Smt G.Deena

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, PRAKASAM AT

ONGOLE

Present:: Smt G.Deena,

Judge, Family Court, Ongole.

Sunday, this the 10th day of May, 2026.

F.C.O.P. No.13/2026

Between: Pallapu Jyothi @ Bandaru Jyothi, w/o Pallapu Ankamma Raju, d/o late Bandaru Adinarayana, Hindu, aged about 31 years, r/o Vaddepalem, Ongole town, Prakasam District.

… Petitioner

And

Pallapu Ankamma Raju, s/o Pallapu Krishna, aged 37 years, r/oDoor No.1-5-150/2, Bhavaraju thota, Railpeta, Near Railway station,Bapatla, Bapatla District.

... Respondent

This petition is coming on 10-05-2026 for orders before me in the presence of M.S.Bhanu Rani, Advocate for petitioner, respondent set exparte, upon perusal of material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

01. The petitioner/wife filed this petition under section 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage between the petitioner and respondent by way of decree of divorce and for costs.

02.The averments of the petition in brief are as follows :

The petitioner is legally wedded wife of the respondent. The marriage of the petitioner and respondent performed on 16.03.2014 in the house of respondent at Bhavaraju Thota, Bapatla, as per the Hindu religion and caste customs in the presence of both family members, relatives, friends and elders. At the time of marriage, the parents of petitioner gave ana mount of Rs. 2 lakhs, 5 sovereigns of gold to the respondent as per the demands of respondent and his family members.

After the marriage the petitioner joined with the respondent at his house.

The respondent developed dislike and with the instigation of his mother, his brother, his sisters, they have been harassing the petitioner and either the respondent or his family members did not give proper respect in 2 the house and failed to provide sufficient amenities to her. The respondent frequently came to the house at late nights in a drunken state of mind and beat the petitioner with dire consequences. The respondent is also creating tension in the mind of the petitioner and neglected to provide conjugal happiness. Later both of them shifted their family at

Warangal for their coolie works. At that time also the respondent did not come to the house properly and leading wayward life like developing illegal contacts with other ladies and spending most of the time with them. The respondent developed grudge against the petitioner. The respondent borrowed Rs.1 lakh at the time of delivery at working place and the creditors of respondent also threatened the petitioner. At the age of three months of male child, the respondent left the house at Warangal to escape from his liability of discharge of the debt and there is no other the petitioner discharged the debt of respondent. The petitioner informed the same to the family members of respondent. But they did not respond. The mother of the petitioner came to Warangal and took back the petitioner and her son to Vaddepalem. From March, 2022 the petitioner along with child are living in the house of mother of petitioner.

The respondent also tried to take back the male child to his house. The respondent has no reason to discard the petitioner and live separately from the petitioner. There is no fault on the part of the petitioner towards the respondent. The petitioner and respondent are living separately from

March, 2022. Hence the petition.

03.The respondent was set exparte on 23-04-2026.

04. During the course of enquiry on behalf of petitioner PW.1 was examined and got marked Ex.P1 and P2 on behalf of the petitioner.

05.Heard arguments on behalf of the petitioner.

06.Now the point for consideration is :

3

Whether the petitioner is entitled for decree of divorce as prayed for ?

07.POINT :

PW.1 in her evidence deposed that The petitioner is legally wedded wife of the respondent. The marriage of the petitioner and respondent performed on 16.03.2014 in the house of respondent at

