Smt. G. Geetha

- 1 -

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TENALI

Present: Smt. G. GEETHA,

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali

Tuesday, the 31st day of August, 2021

HMOP.No.89/2021

BETWEEN:

Usirikayala Lakshmi Tirupathamma, W/o. Naga Gopi (respondent), Aged about 29 years, Hindu, Door No.11-116, House-wife, grand-father’s protection, C/o. Yemineni Venkateswara Rao,

Gowdapalem, Kollipara vuillage and mandal. ..Petitioner.

Vs.

Usirikayala Naga Gopi, S/o. Suryanarayana, aged about 31 years, Hindu, private employee, R/o. Door No.3-164, Atmakur village and

post, Mangalagiri mandal. ..Respondent.

This petition coming on 27-8-2021 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G. Ram Babu, Advocate for the Petitioner and Smt.

T. Syamala Devi, Advocate for the respondent, and having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner/wife against the respondent/husband for divorce U/sec.13 (1)(ia) and (ib) of Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955, on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

2.The averments of the petition :-

The averments of the petition are that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage took place on 28.5.2011 at Atmakuru at respondent’s house as per Hindu rites and customs, at the time of marriage the father of the petitioner gave

Rs.1,40,000/- to her towards pasupu kumkuma and the same was entrusted to the respondent and his parents for augmentation. Further he also presented 5 soverins of gold ornaments to her. After the marriage the marriage was consummated, the petitioner joined with the respondent at Atmakuru for leading marital life, by that time her - 2 - father gave Rs.40,000/- worth of house hold articles to the couple, later both of them lived together happily for about 2 years.

3.It is further submitted that subsequently the respondent pressurized the petitioner to bring additional dowry, when she fails to fulfill his demand, he grew wild and beat her indiscriminately, later the petitioner came to know that the respondent is addicted with drinking and gambling and on that used to come to the house in the late nights.

Then she informed the same to her father, later as per the advice of the elders, the respondent put up a separate family at Kollipara village in the month of June 2014 in the house of one Uppala Srinivas on rent, there they lived happily for one year, thereafter again the respondent pressurized the petitioner for additional dowry and used to beat her without reasonable cause, she bore all his ill-treatment, later when she questioned his ill-treatment, he went away to his native place at

Atmakuru on 05.02.2016, later the father of the petitioner by name

Manyam Pitchaiah, and elders namely Yemineni Gopi, Nancharaiah and

Addanki Srinivas went to Atmakuru and requested the respondent and his parents to come and live with the petitioner at Kollipara or to take her back to Atmakuru for leading marital life, but the respondent bluntly refused for the same and threatened them with dire consequences.

4.It is further submitted that again the petitioner herself personally and through the above said elders went to the house of the respondent in the first week of January 2020 and requested him to take back her to his family fold, but the respondent did not agreed for the same and threatened them with dire consequences, on that they returned back, so there is no hope for reunion as the respondent subjected her to cruelty and deserted her for more than 2 years, hence the petition for divorce.

5.It is further submitted that there is no collusion between the petitioner and the respondent in filing this petition. No such petition is filed by either party under Hindu Marriage Act in any other court.

There are no issues to them.

- 3 -

The averments of the counter:-

6.The averments of the counter of the respondent are that he denied most of the allegations alleged in the petition except his relationship with the petitioner. It is submitted that the couple have no issues. As there are some disputes arose between them, on that the petitioner and the respondent bore grudge against each other, hence the respondent also wants to dissolve the marriage with the petitioner by decree of divorce, as such the respondent has no objection to allow the petition. The respondent gave Rs.1.40,000/- to the petitioner towards her permanent alimony. So requested the court to allow the petition.

7.On appearance of both parties, reconciliation was conducted for reunion, but it is failed. Hence the case is posted for enquiry.

8.To prove their respective contentions the petitioner examined herself as PW.1 through an advocate commissioner and got marked

Exs.P1 to P4. On behalf of the respondent, he and his counsel appeared and reported no evidence on his behalf and to that effect they filed a memo and the same is recorded. Hence no evidence recorded on behalf of the respondent.

9.Heard on both sides.

10.Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioner

is entitled for the relief sought in the petition as prayed for?

