Smt G.Anupama Chakravarathy

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KRISHNA,

MACHILIPATNAM

Present:- SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY,

V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

FAC/PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KRISHNA, MACHILIPATNAM.

Monday, this the 4th day of July, 2016.

D.O.P.NO.16 OF 2016

Between:

Gaddam Prameela, W/o. Naga Raju, Christian, aged 22 years, Daughter of Ganta Yesobu, resident of Lankalakalavgunta, Pedana Mandal, Krishna District, within the jurisdiction of Bandar PJCJC.

..Petitioner.

A n d

Gaddam Naga Raju, S/o. Gaddam Dasu, Christian, aged about 25 years, resident of Polavaram village, Guduru Mandal, Krishna District, within the jurisdiction of Bandar PJCJC.

……..Respondent

This petition is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of G.J. Victor, Advocate for petitioner and the respondent having been called absent and set exparte and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court made the following:-

O R D E R

This petition is filed under Sec. 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act, seeking decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent on the ground of cruelty.

2.) The brief facts of the petition are as follows:-

The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent.

Their marriage took place on 21-06-2014 at the house of respondent in

Polavaram village, Guduru Mandal, Krishna District as per Christian religious and caste customs in the presence of elders, relatives and well wishers of both sides. The said marriage was performed by Rev. V.

Prasanth Kumar. Subsequent to the marriage, the petitioner joined with the respondent to lead happy marital life. They lead happy marital life for short period. During the said period, respondent used to harass the 2 petitioner mentally. The petitioner came to know that the respondent is having all sorts of bad habits such as drinking, gambling and bebatury etc., The respondent used to harass the petitioner for demand of

additional dowry amd further contended that if he marries another girl

he would get huge dowry. The respondent at the instance and instigation of his other family members used to harass the petitioner by making illegal demand of additional dowry. As and when petitioner refused to bring the additional dowry respondent and his other family members driven out the petitioner from the matrimonial home inhumanly. As the petitioner has no other alternative she reached her parents house at Lankalakalavagunta village and narrated the entire incident to her parents, then the elders settled the matter amicably and the respondent taken the petitioner to his fold. But, he did not change his attitude towards the petitioner and continued his harassment and demanded her to bring additional dowry. Eventhough, the petitioner tried to mend the attitude of the respondent but the respondent did not change his attitude. Finally, one week prior to 18-12-2014 the respondent along with his family members severelly beat the petitioner by demanding her additional dowry and driven her out from the matrimonial home. Then the petitioner along with her parents and caste elders tried to settle the matter amicably but the efforts made by them to settle the matter amicably proved futile and the respondent bluntly refused to take back the petitioner to the family house to lead marital life. Therefore, as there is no chance of reunion, the petitioner is constrained to file this petition seeking decree of divorce to dissolve her marriage with the respondent and thereby prayed to pass decree for divorce. Hence, the petition.

3 3.) Despite service of notice, the respondent did not attend the court. Therefore, he was set exparte. Thus, the respondent did not resist the petition.

4.) Petitioner examined herself before the court as P.W.1 and she filed her affidavit in lieu of chief-examination and got marked Exs.A1 to A3 . Ex.A1 is the marriage wedding card dated 21-06-2014. Ex.A2 is the marriage certificate issued by Paster of Chilakalapudi dated 21-06-2014. Ex.A3 is the marriage photograph.

5.) Now the points that arise for determination are:- 1.) Whether the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty and whether the petitioner is entitled to decree of divorce as prayed for? 2.) To what relief?

6.) POINT NO.1:

Petitioner examined herself before the court as P.W.1 and she filed her affidavit in lieu of chief-examination and she re-iterating all the facts stated in the petition. P.W.1 deposed in her evidence that her marriage with the respondent was performed on 21-06-2014 at the house of respondent in Polavaram village, Guduru Mandal as per

Christian rites in the presence of Rev. Prasanth Kumar. The said evidence given by her in proof of her marriage with the respondent remained unchallenged. She has also produced Ex.A1 wedding card,

Ex.A.2 marriage certificate and Ex.A.3 marriage photograph in proof of her marriage with the respondent. Therefore, the aforesaid unchallenged testimony of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A.1 to A.3 proves that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent.