Bhavaraju Thota, Bapatla, as per the Hindu religion and caste customs in the presence of both family members, relatives, friends and elders. At the time of marriage, the parents of petitioner gave ana mount of Rs. 2 lakhs, 5 sovereigns of gold to the respondent as per the demandsof respondent and his family members. After the marriage the petitioner joined with the respondent at his house. The respondent developed dislike and with the instigation of his mother, his brother, his sisters, they have been harassing the petitioner and either the respondent or his family members did not give proper respect in the house and failed to provide sufficient amenities to her. The respondent frequently came to the house at late nights in a drunken state of mind and beat the petitioner with dire consequences. The respondent is also creating tension in the mind of the petitioner and neglected to provide conjugal happiness. Later both of them shifted their family at Warangal for their coolie works. At that time also the respondent did not come to the house properly and leading wayward life like developing illegal contacts with other ladies and spending most of the time with them. The respondent developed grudge against the petitioner. The respondent borrowed Rs.1 lakh at the time of delivery at working place and the creditors of respondent also threatened the petitioner. At the age of three months of male child, the respondent left the house at Warangal to escape from his liability of discharge of the debt and there is no other the petitioner discharged the debt of respondent. The petitioner informed the same to the family members of respondent. But they did not respond. The mother of the petitioner came to Warangal and took back the petitioner and her son to Vaddepalem.

From March, 2022 the petitioner along with child are living in the house of mother of petitioner. The respondent also tried to take back the male 4 child to his house. The respondent has no reason to discard the petitioner and live separately from the petitioner. There is no fault on the part of the petitioner towards the respondent. The petitioner and respondent are living separately from March, 2022.

08.Heard counsel for petitioner. Considering the evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex.P1 and P2 I find the allegations levelled against the respondent is proved. Therefore the petitioner is entitled for divorce.

Accordingly this point is answered.

09.In the result, petition is allowed the marriage between the petitioner and respondent solemnized on 16.03.2014 was dissolved by way of decree of divorce. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation to the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 10th day of May, 2026.

Judge, Family Court

Ongole.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined:

For petitioner : For Respondent : None.

PW.1 : Pallapu Jyothi @ Bandaru Jyothi. Documents marked:

For Petitioner :

Ex.P1 : Wedding card. Ex.P2: Marriage photos.

For Respondent : NIL. J-F.C.,Ongole.

5

IN THE COURT OF JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, PRAKASAM AT

ONGOLE

Present:: Smt G.Deena,

Judge, Family Court, Ongole.

Sunday, this the 10th day of May, 2026.

F.C.O.P. No.13/2026

Between: Pallapu Jyothi @ Bandaru Jyothi, w/o Pallapu Ankamma Raju, d/o late Bandaru Adinarayana, Hindu, aged about 31 years, r/o Vaddepalem, Ongole town, Prakasam District.

… Petitioner

And

Pallapu Ankamma Raju, s/o Pallapu Krishna, aged 37 years, r/oDoor No.1-5-150/2, Bhavaraju thota, Railpeta, Near Railway station,Bapatla, Bapatla District.

... Respondent

The petitioner/wife filed this petition under section 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage between the petitioner and respondent by way of decree of divorce and for costs.

A fixed court fee of Rs.30/- is paid under schedule II Article 1(vii) of APCF & SV Act.

This petition is coming on 10-05-2026 for orders before me in the presence of M.S.Bhanu Rani, Advocate for petitioner, respondent set exparte, upon perusal of material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree :

1) that the petition be and the same is hereby allowed solemnized on 16.03.2014 by dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent by way of decree of divorce ; and

2) that there be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 10th day of May, 2026.

Judge, Family Court-cum-

VIII-Additional District Judge, Ongole. Table of Costs - No C.M. & F.C. filed on either side - J-F.C.,Ongole.

6

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, PRAKASAM AT

ONGOLE

Present:: Smt G.Deena,

Judge, Family Court, Ongole.

Sunday, this the 10th day of May, 2026.

F.C.O.P. No.50/2026

Between: Kurra Sravani, w/o Chinnigari Manoju Kumar, d/o Kurra Atchaiah, age 30 years, Hindu, Housewife, r/o D.No.10-12, Indira Colony, Opposite FCI Godowns, Koppole Road, Ongole, Prakasam District.

… Petitioner

And

Chinnagari Manoju Kumar, s/o Kondalarao, aged about 31 years, Hindu, private employee, r/o Hossanna Krupa Church Road, Kanigiri, Present Markapuram District.