11.In support of the relief claimed by the petitioner, she filed her affidavit in lieu of her chief examination as PW.1 by reiterating the averments of the petition, then she examined herself as PW.1 in chief and cross through an advocate commissioner and got marked Exs.P1 to

P4 i.e., Ex.P1 is Marriage invitation card, Ex.P2 is Marriage photos with

CD, Ex.P3 is certificate of identification of the petitioner and Ex.P4 is xerox copy of Adhar card of the petitioner.

- 4 -

12.Here the contention and evidence of the petitioner is that herself and the respondent lived happily only for 2 years after their marriage, later the respondent started harassing her by demanding additional dowry and by addicting to vices, later inspite of conducting mediations and inspite of put up separate family at Kollipara, there is no change in the attitude of the respondent, finally since 05.02.2016 he deserted her without reasonable cause, later he bluntly refused to take her back to her family fold inspite of conducting mediations.

13.The above said evidence of the petitioner is denied by the respondent. Here the respondent filed his counter by denying the allegations made by the petitioner except admitting their relationship.

Further in his counter he got it mentioned that since they have no issues and on that some disputes arose between them and on that both of them bore grudge against each other and on that he also wants to dissolve their marriage by a decree of divorce.

14.Here in support of counter allegations the respondent did not adduce any evidence either orally or documentary. On the other hand he reported no evidence on his behalf by filing a memo to that affect, which was recorded. So there is no evidence from the respondent to disprove the averments of the petition and the evidence of the petitioner. Moreover even in the cross examination of PW.1 the respondent did not deny about mediations conducted by the elders at the instance of the petitioner and put up separate family as per the advice of the elders. Further even he did not put any suggestions to deny the evidence of the petitioner that he subjected her to cruelty and deserted her since 05.02.2016. Moreover in the cross examination of

PW.1 through the suggestions of the respondent it reveals that he addicted to vices and he used to come to the house in the late nights and used to beat the petitioner. So the said suggestions of the respondent itself support the evidence of the petitioner and made believable the evidence of the petitioner that the respondent subjected her to cruelty and deserted her.

- 5 -

15.Further in the counter of the respondent and through his suggestions to the petitioner in her cross examination it reveals that as per the settlement between them by the elders the respondent gave

Rs.1,40,000/- to the petitioner towards her permanent alimony. So itself made believable the evidence of the petitioner that the respondent bluntly refused to take back her to his family folds.

Moreover in the counter of the respondent he got it mentioned that he also wants to dissolve their marriage and got it mentioned that he has no objection to allow the petition. So it supports the evidence of the petitioner that there is no scope for reunion between them.

16.So as per the above evidence the petitioner, she proved that the respondent subjected her to cruelty and deserted her since 05.02.2016 without reasonable cause with an intention to put an end to the family life, as such, the petitioner is entitled for the relief of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

17.Hence, the point is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.

18.In the result, petition is allowed with costs by dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent dated 28.05.2011 on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Accordingly the decree of divorce is passed u/sec.13(1)(ia) and (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act 1955.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me, in open Court, this the 31st day of August, 2021.

Sd/-xx

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Tenali.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner:

P.W.1 : Usirikayala Lakshmi Tirupatamma.

- 6 -

For Respondent:-

--None--

Documents Marked

For Petitioner:

Ex.P1 is Marriage invitation card.

Ex.P2 is Marriage photos with CD.

Ex.P3 is certificate of identification of the petitioner.

Ex.P4 is xerox copy of Adhar card of the petitioner.

For Respondent:

--Nil--

Sd/-xx

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Tenali.

- 1 -

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TENALI

Present: Smt. G. GEETHA,

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali

Wednesday the 08th day of September, 2021

HMOP. No.61/2021

BETWEEN:

1. Rajulapati Suresh, S/o. Krishna, Aged about 32 years,

Employee, DGP Office, Mangalagiri, Guntur district.

2. Jampani Kalyana Sudha, W/o. Rajaulapati Surehs,

D/o. Jampani Venkateswara Rao, Aged about 27 years,

Hindu, Employee, R/o. Garuvupalem village, Chebrolu mandal,

Guntur district. ..Petitioners.

