013 at TTD Kalyana Mandapam,

Naravaripalle Village, Chandragiri Mandal, Tirupati District as per

Hindu rites and customs prevailing in the community. The marriage was duly consummated. The marriage was registered

before the Marriage Registrar, Chandragiri on 07-06-2013. Out of

wedlock no children were born to them. After marriage, the differences between the petitioners widened with the passage of time, consequently petitioners developed indifferent attitude each other and living separately since 17-08-2018 without matrimonial relationship. Petitioners agreed to settle CC

No.793/2021 on the file of Principal Civil Judge’s Court (Junior

(Page 2 of 6 )

Division), Tirupati and DVC No.22/2024on the file of III Additional

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Chittoor. All movable properties of

petitioners already exchanged. 2ndpetitioner received permanent alimony of Rs.5,00,000/- from the 1st petitioner.

Petitioners agreed not to claim against each other. The marriage in between petitioners was irretrievably broken down.

Mediations to reunite the petitioners turned futile. Petitioners agreed to amicably dissolve their marriage through mutual consent.

[3] Six months mandatory period is dispensed with. Efforts of reconciliation failed. At the event of enquiry, petitioners no.1 & 2 adduced oral and documentary evidence.

[4] Heard the learned counsel for petitioners.

[5] Now, the points that arises for consideration are that;

1. “ Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of

divorce on mutual consent as prayed for.?”

2. “ to what relief .?” [6] EVIDENCE ON RECORD:- To prove their case, petitioner no.1 got examined himself as P.W.1 and petitioner no.2 got examined herself as P.W.2 and THREE documents were marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3 and those are Ex.P-1 is Marriage

Wedding Card, Ex.P-2 is Marriage photo (1 in number) and Ex.P-3

(Page 3 of 6 )

is Marriage Certificate dated 07-06-2013.

[7] POINT No.1:- The point no.1 framed is ‘Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of divorce on mutual consent as prayed for.?’. In their chief affidavits as P.W’s.1 & 2 respectively the petitioners reiterated their version in petition. The petitioners are seeking for grant of divorce under mutual consent. According to the petitioners they are living separately since 17-08-2018. Both P.W’s.1 and 2 categorically deposed that due to the differences of opinions and temperaments they are unable to adjust with each other.

[8] The evidence of both the petitioners cogently proving that there is no chance of reunion between the parties as the marital chord between them was irretrievably broken down. It appears that in view of the differences arose in between them, the petitioners are unable to continue their marital relationship.

There is no occasion to doubt the voluntariness of petitioners to seek divorce under mutual consent. In view thereof it is held that the petitioners are entitled for grant of relief prayed. The point no.1 is decided in affirmative.

[9] POINT No.2:- The point no.2 framed is ‘to what relief.?’. In view of the specific fact that the point no.1 is decided in affirmative, I hold that the petitioners are entitled for grant of divorce on mutual consent as prayed for. The point no.2 is decided accordingly.

(Page 4 of 6 )

[10] In the result, the petition is allowed, and the marital relationship in between the parties is hereby dissolved from the date of this order, by granting decree of divorce to the petitioners, on mutual consent. Under the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer (Gr-2), and the order is corrected by me. The order is delivered and operative part of the same is pronounced in the open court, today, this the 29th day of April, 2026 under the hand and seal of this court.

Sd/- D. Vijaya Saradhi Raju,

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Tirupati.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined:-

PW1 : A. Chiranjeevi. PW2 :G. Kalpana.

Documents marked:-

Ex.P-1 :Marriage Wedding Card. Ex.P-2 :Marriage photo (1 in number). Ex.P-3 :Marriage Certificate dated 07-06-2013.

Sd/- D. Vijaya Saradhi Raju,

Prl.C.J(Sr.D), Tirupati.

(Page 5 of 6 )

Fair Order in HMOP No.26/2026

Dated 29-04-2026

(Page 6 of 6 )

APCH070005IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE 582025(SENIOR DIVISION), AT TIRUPATI

Present: Sri. D. Vijaya Saradhi Raju, LL.M.,

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tirupati.

Wednesday, the 29th day of April, 2026

H.M.O.P. No.264 of 2025

Between:

1. M. Janaki, D/o M. Muna Swamy Reddy, W/o G. Murali, Hindu, aged about 24 years, House wife, residing at D.No.102, Mundlapudi, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District.

2. G. Murali, S/o G. Nadhamuni Reddy, Hindu, aged about 26 years, driver, residing at D.No.2-134, Agraharam, Mundlapudi, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District. . . . Petitioners.