... Respondent

This petition is coming on 10-05-2026 for orders before me in the presence of Sri V.Ramesh Babu, Advocate for petitioner, respondent set exparte, upon perusal of material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

01. The petitioner/wife filed this petition under section 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage between the petitioner and respondent by way of decree of divorce and for costs.

02.The averments of the petition in brief are as follows :

The marriage of the petitioner and respondent was performed on 25.8.2018, at Sri Malayadri lakshmi Narasimhaswamy temple, Malakonda as per the Hindu dharma Sastram, caste and customs in the presence of elders and relatives. At the time of marriage the petitioner and her parents gave an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- cash and gold brasslet land ring and chain marriage expenses of Rs.3,50,000/- to the respondent and his parents towards dowry. The petitioner was joined with the company of the respondent house and marriage was consummated. The petitioner conceived and was pregnant for about seven months. During the period of pregnancy the respondent continuously harassed the petitioner 2 mentally, created severe tension, neglected the health of petitioner and well being and subjected her to extreme stress. The petitioner unfortunately suffered a miscarriage at the 7th month of pregnancy. The said loss has caused her irreparable physical and mental trauma. Instead of supporting the petitioner during this painful phase, the respondent behaved in an inhuman manner and showed complete indifference towards her suffering. The petitioner came to know that the respondent has illegal contacts and an adulterous relationship with another woman, even prior to the marriage and continued thereafter. The petitioner questioned the respondent regarding the same in the presence of elders, the respondent categorically stated that he would live only with the said woman, that the petitioner was not required and demanded divorce from the petitioner. Later the respondent left the matrimonial home and went away to live with the said woman, completely abandoning the petitioner and deserting her without any reasonable cause. The respondent has been continuously demanding divorce through messages and has wilfully deserted the petitioner , causing severe mental agony and emotional distress. Due to continuous physical and mental harassment caused by the respondent elders of both families intervened and a compromise was arrived at in their presence. As per their advise, the petitioner and respondent shifted to Ongole and took a house on rent to resume their matrimonial life. Even after shifting their family the respondent did not change his attitude. Due to the continuous cruelty, adultery and desertion by the respondent, it has become impossible for the petitioner to life with respondent. Hence the petition.

03.The respondent was set exparte on 29-04-2026.

04. During the course of enquiry on behalf of petitioner PW.1 was examined and got marked Ex.P1 and P2 on behalf of the petitioner.

05.Heard arguments on behalf of the petitioner.

3

06.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the petitioner is entitled for decree of divorce as prayed for ?

07.POINT :

PW.1 in her evidence deposed that the marriage of the petitioner and respondent was performed on 25.8.2018, at Sri Malayadri lakshmi

Narasimhaswamy temple, Malakonda as per the Hindu dharma Sastram, caste and customs in the presence of elders and relatives. At the time of marriage the petitioner and her parents gave an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- cash and gold brasslet land ring and chain marriage expenses of

Rs.3,50,000/- to the respondent and his parents towards dowry. The petitioner was joined with the company of the respondent house and marriage was consummated. The petitioner conceived and was pregnant for about seven months. During the period of pregnancy the respondent continuously harassed the petitioner mentally, created severe tension, neglected the health of petitioner and well being and subjected her to extreme stress. The petitioner unfortunately suffered a miscarriage at the 7th month of pregnancy. The said loss has caused her irreparable physical and mental trauma. Instead of supporting the petitioner during this painful phase, the respondent behaved in an inhuman manner and showed complete indifference towards her suffering. The petitioner came to know that the respondent has illegal contacts and an adulterous relationship with another woman, even prior to the marriage and continued thereafter. The petitioner questioned the respondent regarding the same in the presence of elders, the respondent categorically stated that he would live only with the said woman, that the petitioner was not required and demanded divorce from the petitioner. Later the respondent left the matrimonial home and went away to live with the said woman, completely abandoning the petitioner and deserting her without any reasonable cause. The respondent has been continuously demanding divorce through messages and has wilfully deserted the petitioner , causing severe mental agony and emotional distress. Due to continuous 4 physical and mental harassment caused by the respondent elders of both families intervened and a compromise was arrived at in their presence. As per their advise, the petitioner and respondent shifted to Ongole and took a house on rent to resume their matrimonial life. Even after shifting their family the respondent did not change his attitude. Due to the continuous cruelty, adultery and desertion by the respondent, it has become impossible for the petitioner to life with respondent.

