Sri E. Bhima Rao

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

WEST GODAVARI: AT ELURU.

Present: Sri E.Bhima Rao,

Principal District Judge,

West Godavari, Eluru.

Friday, on this the 8th day of April, 2022.

DIVORCE ORIGINAL PETITION No.116/2021.

Between:-

Mathangi Haribabu @ Anandpal ...Petitioner.

Vs.

Mathangi Sai Deepti @ Deepikapal …Respondent

This petition has come on 28.03.2022 for hearing in the presence of Sri D.Umamaheswara Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Respondent having been called absent and remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

O R D E R

Petition is filed under Section 10(1)(ix)(x) of Indian Divorce Act, (for brevity ‘the Act’) seeking for divorce, dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent which took place on 02.06.2014 on the grounds of ‘desertion’ and ‘cruelty’ and for costs of the petition.

2. The brief averments in the petition are as follows:

a. The respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and their marriage was performed on 02.06.2014 at the house of petitioner at

Apparaopet village, Unguturu Mandal, West Godavari District as per Christian rites and caste customs in the presence of elders, friends. The said marriage was duly consummated. At the time of marriage, as per the tradition, the petitioner presented eight sovereigns of gold and new cloths to the respondent and her family members and the petitioner purchased a house site in Kotturu village near Venkatapuram and registered the said house site in the name of respondent. But the petitioner did not receive any valuable articles or cash from the respondent. The entire marriage expenses were born by the parents of petitioner. Signature Not Verified

BHIMA RAO

ERUGULA

2 b. It is submitted that, after the marriage, the respondent joined the in-laws house for matrimonial life at Apparaopet village, Unguturu Mandal.

Both the petitioner and respondent lived happily for two years and thereafter the petitioner changed the residence to Dhanbad District, Jarkhand State on job purpose in the year 2016, after one year again shifted to Bangalore in 2017 and after that shifted again to Chebrolu. Out of wed-lock, they were blessed with two female children 1.Lowkyasri and Lasyasri. At present, Lowkyasri is living with petitioner and Lasyasri is living with respondent’s parents.

c. It is submitted that, since the marriage, the respondent is having adamant attitude and cruel in nature and she used to behave in an arrogant manner towards the petitioner. The petitioner treated the respondent very well with love and affection. But, the respondent never shown any interest to join with the petitioner and his family members and never shown any respect towards the petitioner. The respondent always used to harass the petitioner for purchasing luxurious articles, car, gold ornaments and costly sarees, which is difficult for the petitioner because of his poor financial condition. When the petitioner expressed his inability, the respondent used to abuse the petitioner in filthy language very often. The respondent used to go out from the home very frequently in the mornings and come in late evenings without information to the petitioner. Whenever the petitioner asked about the same, the respondent used to reply carelessly and did not give any reasonable answer.

d. The respondent never showed any interest to look after the welfare of the children and petitioner. The respondent almost neglected household duties like cooking food for the petitioner and children also. The respondent used to quarrel with the petitioner for silly reasons and thus behaved in a psychic manner. The petitioner was put to serious mental agony due to harsh, adamant, cruel and peculiar behaviour of the respondent. Though the petitioner expressed his inability due to poor financial condition, the respondent intensified the disputes and quarreled with the petitioner for purchasing car and Signature Not Verified

BHIMA RAO

ERUGULA

3 left the house of petitioner without any reasonable cause on 15.09.2018 along with cash of Rs.20,000/-, gold ornaments and title deeds of house documents.

e. It is submitted that the petitioner came to know that the respondent went to her parents’ house at Tallapudi village, Pedapadu Mandal,

West Godavari District. The petitioner also came to know that the respondent has some love affair with a person belonging to same village and she developed illegal relationship with him before marriage and it is still continuing.

f. It is submitted that the petitioner waited all these years with a fond hope that the respondent would return to matrimonial house, but in vain. The petitioner himself went to the house of respondent and tried to convince her, but all his efforts became futile. The petitioner got issued a legal notice dt.08.09.2020 to the respondent calling upon her to come back to join with him, but in vain. Hence, the petition.

3. Notice was ordered to the respondent through Court and

Registered Post. The said notice was served on the respondent through registered post. But the respondent has not chosen to appear before this Court in person or through her advocate. As service held sufficient, the respondent is set exparte on 28.02.2022 and matter is posted for petitioner’s side evidence.