Vs.

Nil. ..Respondent.

This petition coming on 07-09-2021 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Ravindra Babu, Advocate for the Petitioners, there are no Respondents, and this Court delivered the following:-

ORDER

This divorce petition is filed by the petitioners 1 and 2, who are husband and wife respectively, praying this court to dissolve their marriage on the ground of mutual consent under Section 13-B of Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955.

2.The averments of the petition :-

The 2nd petitioner is legally wedded wife of the 1st petitioner and their arranged marriage was solemnized on 22.11.2017 at TTD

Kalyanamandapam, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, as per Hindu rites and caste customs and immediately the marriage was consummated, the 2nd petitioner joined with the 1st petitioner at his - 2 - house at Cherukumilli village, Akuvedu mandal, West Godavari district to lead happy marital life, but from the beginning differences arose between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd petitioner and they lived happily for 15 days only, and the differences aggravated day by day, on the intervention and advice of elders and relatives they both lived together for sometime, later the 2nd petitioner left the company of the 1st petitioner and went to her parents home, and on 20.12.2017 on the advice given by both side parents and elders, the differences between them pacified and they both put up separate family and lastly resided at Tenali in a rented house as the 1st petitioner is working in DGP office at Mangalagiri, whereas the 2nd petitioner is working in Chebrolu and thus they lived together only for one month, again differences arose between them and the 2nd petitioner went to her parents’ house by leaving the company of the 1st petitioner on 22.01.2018 and subsequent mediations were proved futile, thus there is no hope of reunion between them to lead happy married life and they mutually agreed to take divorce and the 1st petitioner agreed to pay a sum of

Rs.6,00,000/- by way of cash to the 2nd petitioner towards her life time maintenance under full and final settlement and the 2nd petitioner agreed for the same. It is further submitted that there is no dispute between them with regard to the gold ornaments belonging to both the petitioners. It is also submitted there is no collusion between the petitioners in filing this petition and no petition is pending before any court under the Hindu Marriage Act between the petitioners and that they have no issues.

3.On appearance of both parties, reconciliation was conducted for reunion between the petitioners, but, it is failed. Hence, the case is posted for filing of affidavits.

4.To prove their case, the petitioners 1 and 2 were examined through an advocate commissioner as P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P6.

5.Heard.

- 3 -

6.Now the point for consideration is whether the

petitioners are entitled to get a decree of divorce by mutual

consent, as prayed for?

7.In support of the relief claimed in the petition, the petitioners 1 and 2 filed their affidavits and examined themselves as P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6, i.e., Ex.P1 is Wedding card of petitioners,

Ex.P2 is Marriage photos of the petitioners along with CD, Ex.P3 is

Certificate of identification of the 1st petitioner, Ex.P4 is Xerox copy of

Aadhar card of the 1st petitioner, Ex.P5 is Certificate of identification of the 2nd petitioner and Ex.P6 is Xerox copy of Aadhar card of the 2nd petitioner.

8.Here the case and evidence of the petitioners is that after their marriage they lived happily for a short period only, but during their wedlock they were not blessed with any children, later differences arose between them, the above said differences were increased between them, and they were not pacified in spite of elders’ mediation and putting up separate family at Tenali in a rented house in view of their employment, on that both the petitioners have been residing separately since 22.01.2018, later they decided to take divorce on mutual consent and on that as per their understandings the 1st petitioner paid an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- by way of cash to the 2nd petitioner towards her permanent alimony under full and final settlement and the 2nd petitioner voluntarily received the said amount from the 1st petitioner, by way of cash, towards her permanent alimony and there is no dispute between them with regard to their gold ornaments, on that they filed this petition for divorce as there is no scope for reunion.

9.Further it is found that they filed this petition on 18.02.2021 i.e., nearly after 3 years 2 months of their marriage and they are residing separately since 22.01.2018 i.e., nearly more than 3 years 2 months prior to filing of this petition as per section 14 of the Hindu - 4 -

Marriage Act, 1955. Further, it is found that the statutory period of six months is over after presenting the case as per section 13-B(2) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and there is no scope for reunion between the P.Ws.1 and 2 to lead their conjugal life happily. So, it is clear that the evidence adduced by the P.Ws.1 and 2 is supporting their claim to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent. Hence, this court is inclined to dissolve their marriage, as prayed for.