08.Heard counsel for petitioner. Considering the evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex.P1 and P2 I find the allegations levelled against the respondent is proved. Therefore the petitioner is entitled for divorce.

Accordingly this point is answered.

09.In the result, petition is allowed the marriage between the petitioner and respondent solemnized on 25.08.2018 was dissolved by way of decree of divorce. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation to the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 10th day of May, 2026.

Judge, Family Court

Ongole.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined:

For petitioner : For Respondent : None.

PW.1 : Kurra Sravani. Documents marked:

For Petitioner :

Ex.P1 : Wedding card. Ex.P2: Marriage photo.

For Respondent : NIL. J-F.C.,Ongole.

5

IN THE COURT OF JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, PRAKASAM AT

ONGOLE

Present:: Smt G.Deena,

Judge, Family Court, Ongole.

Sunday, this the 10th day of May, 2026.

F.C.O.P. No.50/2026

Between: Kurra Sravani, w/o Chinnigari Manoju Kumar, d/o Kurra Atchaiah, age 30 years, Hindu, Housewife, r/o D.No.10-12, Indira Colony, Opposite FCI Godowns, Koppole Road, Ongole, Prakasam District.

… Petitioner

And

Chinnagari Manoju Kumar, s/o Kondalarao, aged about 31 years, Hindu, private employee, r/o Hossanna Krupa Church Road, Kanigiri, Present Markapuram District.

... Respondent

The petitioner/wife filed this petition under section 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage between the petitioner and respondent by way of decree of divorce and for costs.

A fixed court fee of Rs.10/- is paid under schedule II Article 1(vii) of APCF & SV Act.

This petition is coming on 10-05-2026 for orders before me in the presence of Sri V.Ramesh Babu, Advocate for petitioner, respondent set exparte, upon perusal of material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree :

1) that the petition be and the same is hereby allowed solemnized on 25.08.208 by dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent by way of decree of divorce ; and

2) that there be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 10th day of May, 2026.

Judge, Family Court-cum-

VIII-Additional District Judge, Ongole. Table of Costs - No C.M. & F.C. filed on either side - J-F.C.,Ongole.

6

1O.S.47/24

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

Present: Smt G.Deena Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole

Tuesday, this the 28th day of January, 2025

Original Suit No. 47 of 2024

Between :

Sri Chennakesava and Anjaneya Swamy temple, B.Nidamanuru village, N.G.Padu mandal, represented by its Executive Officer Sri Ch. Venkata Subba Rao, s/o Pulla Rao, aged about 50 years, Hindu, r/o N.G.Padu village and mandal, Prakasam District.

... Plaintiff

And

Alla Srinivasa Reddy, s/o Pamula Reddy, Hindu, aged about 35 years, agriculturist, r/o B.Nidamanuru village, N.G.Padu mandal, Prakasam District. … Defendant

This suit coming on 27.1.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri C.V.Rami Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff and the defendant remained set exparte; and upon hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

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

1. This suit is filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.9,914/- from the defendant as the defendant being highest bidder of the auction conducted for the temple lands of Sri Chennakesava and Anjaneya Swamy temple,

B.Nidamanuru village, committed default in paying maktha for the year 2021- 22 with subsequent interest at 12% p.a. and for costs.