4. The petitioner himself testified as P.W.1 and got exhibited Exs.A.1 to A.4. One 3rd party by name Godi Manikyala Rao was examined as P.W.2.

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

6. Now the point for determination is :-

Whether petitioner is entitled for decree of divorce on the grounds of ‘Desertion” and ‘Cruelty’?

Signature Not Verified

BHIMA RAO

ERUGULA

4

POINT :-

7. The Petitioner himself testified as P.W.1 and filed his affidavit in chief reiterating the averments of the petition. Through P.W.1, Ex.A1 to A4 are marked. Ex.A.1 is the Marriage Wedding Card, Ex.A2 is Marriage photos, Ex.A3 is photocopy of Aadhar card of petitioner and Ex.A4 Marriage Certificate.

8. Exs.A.1, A.2 and A.4 goes to show that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 02.06.2014 at the house of petitioner at Apparaopet village, Unguturu Mandal, West Godavari District as per Christian rites and caste customs. The unchallenged oral testimony of

P.W.1 coupled with Exs.A.1, A.2 and A.4 proved that marriage of petitioner was performed with respondent. Hence, it can be safely concluded that P.W.1 is legally wedded husband of the respondent.

9.Admittedly, the petitioner filed this petition under section 10(1)(ix)(x) of the Divorce Act. Section 10(1)(ix)(x) reads as follows:

Section 10: Grounds for dissolution of marriage:

(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of the Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act 2001, may, on a petition presented to the District Court either by the husband or the wife, be dissolved on the ground that since the solemnization of the marriage, the respondent:-- ………

(ix).has deserted the petitioner for at least two years

immediately preceding the presentation of the petition.

(x).has treated the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the respondent.

The above provision of law clearly postulates that, in order to dissolve the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent on the grounds of ‘desertion; and ‘cruelty’, the petitioner has to prove that the respondent has treated him with her cruel acts as to cause a reasonable apprehension in his mind that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the respondent and also prove that the respondent has deserted him for at least two years immediately Signature Not Verified

BHIMA RAO

ERUGULA

5 preceding the presentation of petition without any justifiable or reasonable cause.

10. P.W.1 in his chief-examination affidavit reiterated the contentions made in the petition. A perusal of the averments in the petition, as well as the evidence of P.W.1, it discloses that the marriage between petitioner/P.W.1 and respondent was performed on 02.06.2014 according to Christian rites and customs at the house of petitioner in Apparaopet village, Unguturu Mandal,

West Godavari District and the marriage was duly consummated.

11. It is his further evidence that, at the time of marriage, he did not receive any valuable articles or cash from the respondent, the entire marriage expenses were born by his parents and on the other hand they have presented eight sovereigns of gold and new cloths to the respondent and her family members and also purchased a house site in Kotturu village near

Venkatapuram and registered the said house site on the name of respondent.

12. It is his further evidence that himself and respondent lived happily for two years and thereafter they changed the residence to Dhanbad District,

Jarkhand State on job purpose in the year 2016, after one year again shifted to

Bangalore in 2017 and after that shifted again to Chebrolu. It is his further evidence that out of wed-lock, they were blessed with two female children 1.Lowkyasri and Lasyasri.

13. It is his further evidence that, from the beginning the respondent is having adamant attitude, always desirous of leading luxurious life and always used to insist him to purchase luxurious articles, gold ornaments, costly sarees and car etc., It is his further evidence that the respondent never behaved like a dutiful wife and never discharged his household duties and never shown any love and affection towards him and children and used to abuse him in filthy language whenever he expresses his inability.

Signature Not Verified

BHIMA RAO

ERUGULA

6

14. It is his further evidence that the respondent used to go out from the home very frequently in the mornings and come in late evenings without information to him and whenever he asked about the same, the respondent used to reply carelessly and did not give any reasonable answer. It is his further evidence that the respondent used to quarrel with him for silly reasons and thus behaved in a psychic manner and thereby caused serious mental agony to him with his harsh, adamant, cruel and peculiar behaviour. It is his further evidence that on 15.09.2018 the respondent raised dispute with him for purchasing car and left the house without any reasonable cause along with cash of Rs.20,000/-, gold ornaments and title deeds of house documents and went to her parents’ house.

