Sri.G.Prabhakar

Page No.1 HMOP No. 40 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GADWAL

JOGULAMBA GADWAL DISTRICT

Tuesday, the 23rd day of April, 2024

Present:- G. PRABHAKAR,

M.Com., M.A., LL.M.,

Additional Senior Civil Judge,

GADWAL

H.M.O.P.No.40 of 2022

Between:-

K. Anji Babu, S/o K. Kamaraju, Age: 27 Years, R/o H.No.1-66, Kalukuntla

Village of Manopad Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District.

…Petitioner

And

M. Sravani Pooja, W/o K. Anji Babu, (D/o Jammanna and Padmavathi) Age:

23 Years, R/o H.No.68/71, Yerraburuju, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh.

... Respondent

Subject: Petition filed under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of

Conjugal Rights.

***

This Petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of

Sri G. Maheshwar yadav, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri K. Chandra Mohan,

Advocate for Respondent and upon perusing the material on record the court

passed the following:

O R D E R

1. This application is filed under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act by the

petitioner/husband against respondent/wife.

Page No.2 HMOP No. 40 of 2022

2. Averments in the petition are that;

(a) That on 03-02-2022 the marriage of petitioner with respondent was performed at Dattatreya Temple, Kalukuntla village of Manopad mandal as per Hindu rites and customs; the marriage was an arranged marriage; they lived together at

Kalukuntla and the marriage was consummated;

(b) That the respondent started harassing and demanding the petitioner to shift family to Kurnool so as to stay near her parents; petitioner did not agree for the same because he has to look after agricultural operations and wellbeing of his parents; differences arose between them on that account.

(c) That the father of petitioner is Ex-Sarpanch of the village, due to acts of respondent, their reputation was spoiled, the respondent frequently used to leave the company of petitioner without intimation.

(d) That on 23-06-2022 respondent left the company of petitioner, without informing inmates, the petitioner contacted her over phone but she did not respond; on 02-07-2022, the petitioner contacted the respondent at her parent’s house, tried to convince her but the respondent did not join petitioner for conjugal life. Hence, the application.

3. Respondent filed counter admitting the marriage but denying the allegations in the application. Brief averments in the counter are as under:

(i) It is a fact that the marriage of petitioner with respondent was solemnized on 03-02-2022 at Dattatreya Temple, Kalukuntla village, Manopad mandal as per Hindu rites and customs.

(ii) It is denied that they stayed at Kalukuntla village and that marriage was consummated; it is denied that on 26-03-2022 respondent left the company of petitioner voluntarily and without informing the inmates.

(iii) That the cause of action is created for the purpose of this case. The

Page No.3 HMOP No. 40 of 2022

further case of respondent is that at the time of marriage the petitioner and his parents demanded for dowry of Rs.8,00,000/- and (16) thulas of gold ornaments and the same was complied with by the mother of respondent and that the same was given by mother of respondent to the petitioner and his parents in the presence of village elders Smt Akkamma, Shivaiah, Krupanandham, Pedda Hanmanthu, Gopal,

Krishna, Hanmanthu, Ajay, Anji and Harikumar.

(iv) That the petitioner and his parents made a false statement that the petitioner is working as software engineer in Hyderabad and getting salary of

Rs.60,000/- per month, believing the same the mother of respondent and their relatives got impressed and agreed for wedlock.

(v) It is the further case of respondent that from the time of marriage the petitioner harassed respondent on her virginity; the petitioner used to show blue films to the respondent on his mobile and forced her for same sexual acts; within (04) days of marriage respondent suffered severe ill-health but the petitioner did not take care, to take her for medical checkup.

(vi) That the petitioner moves idle whole day in drunken state and used to harass the respondent for want of additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- for the purpose of his business; the respondent informed the same to her mother, but her mother did not agree to provide additional dowry due to poor financial condition.

(vi) That the petitioner used to harass respondent in filthy language stating that he will get money if he offers the respondent for prostitution; that on 23-06-2022 the petitioner thrown out the respondent form his house and accordingly she went to her parents house. For all these reasons, the respondent prayed to dismiss the petition.

4. The petitioner examined Pws 1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P1 and P2 on his behalf. On behalf of respondent Rws 1 to 4 are examined. No documents are marked on her behalf. Ex.P1 is Wedding card and Ex.P2 is Wedding photograph.

Page No.4 HMOP No. 40 of 2022

5. Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek for restitution of conjugal rights with his wife/respondent?

6. Admitted facts are that petitioner and respondent are husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on 03-02-2022 at Dattatreya Temple, Kalukuntla village of Manopad mandal. According to petitioner, the respondent stayed with him at his native place and the marriage was consummated but the same was denied by respondent in her counter. But at the same time, it is not specifically pleaded by the respondent as to where their marriage was consummated.