2O.S.47/24

2.The brief facts of the plaintiff’s case are as follows :

The plaintiff’s temple is the absolute owner of the land in S.No.477 to an extent of Ac.3.12 cents in B.Nidamanuru village. On 10.6.2021 the then

Executive Officer of the plaintiff’s temple conducted public auction of the lease-hold rights of the land for the year 2021-22 with regard to above said land. The defendant participated in the bid by paying Rs.5000/- towards auction deposit and became highest bidder to a tune of Rs.89,000/- per annum as maktha. The lease period was one year. As per the terms and conditions, the defendant shall pay maktha every year and if he fails to do so, he shall be evicted from the land and he is also liable to pay interest at 12 % per annum on maktha amount.

The defendant has to pay maktha amount of Rs.84,000/- for the year 2021-22 by deducting auction deposit amount of Rs.5000/-. The defendant paid Rs.80,000/- on 3.12.2021 towards maktha for the year 2021-22. The defendant committed default in payment of balance maktha due a sum of

Rs.4000/- for the year 2021-22. Inspite of demands made by plaintiff temple authorities the defendant failed to pay the balance maktha amount of

Rs.4000/-, the plaintiff’s temple got issued a legal notice to the defendant on 1.11.2023 and the defendant evaded to receive the notice and he neither issued reply nor paid the balance maktha amount of Rs.4000/- for the year 2021-22 with interest at 12 %p.a. thereon from the date of auction i.e., 10.6.2021. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit.

3O.S.47/24

3. The defendant was set exparte.

4. On behalf of the plaintiff, the Executive Officer of the plaintiff’s temple is examined as Pw.1 and Ex.A.1 to A.6 got marked.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the Plaintiff.

6. Now the point for consideration is :

“Whether the Plaintiff’s temple is entitled for suit claim amount as

prayed for?”

7. Point :

To prove the claim of the plaintiff, the temple Executive Officer by name

Sri Ch.Venkata Subba Rao, examined as Pw.1 and got marked Ex.A.1 to A.6.

This court carefully scrutinized the evidence of Pw.1. The plaintiff i.e., Pw.1 categorically deposed that the plaintiff’s temple Sri Chennakesava and

Anjaneya Swamy temple, B.Nidamanuru village conducted an auction for the lease-hold rights over the temple lands for the year 2021-22, in that auction, the defendant is the highest bidder and as per lease, the defendant shall pay a sum of Rs.89,000/- per annum as maktha. The defendant paid an amount of Rs.5000/- towards auction deposit on 10.6.2021. The defendant has to pay a sum of Rs.84,000/- towards maktha due for the year 2021-22 by deducting auction deposit amount of Rs.5000/-. The defendant paid an amount of

Rs.80,000/- on 3.12.2021 towards maktha for the year 2021-22.

4O.S.47/24

Subsequently, the defendant committed default in payment of maktha due of

Rs.4000/- for the year 2021-22.

8.The oral testimony of Pw.1 is corroborated with the evidence of Ex.A.1 to A.3 documentary evidence i.e., copy of publication of lease auction dt.10.6.2021, copy of list of depositors, and original copy of list of highest bidders. Pw.1 categorically deposed that he demanded the defendant to pay lease amount due and issued Ex.A.5 notice. Ex.A.6 is the returned R.P cover with acknowledgment. Ex.A.4 is the part payment of Rs.80,000/- under receipt

No.31 for the year 2021-22. Thus, it is crystal clear that the defendant being highest bidder of temple lands for the year 2021-22 and he committed default while paying the maktha for Rs.4,000/- due for the year 2021-22.

9.On carefully perusal of evidence of Pw.1 coupled with Ex.A.1 to A.6 and after carefully marshalling the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the conclusion that the un-challenged evidence of Pw.1 is totally corroborated with Ex.A.1 to A.4 documentary evidence. Hence, this court hold that the plaintiff proved its case that the defendant is being highest bidder of temple lands and he committed default in paying maktha of Rs.4,000/- for the year 2021-22 and even receipt of Ex.A.5 notice, he did not pay maktha. As such, the defendant is liable to pay the suit amount of Rs.9,914/-.

Accordingly, this point is answered.