15. It is his further evidence that the respondent has some love affair with a person belonging to same village and she developed illegal relationship with him before marriage and it is still continuing. It is his further evidence that he waited all these years with a fond hope that the respondent would return to matrimonial house, but in vain. It is his further evidence that, at present, his daughter Lowkyasri is residing with him and another daughter

Lasyasri is residing with parents of respondent.

16. P.W.2 who is third party to the proceedings filed his affidavit in lieu of chief examination and supported the version of P.W.1 on all material aspects of the case.

17. It is pertinent to mention here that physical violence is not absolutely essential to constitute cruelty and a consistent course of conduct inflicting immeasurable mental agony and torture may well constitute cruelty.

Mental cruelty may consist of verbal abuses and insults by using filthy and abusive language leading to constant disturbance of mental peace of the other party.

Signature Not Verified

BHIMA RAO

ERUGULA

7

18. In the instant case, as per the petitioner, the respondent always used to raise disputes with him on trivial issues, never attended household works, never looked after his welfare and the welfare of the children never behaved like a dutiful wife. Further that the respondent used to spend the earnings of petitioner for her luxuries and used to harass him both physically and mentally. Further that the respondent used to go out of the house in mornings and come to house in evenings without intimating the petitioner and used to give reply recklessly as and when asked by the petitioner and on 15.09.2018 the respondent raised a dispute with the petitioner for purchasing a car and left the matrimonial home and went to her parents’ house. The above acts of the respondent certainly would lead to constant disturbance of mental peace of the petitioner and constitute ‘cruelty’ and due to the above acts of the respondent the petitioner ultimately realized that it is very difficult for him to lead matrimonial life with the respondent. Further, from the above evidence of

P.W.1, it is clear that the respondent since 15.09.2018 has been living separately from the petitioner at her parents’ house and thereby deserted him.

The present petition is filed on 28.01.2021 and it is clear that the desertion is more than two years, preceding to the presentation of this petition. Further, the respondent has not counteract the allegations of the petitioner and remained exparte. The unchallenged evidence of P.W.1 clearly established the fact that the respondent harassed the petitioner mentally and deserted him without any justifiable or reasonable cause. Further, the evidence of P.W.1 discloses that the petitioner and elders tried to settle the matter amicably, but in vain.

19. Though the petitioner has averred in his petition and in his chief examination affidavit that he got issued a legal notice dt.08.09.2020 to the respondent calling upon her to join with him, no such legal notice is marked on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, the same cannot be considered.

Signature Not Verified

BHIMA RAO

ERUGULA

8

20. By adducing sufficient evidence on his behalf, the petitioner has proved the allegations of ‘desertion’ and ‘cruelty’ on the part the respondent.

This Court has no option except to believe the version of the petitioner/P.W.1.

Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for decree of divorce on the grounds of ‘desertion’ and ‘cruelty’ from the respondent. Accordingly, the point is answered.

IN THE RESULT, Petition is allowed without costs by granting decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of petitioner with respondent held on 02.06.2014 under Section 10(1)(ix)(x) of Indian Divorce Act, on the grounds of ‘desertion’ and ‘cruelty’.

Typed to my dictation to the Personal Assistant on Computer Device, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 8 th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- E.Bhima Rao

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENT:

P.W.1 : Mathangi Haribabu @ Anandpal -NONE-

P.W.2 : Godi Manikyala Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER:

Ex.A.1 -- : Original Marriage Wedding Card dt.02.06.2014

Ex.A.2 -- : Original Marriage photo

Ex.A.3 -- : Photocopy of Aadhar card of petitioner

Ex.A.4 -- : Original Marriage Certificate dt.02.06.2014

FOR RESPONDENT: - N I L -.

Sd/- E.Bhima Rao

P.D.J.,

W.G., ELURU.

Signature Not Verified

BHIMA RAO

ERUGULA

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE:

WEST GODAVARI: AT ELURU.

Present: Sri E.Bhima Rao,

Principal District Judge,

West Godavari, Eluru.

Friday, this the 8th day of April, 2022.

DIVORCE ORIGINAL PETITION No.973/2019.