4 7.) P.W.1 further deposed in her evidence that they both lived happily only for short period. She further deposed in her evidence that during the said period the respondent used to harass her. The contents of the petition also proves that the respondent has subjected her to cruelty both physically and mentally by making illegal demand and beating her for not complying with the said demand to bring the

additional dowry. P.W.1 further deposed in her evidence that respondent

used harass the petitioner at the instance and instigation of other family members of respondent. P.W.1 further deposed in her evidence that as and when she refused to bring the additional dowry respondent and his other family members driven her out from the matrimonial home. P.W.1 further deposed in her evidence finally one week prior to 18-12-2014 the respondent along with his family members severely beat the petitioner by making illegal demand to bring additional dowry. P.W.1 further deposed in her evidence that the efforts made by her parents and elders to settle the matter amicably proved futile. She further deposed that there is no chance for reunion. Therefore, the respondent has exhibited the conduct which caused reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner to continue live with him as it would be injurious and harmful for her to live with him. Sec. 10(1) (x) envisages that “when the respondent

exhibited such a conduct which caused apprehension in the mind

of the wife that it would be injurious or harmful for her to live with

him that she is entitled to decree of divorce.” Therefore, it is proved by the petitioner from the aforesaid un-rebutted averments of the petition that the respondent has subjected her to cruelty causing reasonable apprehension in her mind that it would be harmful or injurious for her to live with him. So, she is entitled to decree of divorce. Hence, the point is answered accordingly.

5 8.) POINT NO.2:

In the result, the petition is allowed with costs, passing decree in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent dissolving her marriage with the respondent that took place on 21-06-2014 with effect from the date of this decree.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 4th day of July, 2016.

Sd/-G.Anupama Chakravarthy,

V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, FAC/Principal District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR)

Petitioner: Respondent:

P.W.1 Gaddam Prameela …None…

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONER

Ex.A1 21-06-2014 Wedding Card

Ex.A2 21-06-2014 Marriage certificate issued by Poster of Chilakalapudi

Ex.A3 -- Marriage photograph.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENT

…NIL…

Sd/- G.Anupama Chakravarthy,

V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, FAC/Principal District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS: KRISHNA DIVISION:

MACHILIPATNAM.

PRESENT: SMT. G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY,

SESSIONS JUDGE, MAHILA COURT,VIJAYAWADA.

FAC/SESSIONS JUDGE, KRISHNA, MACHILIPATNAM.

TUESDAY, THIS THE 5 TH DAY OF JULY, 2016.

TR.CRL.M.P.NO. 102/2016

Between:

1.Kotaprolu Jaganmohan Rao, S/o. Somaiah, 65 years, Achaiahvaripalem village, Pedana Mandal.

2.Kotaprolu Somaprasad @ Sobhanababu, S/o. Jaganmohan Rao, 30 years, Achaiahvaripalem village, Pedana Mandal 3.Kotaprolu Balabalaji, S/o. Jaganmohan Rao, 27 years, Achaiahvaripalem village, Pedana Mandal. :: Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.331/2011

And

1.State Station House Officer, Bandar Taluk P.S., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, Krishna, Machilipatnam. (Complainant) 2.Jonnala Anjaneyulu, S/o. Dharma Rao, 48 years, Kapu/Munipeda village. (Defacto complainant in C.c.No.331/2011) :: Respondents

This petition is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.Srinivas, Advocate for petitioners and of Sri M.P.Kondaiah, Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State, respondent No.2 called absent and upon perusing the entire material on record, upon hearing both sides, and the petition having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

:: O R D E R ::

Accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.331/2011 on the file of Special

Mobile Judicial I Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam filed this application seeking transfer of C.C.No.331/2011 from the file of Special Mobile

Judicial I Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam and transfer the same to the court of Special Excise Judicial First Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam to try along with C.C.No.313/2015.

2.) The brief facts of the petition are as follows:- a.) Basing on the statement of one Jonnala Anjaneyulu,

Bandar Taluk P.S registered a case in crime No.174/2011 against the 2 petitioners herein who are A.1 to A.3 for the offences under Secs. 324, 506 r/w.34 IPC and the same was numbered as C.C.No.331/2011 on the file of Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam.

b.) Basing on the statement of one Kortaprolu

Jaganmohanarao who is first petitioner herein, Bandar Taluk P.S., registered a case in Crime No.163/2011 against the 2nd respondent herein and his son Jonnala Saikrishna for the offences under Secs.324, 506 IPC. Later, Bandar Taluk P.S filed charge sheet against respondent

No.1 who is accused in the above crime on the file of Special Mobile

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam and the same was numbered as C.C.No.34/2012. As said Jonna Sai Krishna is observed to be a juvenile, charge sheet was filed before the II Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada.

c.) According to the petitioners, C.C.No.331/2011 is counter blast to the criminal case lodged by the first petitioner/A.1 and both cases are coming on same date as connected matters. According to the petitioner, both the cases are pending on the file of Special Mobile

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam. According to the petitioners on administrative grounds C.C.No.34/2012 was transferred to Special Excise Judicial First Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam and the same was renumbered as C.C.No.313/2015. According to the petitioners, after knowing the above said transfer, first petitioner/A.1 filed memo

before the Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam

to transfer C.C.No.331/2011 also to the Special Excise Judicial First

Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam so as to avoid conflict of decisions. It is the plea of the petitioners that they are under the impression that

C.C.No.331/2011 would also be transferred to Special Excise Judicial

First Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam from the court of Special Mobile

3

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam. According to the petitioners, the list of witnesses figured in both cases are one and the same. Further, according to the petitioners, date of offence, time of offence and place of offence in both cases are also one and the same.