And :

None. . . . Respondent.

-o0o-

This Hindu marriage original petition came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri A. Venu Gopal,

(Page 1 of 6 )

learned counsel for petitioners, and none on behalf of respondent, and upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel

for petitioners, and upon perusing the material papers on record,

and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :-

O R D E R

[1] This is a petition filed by the petitioners No.1 and 2

U/sec.13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, with a prayer to grant divorce by dissolving the marriage dated 23-03-2023 held in between them, under mutual consent, and to grant such other reliefs which may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

[2] The brief averments of petition are like this; that the love cum arranged marriage in between the petitioners was solemnized on 23-03-2023 at Swayambhu Sri Varasidhi Vinayaka

Swamy Temple, Kanipakam, Irala Mandal, Chittoor District, as per Hindu rites and customs prevailing in the community. The marriage was not consummated. The petitioners lived together under one roof for a short period only. Thereafter some misunderstandings between the petitioners arose, due to which since 20-06-2023, petitioners are living separately. The marriage in between petitioners was irretrievably broken down.

Mediations to reunite the petitioners turned futile. Petitioners agreed to amicably dissolve their marriage through mutual consent.

(Page 2 of 6 )

[3] Six months mandatory period is dispensed with. Efforts of reconciliation failed. At the event of enquiry, petitioners no.1 & 2 adduced oral and documentary evidence.

[4] Heard the learned counsel for petitioners.

[5] Now, the points that arises for consideration are that;

1. “ Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of

divorce on mutual consent as prayed for.?”

2. “ to what relief .?” [6] EVIDENCE ON RECORD:- To prove their case, petitioner no.1 got examined herself as P.W.1 and petitioner no.2 got examined himself as P.W.2 and THREE documents were marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3 and those are Ex.P-1 is Wedding Card

dated 23-03-2023, Ex.P-2 is Marriage photo (1 number) of the

petitioner and respondent and Ex.P-3 is Marriage receipt of the petitioners issued by Sri Varasiddi Vinayaka Swamy Temple,

Kanipakam.

[7] POINT No.1:- The point no.1 framed is ‘Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of divorce on mutual consent as prayed for.?’. In their chief affidavits as P.W’s.1 & 2 respectively the petitioners reiterated their version in petition. The petitioners are seeking for grant of divorce under mutual consent. According to the petitioners they are living separately

(Page 3 of 6 )

since 20-06-2023. Both P.W’s.1 and 2 categorically deposed that due to the differences of opinions and temperaments they are unable to adjust with each other.

[8] The evidence of both the petitioners cogently proving that there is no chance of reunion between the parties as the marital chord between them was irretrievably broken down. It appears that in view of the differences arose in between them, the petitioners are unable to continue their marital relationship.

There is no occasion to doubt the voluntariness of petitioners to seek divorce under mutual consent. In view thereof it is held that the petitioners are entitled for grant of relief prayed. The point no.1 is decided in affirmative.

[9] POINT No.2:- The point no.2 framed is ‘to what relief.?’. In view of the specific fact that the point no.1 is decided in affirmative, I hold that the petitioners are entitled for grant of divorce on mutual consent as prayed for. The point no.2 is decided accordingly.

[10] In the result, the petition is allowed, and the marital relationship in between the parties is hereby dissolved from the date of this order, by granting decree of divorce to the petitioners, on mutual consent. Under the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer

(Page 4 of 6 )

(Gr-2), and the order is corrected by me. The order is delivered and operative part of the same is pronounced in the open court, today, this the 29th day of April, 2026 under the hand and seal of this court.

Sd/- D.Vijaya saradhi raju,

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Tirupati.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined:-

PW1 : M. Janaki. PW2 :G. Murali.

Documents marked:-

Ex.P-1 : Wedding Card dated 23-03-2023. Ex.P-2 :Marriage photo (1 number) of the petitioner and respondent. Ex.P-3 :Marriage receipt of the petitioners issued by Sri Varasiddi Vinayaka Swamy Temple, Kanipakam.

Sd/- D.Vijaya saradhi raju,

Prl.C.J(Sr.D), Tirupati.

(Page 5 of 6 )

Fair Order in HMOP No.264/2025

Dated 29-04-2026

(Page 6 of 6 )

APCH07000IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE 0842026(SENIOR DIVISION), AT TIRUPATI

Present: Sri. D. Vijaya Saradhi Raju, LL.M.,

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tirupati.