Between:

1.Chigurupalli Rajesh

2.Smt.Chigurupalli (Mulupuri) Divya Sunny … Petitioners.

And

-N I L- … Respondent.

This petition has come on 23.03.2022 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri

G.P.Daniel, Advocate for petitioners; respondent shown as NIL; upon perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this

Court made the following:

O R D E R

This Petition is filed under Section 10-A of Indian Divorce Act, 1869, seeking for decree of divorce dissolving the marriage in between petitioner Nos.1 and 2, held on 16.09.2013 by way of ‘Mutual consent’.

2. The petitioners in their petition submitted that, the 1st petitioner is the legally wedded husband of the 2nd petitioner and their marriage was solemnized on 16.09.2013 in Sacred Heart of Jesus RCM Church, Vegivada village, Pedavegi Mandal,

West Godavari District and the marriage was consummated. It is submitted that, after the marriage, the 2nd petitioner joined the 1st petitioner and started conjugal life at the house of 1st petitioner. The petitioners lived together as wife and husband and lead marital life for three years at the house of 1st petitioner, but they were not blessed with children.

Signature Not Verified

BHIMA RAO

ERUGULA

D.O.P.No.973/2019. 2 P.D.J. Court, Eluru.

a. It is submitted that, thereafter some petty disputes were developed in between the petitioners. The misunderstandings, self egos and the petty disputes developed at large between them. Due to the misunderstandings, self egos and petty disputes, the 2nd petitioner left the company of 1st petitioner on 25.05.2016 and went to her parents’ house.

b. It is submitted that the both side family members placed the matter before elders who conducted panchayats, mediation and counseling between the petitioners and tried their level best to pacify the disputes and for reunion, but in vain. Both the petitioners not agreed to join each other and the efforts made by both the family members and elders proved futile. The petitioners are living separately since 25.05.2016 on their own accord and will. The petitioners are not interested to join each other to continue marital life. The petitioners are strongly willing to dissolve their marriage and to live separately on their own accord.

c. It is submitted that, at the intervention of elders of both sides, the petitioners entered into a compromise and as per the compromise, the petitioners both expressed their willing to take divorce by mutual consent and exchanged their belongings.

It is further submitted that there is no collusion in between them and there is no other petition filed by them in any other Court. Hence, the petition.

3. On 23.12.2021 both the parties appeared and the matter was referred to mediation center with a direction to both parties to appear before the Mediation Center for settlement on 23.12.2021 itself, but mediation was not settled and mediation report to that effect is received.

4. On 23.03.2022 both the petitioners appeared before this Court. Petitioners 1 and 2 were examined themselves as P.W.1 and P.W.2 respectively, affirming the contents of their proof affidavits filed in lieu of their chief-examinations. Through P.W.1, Ex.A.1

Marriage Certificate, Ex.A.2 Marriage photos along with CD and Ex.A3 Photocopy of

Signature Not Verified

BHIMA RAO

ERUGULA

D.O.P.No.973/2019. 3 P.D.J. Court, Eluru.

Aadhar card of 1st petitioner are marked. Through P.W.2, Ex.A.4 photocopy of Aadhar card of 2nd petitioner is marked.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and perused the entire material available on record.

6. Now point for determination is:

(1)Whether the petition is maintainable under section 10-A of the Divorce Act?

(2)Whether the marriage in between Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 can be dissolved by decree of divorce by ‘Mutual Consent’?

POINT Nos.1 & 2 :-

7. Since the point Nos.1 and 2 are interrelated, they have been dealt with together. The sum and substance of the evidence P.Ws.1 and 2 is nothing but replica of the averments made in their petition.

8. It is the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that the 1st petitioner is the legally wedded husband of the 2nd petitioner and their marriage was solemnized on 16.09.2013 in Sacred Heart of Jesus RCM Church, Vegivada village, Pedavegi Mandal, West Godavari

District and the marriage was consummated. It is their further evidence that, after the marriage, the 2nd petitioner joined the 1st petitioner and started conjugal life at the house of 1st petitioner and they lived together as wife and husband and lead marital life for three years at the house of 1st petitioner, but they were not blessed with children.