According to the petitioners, to have a fair and impartial trial and in order to avoid conflicting of decisions, it is just and necessary to transfer

C.C.No.331/2011 from the court of Special Mobile Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Machilipatnam to the court of Special Excise Judicial First

Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam to try along with C.C.No.313/2015.

3.) Learned Public Prosecutor represented for Respondent No.1 submitted that both cases are case and counter and he has no objection to allow the petition. R.2 called absent.

4.) Heard learned counsel for petitioners.

5.) The point for consideration is:- “Whether C.C.No.331/2011 on the file of Special Mobile

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam can be withdrawn and transferred the same to Special Excise

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam to try along with C.C.No.313/2015?” 6.) POINT:

Admittedly, both C.C.Nos. 331/2011 and 34/2012 are pending on the file Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Machilipatnam. Later on administrative grounds C.C.No.34/2012 on the file Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam was transferred to Special Excise Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Machilipatnam and renumbered as C.C.No.313/2015.

7.) A perusal of FIRs and charge sheets in both the cases disclose that the date of offence, place of offence and time of offence are one and the same in both the cases. Further, list of witnesses figured in 4 both the cases are more or less one and the same. Moreover, it is clear from the facts that C.C.Nos. 331/2011 and 313/2015 are case and counter cases. According to the petitioner, if both the cases are tried by two different courts there is every possibility of conflicting decisions and multiplicity of proceedings. In this case, learned Public Prosecutor represented for R.1 submitted that both the cases are case and counter cases and he has no objection to allow the petition. Therefore, in order to avoid conflicting decisions it is just and expedient to withdraw

C.C.No.331/2011 from the file of Special Mobile Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Machilipatnam and transfer the same to the court of

Special Excise Judicial First Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam to try along with C.C.No.313/2015.

8.) In the result, petition is allowed withdrawing

C.C.No.331/2011 from the file of Special Mobile Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Machilipatnam and transfer the same to the court of

Special Excise Judicial First Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam to try along with C.C.No.313/2015.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 5th day of July, 2016.

SD/-G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY,

SESSIONS JUDGE,

MAHILA COURT, VIJAYAWADA.

FAC/SESSIONS JUDGE,

KRISHNA, MACHILIPATNAM.

Copies to:

1. The Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam.

2. The Special Excise Judicial First Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KRISHNA,

MACHILIPATNAM.

PRESENT: SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY,

V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

FAC/PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KRISHNA, MACHILIPATNAM.

TUESDAY, THIS THE 5 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2016

TR.O.P.NO. 228/2015

Between:

Shaik Abdul Vahab, S/o. late Shaik Ali Hussain, Muslim, aged about 50 years, business, Resident of Dr.No.43/107-12/2, Ajit Singh Nagar, Vijayawada, Vijayawada JCJC. :: Petitioner.

And

Vasa Koteswara Rao, S/o. Late Narayana Swamy, Hindu, aged about 53 years, Resident of Dr.No.9-62-60, Drain Street, Islam Pet, Vijayawada, Krishna District, Vijayawada JCJC. :: Respondent.

This petition is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Bolla Ram Babu, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri V. Koteswara Rao, respondent appeared in person and upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the entire material on record and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court made the following:-

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the defendant in O.S.No.197/2011 seeking transfer of O.S.No.197/2011 filed by the respondent herein from the court of XII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada to any other competent jurisdiction of District Court in the District for trial and disposal according to law.

2.) The facts in brief that are germane for disposal of this application are as follows:- a.) Respondent herein filed O.S.No.197/2011 against the petitioner herein on the file of XII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada 2 for recovery of amount on the foot of two suit promissory notes. In the said suit, petitioner herein filed his written statement. Respondent herein filed his chief affidavit and the matter is coming for cross examination of P.W.1.

b.) According to the petitioner, the respondent herein is practicing advocate in Vijayawada. According to the petitioner, respondent himself filed the suit as plaintiff. According to the petitioner, respondent herein is having so much influence in Vijayawada Bar

Association. According to the petitioner, he is apprehending that the respondent may influence the Bench and get decree in his favour even though, the petitioner is having good prima face case and thereby prayed to allow the petition.