Thursday, the 30th day of April, 2026

H.M.O.P. No.46 of 2026

Between:-

Sompalli Siva Sankar, S/o Srinivasulu, R/o Paluru Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, presently came down to Tirupati. Tirupati District. . . . Petitioner.

And :-

Nallani Likitha, W/o Sompalli Sivasankar, D/o Venkata Krishnaiah, Hindu, aged 25 years, resident of 913 Dickens, Dr.McKinney, TX 75071, Texas, United State of America, within the jurisdiction of U.s.District Court, Texas. . . . Respondent.

-o0o-

(Page 1 of 6 )

This Hindu marriage original petition came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri G. Srinivasulu Goud, learned counsel for petitioner, and of Sri Muralidhar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent, and upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following;

O R D E R

[1] This is a petition filed by the petitioner under section 13(1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act,1955 with a prayer to dissolve the marriage held on 15-12-2024 in between petitioner and respondent, and to award costs.

[2] The brief averments of petition are like this; the love marriage in between petitioner and respondent taken place on 15-12-2024 at KSR Kalyana Mandapam, D.No.8- 116, Sannidhi Street, Tiruchanur, Tirupati Rural Mandal,

Tirupati District, as per Hindu rites and customs. The marriage was duly registered at Sub-Registrar Office,

Reniguntaon20-12-2024,videCertificate

No.H.M.No.HM/SR1018/250 of 2024. The marriage was duly consummated but no children were born out of wedlock.

Since the beginning of marriage, respondent did not live amicably with the petitioner. Due to professional

(Page 2 of 6 )

requirements, respondent went to USA, secured job there and continued to live in America. Though physically respondent was away from petitioner, she always used to behave adamantly and subjected petitioner to cruelty.

Respondent never cared for marital life. All the attempts made by petitioner for amicable resolution of problem created by respondent has become futile. Several mediations were held in the presence of elders but in vain.

The marriage tie between petitioner and respondent is irretrievably broken down. Hence the petition.

[3] During course of sending notices to respondent, Sri

Muralidhar Reddy, Advocate filed Vakalath for respondent.

Respondent through her counsel filed a petition reporting no objection for grant of divorce in favour of the petitioner, enclosed with attested copy of passport of respondent, hence this court considered the petition as counter and effort of reconciliation was made and the same failed.

[4] To prove the case of petitioner, he himself got examined as P.W.1, and marked Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 documents, and those are Ex.P-1 is Marriage photo (1 in number) of petitioner and the respondent along with pen drive and Ex.P-2 is Marriage Certificate dated 20-12-2024.

(Page 3 of 6 )

[5] Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent.

[6] Now, the point that arises for determination is that;

“ Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief

prayed.?” [7] POINT:- In his chief affidavit, petitioner reiterated the version in petition. According to the petitioner, his marriage was held with respondent, and the respondent harassed him both physically and mentally. Thus the petitioner is seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. The oral evidence of P.W.1 coupled with documents exhibited by him is proving the fact of his marriage with the respondent.

Respondent though filed petition which is treated as her counter by this court, reported no objection to grant divorce in favour of petitioner, instead she herself sought dissolution of their marriage. The conduct of the respondent in not contesting the matter suggesting that she has no point to say regarding the averments of petition. Further more respondent reported no objection to grant divorce in favour of petitioner. As such the version claimed by petitioner remains unchallenged and unrebutted. Hence the petitioner is entitled for the relief prayed. The point is decided in affirmative.

(Page 4 of 6 )

[8] In the result, petition is allowed, granting decree of divorce in favour of the petitioner by dissolving his marriage with the respondent, from the date of this order. Under the circumstances, there is no order as to costs, and the parties are left to bear their own costs.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer (Gr-2), and the order is corrected by me. The order is delivered and operative part of the same is pronounced in the open court, today, this the 30th day of April, 2026 under the hand and seal of this court.

Sd/- D.Vijaya saradhi raju,

Principal Civil Judge ( Senior Dvn),

Tirupati.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined:-

For petitioner:

PW1: Sompalli Siva Sankar.

For respondent:

NIL

Documents marked:-

For petitioner:

Ex.P-1 : Marriage photo (1 in number) of petitioner and the respondent along with pen drive. Ex.P-2 :Marriage Certificate dated 20-12-2024.

For respondent:

NILSd/- D.Vijaya saradhi raju,

Prl.C.J (S.D)

Tirupati.

(Page 5 of 6 )

Fair Order in

HMOP No.46/2026

dated 30-04-2026

(Page 6 of 6 )

APCH070005IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE 632025(SENIOR DIVISION), AT TIRUPATI

Present: Sri. D. Vijaya Saradhi Raju, LL.M.,

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tirupati.