9. It is their further evidence that, thereafter some petty disputes were developed in between them and the misunderstandings, self egos and the petty disputes developed at large between them and that due to the misunderstandings, self egos and petty disputes, the 2nd petitioner left the company of 1st petitioner on 25.05.2016 and went to her parents’ house.

Signature Not Verified

BHIMA RAO

ERUGULA

D.O.P.No.973/2019. 4 P.D.J. Court, Eluru.

10. It is their further evidence that the both side family members placed the matter before elders who conducted panchayats, mediation and counseling between the petitioners and tried their level best to pacify the disputes and for reunion, but in vain and both of them not agreed to join each other and the efforts made by both the family members and elders proved futile and that they are living separately since 25.05.2016 on their own accord and will and not interested to join each other to continue marital life.

11. It is their further evidence that, at the intervention of elders of both sides, they entered into a compromise and as per the compromise, they both expressed their willing to take divorce by mutual consent and exchanged their belongings.

12. Thus, from the above evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the factum of marriage between them is admitted by both the parties. P.W.1 exhibited Ex.A.1 Marriage

Certificate and Ex.A2 Marriage photos in proof of their marriage. Perusal of Ex.A.1

Marriage Certificate shows that the marriage between the petitioners 1 and 2 was performed on 16.09.2013 at Sacred Heart of Jesus RCM Church, Vegivada village,

Pedavegi Mandal, West Godavari District. Hence, it can be safely concluded that P.W.1 is the legally wedded husband of P.W.2. Ex.A.2 marriage photos also establish the factum of marriage between petitioners 1 and 2.

11. P.Ws.1 and 2 in their evidence further testified that they could no longer live together under one roof and as per the advice of elders, they have agreed to live separately by taking mutual divorce as there is no chance of reunion. In view of unchallenged evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2, it is established that both spouses have no inclination to continue their marital relationship.

12. Admittedly, the petitioners filed this petition seeking decree of divorce on mutual consent.

Section 10-A of the Divorce Act, 1869 reads as follows:

Signature Not Verified

BHIMA RAO

ERUGULA

D.O.P.No.973/2019. 5 P.D.J. Court, Eluru.

10-A Dissolution of marriage by mutual consent:- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made there under, a petition for dissolution of marriage may be presented to the District Court by both the parties to a marriage together, whether such marriage was solemnized before or after the commencement of the Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001, on the ground that they have been living separately for a period of two years or more, that they have not been able to live together and they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved.

(2) On the motion of both the parties made not earlier than six months after the date of presentation of the petition referred to in sub-section (1) and not later than eighteen months after the said date, if the petition is not withdrawn by both the parties in the meantime, the Court shall, on being satisfied, after hearing the parties and making such inquiry, as it thinks fit, that a marriage has been solemnized and that the averments in the petition are true, pass a decree declaring the marriage to be dissolved with effect from the date of decree.

13. As seen from the above provision, five conditions must co-exist before an application can be made. They are:

(a). the marriage between the spouses must have been solemnized;

(b). they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved my mutual consent;

(c). that they have not been able to live together;

(d). that they have been living separately for a period of two years or more;

(e). that they have not been withdrawn the said petition within six months from the date of presentation of petition.

14. The above are the essential requirements/ingredients/preconditions which must be established to justify an application for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent under Section 10-A (1) of Divorce Act. These conditions must co-exist to justify an application for divorce.

15. In the above said circumstances, I am satisfied that, both the petitioners have been living separately since 25.05.2016 and this petition is filed on 24.09.2019.

Thus, the statutory period of two years was completed as required under Sec.10(A)(1) of

Divorce Act, 1869. Further, the petitioners filed the present petition on 24.09.2019 and they were examined in chief on 23.03.2022 before this Court. Thus, it is clear that, both the petitioners have not withdrawn the petition in the meantime i.e., within six months

Signature Not Verified

BHIMA RAO

ERUGULA

D.O.P.No.973/2019. 6 P.D.J. Court, Eluru.

after the date of the presentation of the petition as stipulated in the provision of

Sec.10(A)(2) of Divorce Act. Since both the petitioners have not been able to live together, they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved and there is no possibility for reunion and that both have mutually agreed to dissolve their marriage, hence this Court is satisfied after hearing the parties and after making such enquiry, that the marriage has been solemnized and that the averments in the petition are true, and hence this Court is inclined to pass a decree of Divorce declaring the marriage to be dissolved with effect from the date of this decree. Accordingly, the points are answered.

IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed,the marriage between 1st petitioner and 2nd petitioner that took place on 16.09.2013 is dissolved by decree of divorce by ‘Mutual

Consent’ under Section 10(A) of Divorce Act, 1869. Considering the relationship between the parties, I direct each party do bear their own costs.

Typed to my dictation to the Personal Assistant on Computer Device, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 8th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- E.Bhima Rao

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS: FOR RESPONDENT:

P.W.1 : Chigurupalli Rajesh -NONE- P.W.2 : Chigurupalli Divya Sunny

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS:

Ex.A.1 -- : Original Marriage Certificate Ex.A.2 -- : Marriage photos with CD Ex.A.3 -- : Photocopy of Aadhar card of 1st petitioner Ex.A.4 -- : Photocopy of Aadhar card of 2nd petitioner

FOR RESPONDENT: - N I L -

Sd/- E.Bhima Rao

P.D.J.,

W.G., ELURU.

Signature Not Verified

BHIMA RAO

ERUGULA

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

WEST GODAVARI: AT ELURU.

Present: Sri E.Bhima Rao

Principal District Judge,

WEST GODAVARI: AT ELURU.

Friday, this the 8th day of April, 2022.

EXECUTION PETITION No.722/2019 in A.C.No.120/2011.

Between: M/s.Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, Bhimavaram represented by its Branch Manager – cum- GPA Holder Sanku Satyanarayana … Petitioner/ Decree Holder.

and

1.Naidu Sri Ramakrishna

2.Nulakani Veera Rajarao … Respondents/ Judgment debtors

This petition has come on 23.03.2022 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K.V.S.N.R.Gopal, learned advocate for the Petitioner/Decree holder; and of Judgment Debtor No.2 called absent and set exparte, and no relief is claimed against the Judgment Debtor No.1; upon perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

1. This execution petition is filed Under Order XXI Rules 22, 54, 64 to 66 of

Code of Civil Procedure, by the Decree Holder Company, seeking attachment of schedule immovable property of Judgment Debtor No.2 and put for sale, in order to realize amount due under the award passed by the Arbitrator in

A.C.No.120/2011.

2. The case of the Decree Holder Company, in brief, is as follows:-

The Decree Holder Company obtained an award against the Judgment

Debtors 1 and 2 for a sum of Rs.1,44,866/- jointly and severally along with interest at 18% p.a. on principal amount Rs.1,00,990/- from the date of decree

Signature Not Verified

BHIMA RAO

ERUGULA

2 till the date of realization and costs of Rs.5,182/-, as per the award passed by the Arbitrator in A.C.No.120/2011. That even after passing of decree also, the

Decree Holder Company demanded the Judgment Debtors number of times to pay the amount, but they are intentionally and willfully evade to pay the amount. Hence, the present petition is filed for sale of immovable property which belongs to Judgment Debtor No.2 for realization of Award amount.

(a) That, the Decree Holder Company previously filed E.P.No.678/2018 on this file of this Court seeking arrest of the Judgment Debtors 1 and 2, but the said E.P was dismissed on 03.06.2019 as not pressed by the Decree Holder

Company. Hence, the present petition is filed for attachment of schedule immovable property of Judgment Debtor No.2 for sale.

3. After registering the E.P., this Court ordered Rule 22 notice to the

Judgment Debtor No.2 as the present E.P., is filed two years subsequent to the passing of Award. No relief is claimed against the Judgment Debtor No.1 in this E.P.

4. Having received Order XXI Rule 22 notice, the Judgment Debtor No.2 failed to appear before this Court in person or through his advocate. As service held sufficient, the Judgment Debtor No.2 was set exparte on 02.03.2022.

5. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of Decree Holder

Company.

6. Heard the learned counsel for Decree Holder Company. Perused the record.

7. As per Order XXI Rule 22 of Code of Civil Procedure, in case the application for execution is made more than two years after the date of decree,

Signature Not Verified

BHIMA RAO

ERUGULA

3 notice shall be issued to Judgment Debtor to show cause why the decree should not be executed against him.