10.Hence, the point is answered in favour of the petitioners.

11.In the result, the petition is allowed by dissolving the marriage between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd petitioner dated 22-11-2017 on the ground of mutual consent. Accordingly decree of divorce is passed u/sec.13-B of Hindu Marriage Act,1955.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and

pronounced by me, in open Court, this the 08th day of September, 2021.

Sd/-xx

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Tenali.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioners:

PW.1 : Rajulapati Suresh.

PW.2 : Jampani Kalyana Sudha.

For Respondent:-

--None--

Documents Marked

For Petitioners:

Ex.P1 : Wedding card of petitioners.

Ex.P2 : Marriage photos of the petitioners along with CD.

Ex.P3 : Certificate of identification of the 1st petitioner.

- 5 -

Ex.P4 : Xerox copy of Aadhar card of the 1st petitioner.

Ex.P5 : Certificate of identification of the 2nd petitioner.

Ex.P6 : Xerox copy of Aadhar card of the 2nd petitioner.

For Respondent:

--Nil--

Sd/-xx

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Tenali.

- 1 -

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TENALI

Present: Smt. G. GEETHA,

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali

Monday the 20th day of September, 2021

HMOP. No.125/2020

BETWEEN:

1. Moram Lalitha Sri @ Lalitha, W/o. Dhilli Kumar @ Dileep Kumar,

Hindu, Aged about 27 years, presently residing

D.No.18-15-11, Muthumsettivari Palem, Tenali,

Guntur District.

2. Moram Dhilli Kumar, S/o. Late. Kondala Rao, aged about 32 years, Electrician, R/o. D.No.10-52, Bose Bomma center,

Old Mangalagiri town, Guntur District. ..Petitioners.

Vs.

Nil. ..Respondent.

This petition coming on 17-09-2021 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.P. Bhimeswar, Advocate for the Petitioners, there are no Respondents, and this Court delivered the following:-

ORDER

This divorce petition is filed by the petitioners 1 and 2, who are wife and husband respectively, praying this court to dissolve their marriage on the ground of mutual consent under Section 13-B of Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955.

2.The averments of the petition :-

The 1st petitioner is legally wedded wife of the 2nd petitioner and their marriage was taken place on 13.8.2014 at Muttumsettivari

Palem, Tenali, as per the Hindu religious systems and customs, subsequently the petitioners joined together and they led happy - 2 - matrimonial life for a few years and thereafter some serious disputes arose between them and the disputes were grown up day by day and became as an insolvable issues, the elders of both the petitioners tried their best to reunite the couple by pacifying the disputes, but unfortunately the efforts of the elders and well wishers of both the petitioners proved futile, on that as per the suggestions of the elders and well wishers of both the petitioners, they came to a conclusion that they have no interest to continue their marital tie and expressed that they want to take divorce through court of law and to lead their lives individually and independently and they also wish to remarry as per their choice. It is further submitted due to the differences between the petitioners they are separated from 22-11-2018, and the petitioners were not able to bless with any children through their conjugal life and they have no issues and there is no hope for their reunion. It is further submitted that there is no collusion between the petitioners in filing this petition before the court of law and no similar petition was filed by them and none of them were in force before any court of law, hence this petition.

3.On appearance of both parties, reconciliation was conducted for reunion between the petitioners, but, it is failed. Hence, the case is posted for filing of affidavits.

4.To prove their case, the petitioners 1 and 2 were examined through an advocate commissioner as P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P6.

5.Heard.

6.Now the point for consideration is whether the

petitioners are entitled to get a decree of divorce by mutual

consent, as prayed for?

7.In support of the relief claimed in the petition, the petitioners 1 and 2 filed their affidavits and examined themselves as P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6, i.e., Ex.P1 is Wedding card, Ex.P2 is - 3 - photos with CD, Ex.P3 is Certificate of identification of the 1st petitioner/ PW1, Ex.P4 is Xerox copy of Aadhar of PW1, Ex.P5 is

Certificate of identification of PW.2 and Ex.P6 is Xerox copy of Aadhar of PW2.