Wednesday, the 29th day of April, 2026

H.M.O.P. No.267 of 2025

Between:

1.C. Hari Krishna, S/o C. Munikrishnaiah, aged 32 years, business, resident of D.No.9-583, Mangalam, Quarters, Settipalli, Tirupati Urban Mandal, Tirupati District.

2.Dr.D. Sai Keerthi, W/o C. Hari Krishna, aged 29 years, Doctor, C/o D. Sudhakar, Prasanthi Nagar, Anantapuramu. . . . Petitioners.

And :

None. . . . Respondent.

-o0o-

This Hindu marriage original petition came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri B. Narahari Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners, and none on behalf of respondent, and upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel

(Page 1 of 6 )

for petitioners, and upon perusing the material papers on record,

and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :-

O R D E R

[1] This is a petition filed by the petitioners No.1 and 2

U/sec.13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, with a prayer to grant divorce by dissolving the marriage dated 21-04-2022 held in between them, under mutual consent, and to grant such other reliefs which may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

[2] The brief averments of petition are like this; that the marriage in between the petitioners was solemnized on 21-04- 2022 at Visakha Saradha Peetam, Tirumala, Tirupati District as per Hindu rites and customs. The marriage was duly consummated and out of wedlock, no children were born to them. After the marriage, petitioners lived together only for a period of one year, thereafter differences widened with the passage of time, consequently petitioners by their indifferent attitude against each other have separated themselves on 26- 07-2023 and since then residing separately. Petitioners arrived for settlement out of court. The marriage in between petitioners was irretrievably broken down. Mediations to reunite the petitioners turned futile. Petitioners agreed to amicably dissolve their marriage through mutual consent.

(Page 2 of 6 )

[3] Six months mandatory period is dispensed with. Efforts of reconciliation failed. At the event of enquiry, petitioners no.1 & 2 adduced oral and documentary evidence.

[4] Heard the learned counsel for petitioners.

[5] Now, the points that arises for consideration are that;

1. “ Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of

divorce on mutual consent as prayed for.?”

2. “ to what relief .?” [6] EVIDENCE ON RECORD:- To prove their case, petitioner no.1 got examined herself as P.W.1 and petitioner no.2 got examined himself as P.W.2 and TWO documents were marked as Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 and those are Ex.P-1 is Marriage

Wedding card and Ex.P-2 is Marriage photo (2 in number).

[7] POINT No.1:- The point no.1 framed is ‘Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of divorce on mutual consent as prayed for.?’. In their chief affidavits as P.W’s.1 & 2 respectively the petitioners reiterated their version in petition. The petitioners are seeking for grant of divorce under mutual consent. According to the petitioners they are living separately since 26-07-2023. Both P.W’s.1 and 2 categorically deposed that due to the differences of opinions and temperaments they are unable to adjust with each other.

(Page 3 of 6 )

[8] The evidence of both the petitioners cogently proving that there is no chance of reunion between the parties as the marital chord between them was irretrievably broken down. It appears that in view of the differences arose in between them, the petitioners are unable to continue their marital relationship.

There is no occasion to doubt the voluntariness of petitioners to seek divorce under mutual consent. In view thereof it is held that the petitioners are entitled for grant of relief prayed. The point no.1 is decided in affirmative.

[9] POINT No.2:- The point no.2 framed is ‘to what relief.?’. In view of the specific fact that the point no.1 is decided in affirmative, I hold that the petitioners are entitled for grant of divorce on mutual consent as prayed for. The point no.2 is decided accordingly.

[10] In the result, the petition is allowed, and the marital relationship in between the parties is hereby dissolved from the date of this order, by granting decree of divorce to the petitioners, on mutual consent. Under the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer (Gr-2), and the order is corrected by me. The order is delivered and operative part of the same is pronounced in the open court, today, this the 29th day of April, 2026 under the hand and seal of this court.

Sd/- D.Vijaya saradhi raju,

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Tirupati.

(Page 4 of 6 )

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined:-

PW1 : C. Hari Krishna. PW2 :Dr.D.Sai Keerthi.

Documents marked:-

Ex.P-1 : Marriage Wedding card. Ex.P-2 :Marriage photo (2 in number).

Sd/- D.Vijaya saradhi raju,

Prl.C.J(Sr.D), Tirupati.

(Page 5 of 6 )

Fair Order in HMOP No.267/2025

Dated 29-04-2026

(Page 6 of 6 )