8. It is the contention of the Decree Holder Company that the Judgment

Debtors have not paid any amount from the date of Award till the filing of the

E.P. To counteract the said allegations, the Judgment Debtor No.2 has not filed any counter as he was set exparte. Since the Judgment Debtor No.2 suffered decree in A.C.No.120/2011 before the Arbitrator, he is liable to pay the award amount. The Decree Holder Company filed this E.P for attachment and sale of immovable property of Judgment Debtor No.2 on the ground that though he is having capacity to pay the decree amount at once, he is intentionally avoiding to make payment. Since the Judgment Debtor No.2 has not taken any tenable objection regarding executability of the decree as he was set exparte and having satisfied with the reasons in the petition, this Court is of the view that there is no impediment under law to proceed further in this petition.

Accordingly, this point is answered.

IN THE RESULT, petition is allowed. Issue notice to Judgment Debtor

No.2 under Order XXI Rule 54 of Code of Civil Procedure, by 09.05.2022.

Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in

open court, this the 8 th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- E.Bhima Rao

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

(NO ORAL OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ADDUCED ON EITHER SIDE)

Sd/- E.Bhima Rao

P.D.J.,

W.G., ELURU.

Signature Not Verified

BHIMA RAO

ERUGULA

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDETS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE) W.G. ELURU.

Present: Sri E.Bhima Rao, Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Prl. District Judge), Eluru.

Thursday, the 7th day of April, 2022.

MOTOR VEHICLE ORIGINAL PETITION No.11/2018

Between: Pamarthi Venkata Ratalu Raju @ Kondala Rao, S/o Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, male, age 15 years, student, R/o D.No.2-41, Narayanapuram, H/o Uppalapadu, Kamavarapukota Mandal, W.G.District. (Being minor rep.by his mother and natural guard Pamarthi Rama Kumari)

.....Petitioner.

And

1.Pendem Bala Nagu, S/o Nageswara Rao, SC Mala, male, age 26 years, Driver cum owner of Truck Auto bearing No AP 27 W 3205, Bayavaram, Kosuru Mandal, Guntur District.

2.M/s.Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Represented by Authorized Signatory, Registered office, Divija Complex, Veterinary Colony, Vijayawada.

....Respondents.

This petition is filed by the petitioner under sec. 166 of M.V.Act prays to pass an award for a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- with subsequent interest at 12% p.a and costs as compensation in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally for the injuries sustained by him in a Motor accident occurred on 22-01-2014 at Ravikampadu. This Petition coming on 07.04.2022 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri T.S.S.N.Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner; and of Sri B.Sambhu Prasad, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2; and of the respondent No.1 remained exparte; and upon perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Tribunal delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Petitioner called absent. No representation. Costs not paid. Hence this petition is dismissed for default. No costs.

Pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 7th day of April, 2022

Sd/- E.Bhima Rao

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL (PRL.DISTRICT JUDGE),

WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

Signature Not Verified

BHIMA RAO

ERUGULA

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

WEST GODAVARI AT ELURU.

Present: Sri E.Bhima Rao,

Principal District Judge,

West Godavari at Eluru.

Friday, the 8th day of April, 2022.

DIVORCE ORIGINAL PETITION NO.963 of 2017

Between:

Naramelli Damodara Rao, S/o Ismail, Christian, male, age 33 years,

Daily Labour, Adamilli village, Kamavarapukota Mandal, W.G.District.

…Petitioner

And

Nallamelli (Kodudula) Vijaya Kumari, W/o Nallamelli Damodara Rao,

D/o Kodudula Peddi Raju, Amberpet Village, Bhimadole Mandal,

W.G.District.

…Respondent

This petition is filed by the Petitioners under Sec. 10(1)(ix)(x) of

Indian Divorce Act, seeking for decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent held on 31.10.2008 on the ground of ‘cruelty and Desertion’.

This petition has come on this day before me in the presence of

Sri G.P.Daniel, Advocate for Petitioner; and of Sri T.Subba Rao,

Advocate for the respondent; and upon perusal of the material on record, this court made the following

O R D E R

Petitioner called present. Costs not paid. Hence this petition is dismissed for default. No costs.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 8 th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- E.Bhima Rao

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

Signature Not Verified

BHIMA RAO

ERUGULA