8.Here the case and evidence of the petitioners is that after their marriage they lived happily for a period of 4 years only, after 4th year differences arose between them, during their wedlock they were not blessed with any children, the above said differences were increased between them, and they were not pacified in spite of elders’ mediation on that both the petitioners have been residing separately since 22.11.2018, later they decided to take divorce on mutual consent and on that as per their understandings the 2nd petitioner paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- by way of cash to the 1st petitioner towards her life time maintenance under full and final settlement and also gold items i.e., Nantadu – 8 grams and Nallapusala golusu – 8 grams, and the 1st petitioner voluntarily received the said amount by way of cash and the said gold items from the 2nd petitioner, on that they filed this petition for divorce as there is no scope for reunion.

9.Further it is found that they filed this petition on 31.10.2020 i.e., nearly after 7 years of their marriage and they are residing separately since 22.11.2018 i.e., nearly more than 2 years 9 months prior to filing of this petition as per section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Further, it is found that the statutory period of six months is over after presenting the case as per section 13-B(2) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and there is no scope for reunion between the P.Ws.1 and 2 to lead their conjugal life happily. So, it is clear that the evidence adduced by the P.Ws.1 and 2 is supporting their claim to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent. Hence, this court is inclined to dissolve their marriage, as prayed for.

10.Hence, the point is answered in favour of the petitioners.

- 4 -

11.In the result, the petition is allowed by dissolving the marriage between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd petitioner dated 13-8-2014 on the ground of mutual consent. Accordingly decree of divorce is passed u/sec.13-B of Hindu Marriage Act,1955.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and

pronounced by me, in open Court, this the 20th day of September, 2021.

Sd/-xx

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Tenali.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioners:

PW.1 : Moram Lalitha Sri @ Lalitha.

PW.2 : Moram Dhilli Kumar.

For Respondent:-

--None--

Documents Marked

For Petitioners:

Ex.P1 : Wedding card.

Ex.P2 : Photos with CD.

Ex.P3 : Certificate of identification of the 1st petitioner/ PW1.

Ex.P4 : Xerox copy of Aadhar of PW1.

Ex.P5 : Certificate of identification of PW.2.

Ex.P6 : Xerox copy of Aadhar of PW2.

For Respondent:

--Nil--

Sd/-xx

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Tenali.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TENALI

PRESENT: Smt G. Geetha, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Tenali.

Wednesday, the 25th day of August, 2021

OS.131/2018

Between:

Sangothu Sambrajyam, W/o Mattaiah, 60 Yrs,

R/o Angalakuduru village, Tenali Mandal....Plaintiff

And

1. Angalakuduru Lakshmi Veerla Ankamma, W/o Late Poornachandra rao, 55 Yrs.

2. Angalakuduru Eswari D/o Late Poornachandra rao, 35 yrs,

3. Puligadda Jagadeeswari, W/o Venkata Tirupathi rao, 33 Yrs.

4. Angalakuduru Venkat, S/o Late Poornachandra rao, 30 yrs

...Defendants

This suit is coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Sri P. Srihari Prasad, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri M. Srinivasa rao, Advocate for defendant Nos.1 and 4 and no notice served on D2 and D3 and upon perusing the record, this court delivered the following.

JUDGMENT

This suit is filed by the plaintiff praying this court for recovery of Rs.6,58,000/- being the principal and interest due on ‘A’ marked pronote for Rs.3,00,000/-, dt.10.12.2017, ‘B’ marked pronote for Rs.3,00,000/-, dt.20.4.2018 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and for subsequent interest and for costs of the suit.

Plaintiff and defendants are called absent through Blue jeans VC. Plaintiff counsel filed the not press memo to dismiss the suit by giving notice to D1 and D4 counsel. The counsel for

D1 and D4 endorsed no objection. Heard. Not pressed memo is recorded. Hence, the suit is dismissed as not pressed by fully settled out of court without costs.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 25th day of August, 2021.

Sd/-Smt G. Geetha,

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Tenali.

- 2 -

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No Oral or documentary evidence was adduced by either side.

Sd/-Smt G. Geetha,

PSCJ, Tenali