5O.S.47/24 10.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendant, for a sum of Rs.9914/- together with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal maktha of Rs.4000/-.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 28 th day of January, 2025

Sd/- xxx

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff : For Defendant :

Pw.1 : Ch. Venkata Subba RaoEx-parte

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A.1: True copy of terms and conditions of lease publication dt. 10.6.2021

Ex.A.2: True copy of list of depositors dt. 10.6.2021

Ex.A.3: Original copy of list of highest bidder dt. 10.6.2021

Ex.A.4: Part payment of Rs.80,000/- under receipt No.31 for the year 2021-22 dt. 3.12.2021

Ex.A.5: Office copy of legal notice issued to the defendant on 1.11.23.

Ex.A.6: Returned RP cover with acknowledgment dt.2.11.23

For Defendant :

- NIL -

Prl. S.C.J.

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, PRAKASAM AT

ONGOLE

Present:: Smt G.Deena,

Judge, Family Court, Ongole.

Sunday, this the 10th day of May, 2026.

F.C.O.P. No.20/2026

Between:

1. Battepati Tarun Kumar, s/o Chandra Mouli, aged about 32 years,Hindu,r/o 40-2-3/3A, Dad Sihib Street, Mogalarajaapuram, Vijayawada.

2. Kamepalli Hyndavi, w/o battepati Tarun Kumar, d/o Kamepalli Srinivasa Rao, aged about 28 years, Hindu, r/o Mukthinuthalapadu village, Ongole Municipal Corporation. … Petitioners

And

Nil ... Respondent

This petition is coming on 10-05-2026 for orders before me in the presence of Sri M.Ajoy Babu, Advocate for petitioners upon perusal of material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

The petitioners being husband and wife filed this petition under section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, for dissolution of their marriage on mutual consent and for costs.

02.The averments of the petition in brief are as follows :

The marriage of petitioners was solemnized on 10.08.2022 at

Brindavan Kalyana Vedika, Throvagunta, as per Hindu rites and customs.

The petitioners completed B.Tech and they are doing software jobs. Soon after the marriage as per the custom the 2nd petitioner joined with the 1st petitioner at his residence for the reasons best known to them there was no consummation between two. The parents of both the petitioners waited for a period of 3 months expecting for further positive marital ties 2 between two, due there was no result, there was lack of affection between the two as husband and wife and they were resided under single roof as an individuals but not as married couple. There was no result in their family life both the petitioner and respondent have been living separately for the last 3 years. However the elders on behalf of 2nd petitioner tried to convince the petitioners to live together as a wife and husband , but they did not unite to live as wife and husband to lead marital life. The petitioners and their parents have come to irresistible conclusion that their marital relation between two irretrievably break down and there is no chance of reunion. The parents of both sides have thought the petitioners are in young age and they felt it is better to settle the marital score keeping in view of their future prospects. Hence the petitioners have come

before the court to dissolve the marriage by granting decree on mutual

consent. The 1st petitioner agreed to pay Rs.30 lakhs towards permanent alimony to the 2nd petitioner and the same is agreed by the 2nd petitioner.

Hence the petition.

03.After its registration on 29.01.2026 the case was posted on 31.07.2026 for appearance of both petitioners. On 09-05-2026 as per the

IA the petition is advanced to 09.05.2026 and posted today for orders.

04.During the course of enquiry both the petitioners examined themselves as PW.1 and PW.2 . Ex.P1 to P3 are marked.

05.Heard both the petitioners.

06.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the petitioners are entitled for decree of divorce by mutual consent as prayed for ?

07.POINT :

3

The petitioners filed their respective chief examination affidavits, reiterating the averments made in the petition on oath. A perusal of the same it is proved that the petitioners are legally wedded husband and wife. It is further proved that there is no possibility of reunion between the petitioners, in view of the disputes arose between them.

08.Considering the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 I find there is no possibility of reunion between the parties. Therefore I find that the petitioners are entitled for divorce by mutual consent. Accordingly this point is answered.

09.In the result, the petition is allowed and marriage of petitioners solemnized on 10.08.2022 is dissolved by granting decree of divorce by mutual consent. Considering the facts and circumstances, there is no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 10th day of May, 2026.