3.) Respondent filed counter denying all the material allegations made in the petition and contending inter-alia:- a.) that prior to the present Tr.O.P, petitioner also filed

Tr.O.P.No.60/2015 before Hon’ble High Court with false allegations and subsequently, the same was dismissed as withdrawn by the Hon’ble High

Court. It is pleaded by the respondent that he filed O.S.No.197/2011 on the file of XII Additional District Jude, Vijayawada against the petitioner herein for recovery of amounts basing on two suit pronotes for

Rs.10,00,000/- i.e., each Rs.5,00,000/- said to have been executed by the petitioner herein in favour of respondent for his family and business expenses. Respondent also filed C.C.No.596/2011 against the petitioner herein on the file of III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I.Act and the said case was ended in conviction by sentencing him to undergo R.I for one year and with a fine of Rs.10,000/-. Later, petitioner herein filed 3

Crl.A.No.31/2014 which is now pending on the file of VII Additional

District Court, Vijayawada.

b.) It is pleaded by the respondent that petitioner has no bonafides to file this O.P., and petitioner filed this Tr.O.P., only to drag on the proceedings. It is contended that the affidavit of the petitioner show that he is permanent resident of Vijayawada, suit pronotes are executed at Vijayawada with his own hand writing and as such only courts at Vijayawada are having territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit. Respondent reserves his right to take action of defamatory against the petitioner for making slandering statements on his profession, just for the reason that he is a practicing Advocate in Vijayawada and thereby prayed to dismiss the petition.

4.) Heard learned counsel for petitioner and the respondent in person.

5.) The point for consideration is:- “Whether O.S.No.197/2011 on the file of XII Additional

District Judge, Vijayawada can be withdrawn and

transferred to any other Additional District Court in the

District for trial and disposal according to law?” 6.) POINT:

I have gone through the record. Sec.24 C.P.C., is a general provision empowering the High Court or the District Court to transfer a case on the motion of any other party or on its own motion and applies to suits, appeal and other proceedings, including execution proceedings.

Following have been held to be sufficient grounds for transfer:-

(i) convenience of parties and situation of property;

(ii) bias of judge hearing the case; 4

(iii) two suits involving common question;

(iv) avoidance of delay and unnecessary expenses and

(v) preventing abuse process of the court.

7.) In the case on hand, the only plea raised for transfer of the case from XII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada is that respondent is a practicing Advocate in Vijayawada and petitioner is apprehending that respondent may influence the Bench and get decree in his favour even though petitioner has good grounds to succeed in the suit. From the averments as made in the transfer petition, the position which emerges out is that only bald allegations has been made in the petition and no any other cogent evidence has been given for the said purpose. Mere presumptions or possible apprehensions are not sufficient therefor, only good and sufficient grounds, clearly set out in the order, may justify the transfer and a transfer should not readily be granted for any fancied notion of a litigant. It should be granted to ensure that the applicant gets fair and impartial justice.

8.) Respondent who appeared in person represented before the court that the suit is now at the stage of arguments. Moreover, the petitioner filed the present petition at a belated stage. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any good ground or reason to allow the petition and accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

9.) In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 5th day of July, 2016.

Sd/-G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY,

V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA,

FAC/ PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KRISHNA, MACHILIPATNAM.

Copy to: The XII Additional District Court, Vijayawada.

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KRISHNA,

MACHILIPATNAM.

Present: Sri Y. Lakshmana Rao, 

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, 

KRISHNA, MACHILIPATNAM. 

Thursday this the 5th day of July, 2016

ATA. 23 /2015

Between

Kondeti Srinivasa Rao….… Petitioner

A N D

Yedali Annapurnamma ­ died…..... Respondent 

This petition coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri MD.Rafi Advocate for the petitioner and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

Both parties and their counsel present. At the intervention of the member of Lok Adalat, this matter is settled. Terms of compromise filed by both parties. Accordingly an award is passed.

Pronounced by me on this the 5th day of July, 2016.

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, 

KRISHNA, MACHILIPATNAM. 

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KRISHNA,

MACHILIPATNAM.

Present: Sri Y. Lakshmana Rao, 

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, 

KRISHNA, MACHILIPATNAM. 

This the 04 th day of July, 2016

T.R.OP.122/2016

Between

Pinnamaneni Srinivas… Petitioner

A N D

Andhra Bank .. Respondent 

This petition coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri k. Sai Mohana Rao, advocate for the petitioner and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

Tr.O.P is dismissed as not pressed basing on the memo filed by the Counsel

for the petitioner, Memo recorded.

Pronounced by me on this the 04 th day of July, 2016.

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, 

KRISHNA, MACHILIPATNAM.