Judge, Family Court

Ongole.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined:

For petitioners : For Respondent : None

PW.1 : Battepati Tarun Kumar. PW.2 : Kamepalli Hyndavi. Documents marked:

For Petitioners :

Ex.P1 : Wedding card. Ex.P2 : Photos along with pen drive. Ex.P3 : Marriage certificate.

For Respondent : NIL.

J-F.C., Ongole.

4

IN THE COURT OF JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, PRAKASAM AT

ONGOLE

Present:: Smt G.Deena,

Judge, Family Court, Ongole.

Sunday, this the 10th day of May, 2026.

F.C.O.P. No.20/2026

Between:

1. Battepati Tarun Kumar, s/o Chandra Mouli, aged about 32 years,Hindu,r/o 40-2-3/3A, Dad Sihib Street, Mogalarajaapuram, Vijayawada.

2. Kamepalli Hyndavi, w/o battepati Tarun Kumar, d/o Kamepalli Srinivasa Rao, aged about 28 years, Hindu, r/o Mukthinuthalapadu village, Ongole Municipal Corporation. … Petitioners

And

Nil ... Respondent

The petitioners being husband and wife filed this petition under section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, for dissolution of their marriage on mutual consent and for costs.

A fixed Court Fees of Rs.10/- is paid under schedule II Article 1 (vii) of APCF and SV Act, 1956.

This petition is coming on 10-05-2026 for orders before me in the presence of Sri M.Ajoy Babu, Advocate for petitioners upon perusal of material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court Doth Order and Decree: -

1) that the petition be and the same is hereby allowed ;

2) that the marriage between Petitioners 1 and 2 solemnized on 10.08.2022 be and is hereby dissolved by granting decree of divorce, by mutual consent ; and

3) that there be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 10th day of May, 2026.

Judge, Family Court-cum-

VIII-Additional District Judge, Ongole.

5

Table of Costs - No C.M. & F.C. filed on either side -

J-F.C.,Ongole.

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

Present: Smt G.Deena Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole

Thursday, this the 30th day of January, 2025

Original Suit No. 103 of 2023

Between:

Mupparaju Vijaya Sekhar, s/o Venkateswarlu, aged 65 years, agriculturist, D.No. 6-78, Pallapothula vari street, Chimakurthy mandal, Prakasam District.

... Plaintiff

And

Pachipulusu Venkata Subba Rao, s/o Venkateswarlu, aged 62 years, D.No. 5-221/F, Kothapeta bazaar, Chepuri vari veedhi, Chimakurthy village and mandal, Prakasam District. … Defendant

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of money of Rs.20,34,500/- being the amount of principal and interest due on a promissory note dt.27.10.2020 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.15,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. with subsequent interest, and for costs.

This suit coming on this day before me for final disposal in the presence of Sri

D.Koteswara Rao, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri K.Raghava Rao, Advocate for

Defendant; basing on not press memo this Court delivered the following:-

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

Both parties present. Plaintiff filed not press memo. Heard. Suit is dismissed as not pressed.

Pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 30th day of January, 2025

Sd/- xxx

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole 2O.S.103/23

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff : For Defendant :

Pw.1 : Mupparaju Vijaya Sekhar- None -

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A.1 : Original promissory note dt. 27.10.2020 executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.15 lakhs.

Ex.A.2 : Certified copy of cheque issued by defendant dt. 27.9.2023 for Rs.20 lakhs drawn on Axis Bank bearing No. 403244.

Ex.A.3 : Certified copy of legal notice dt. 7.10.2023 issued by plaintiff.

Ex.A.4 : Certified copy of acknowledgment issued by postal department

Ex.A.5 : Copy of postal track consignment issued by Post Master.

Ex.A.6 : Certified copy of return memo report issued by SBI Chimakurthy

Ex.A.7 : Office copy of legal notice dt. 7.10.2023 along with postal receipt

For Defendant :

- Nil -

Prl. S.C.J.