7. It is argued on behalf of petitioner that, the respondent insisted him to shift family to Kurnool, but due to his agricultural activities in the village and also on account of aged parents service, petitioner refused to shift the family and this is the reason for which the respondent developed hatred and left his company without intimation and thereby withdrawn from his society without any reasonable cause. On the other hand, it is the contention of respondent that she was sexually abused and was compelled to indulge in sexual activities by showing blue films and thereby the petitioner caused severe ill-health to respondent within (04) days of marriage, therefore, it is the contention of respondent that this is the reasonable excuse for withdrawing from the society of petitioner. Hence, it is the contention of respondent that by putting her to such ill-health she was necked out from the matrimonial life by the petitioner himself.

8. As per explanation to, Sec. 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, where a question arises whether there has been reasonable excuse for withdrawal from the society, the burden of proving reasonable excuse shall be on the person who has withdrawn from the society. In this case, it is not pleaded by respondent that she has withdrawn from the society of petitioner. What she stated is that, the petitioner himself necked out her from his house on 23-06-2022. Whether the respondent has left the company of petitioner on her own or the petitioner necked out her, is the

Page No.5 HMOP No. 40 of 2022

question to the examined in evidence but one thing is clear that, such incident of severance of parties took place on 23-06-2022, as admitted by both parties. Now it is important to note, what has actually happened on 23-06-2022 between the parties, leading to filing of this case.

9. From the factual matrix of the case, it is notable that the marriage of parties was solemnized on 03-02-2022 and they are living away from each other with effect from 23-06-2022. That means, only for a period of (04) months (20) days, they remained as wife and husband. Within this short period, lot of things took place.

10. The petitioner as Pw.1 filed his chief-examination affidavit by stating the facts as pleaded in his application and stated that the respondent left his company on 23-06-2022 without any intimation. In his cross-examination, he denied suggestions that on the date of first night, he asked the respondent whether she was virgin and questioned whether she had any boy friends. It was suggested to

Pw.1 that his sister Radhakeshwari and his father Kamaraju also started harassing respondent, demanding to bring additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- from her parents on the ground that she is the only daughter to her parents, which is denied by petitioner as Pw.1.

11. Pw.1 denied suggestion that one year back, when respondent suffered stomachache he did not take care of her and that on her phone call her parents came and took her for treatment with his consent. No such stand was taken by the respondent in her counter. What is stated by the respondent in the counter is that the petitioner demanded for additional dowry, when the same was not complied by her mother, the petitioner abused her in filthy language and thrown out from his house on 23-06-2022. It’s not her case that when she was sick, the petitioner did not provide treatment, neglected her and that with the consent of petitioner her parents took her from the petitioner to provide treatment. There is any amount of contradicting statement in the version of respondent as to the reason for her leaving the company of respondent. Therefore, it is for the respondent to take a stand

Page No.6 HMOP No. 40 of 2022

appropriately and prove the same. The above contradiction gives a scope to believe that the respondent has withdrawn from the company of petitioner rather than the allegation that petitioner necked out her.

12. The father of petitioner is examined as Pw.2. He stated that the marriage of petitioner with respondent was performed on 03-02-2022, they stayed in

Kalukuntla village, marriage was consummated, differences arose between petitioner and respondent, when the petitioner refused to shift family to Kurnool and that the petitioner and himself were put to mental agony by the respondent and finally on 23-06-2022 the respondent left company of petitioner without intimation, for her best known reasons and did not come back for conjugal life with petitioner. Pw.2 denied suggestion that they demanded for additional dowry and also denied allegation of giving dowry at the time of marriage. It was suggested to Pw.1 that petitioner and his parents demanded for additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- but coming to the cross-examination of Pw.2 it was suggested that they demanded

additional dowry of Rs.20,00,000/-, which is a circumstance to infer that the very

contention of demand for additional dowry is doubtful. Pw.2 also denied suggestion that they performed the marriage making false representation that petitioner is working as mechanical engineer and earning good amount. From the above order of examination and cross-examination of Pws 1 and 2, it is not elicited that the petitioner thrown out the respondent from his house. Further, unreasonable grounds of withdrawal are perceivable in view of strange suggestions put to Pws 1 and 2.

13. The evidence affidavit of respondent as Rw.1 is repetition of her contention in her counter. In her cross-examination, Rw.1 admitted that their marriage was performed at the native place of petitioner and marriage expenses were borne by the petitioner and his family. She further admitted that, the father of petitioner is Ex-

Sarpanch of Kalukuntla village and that all the sisters of petitioners are married. She stated that she does not know whether petitioner is having 4 acres of land and he is living by cultivating the same. She admitted to have filed a criminal complaint under section 498 (A) IPC against the petitioner in Kurnool court. She denied suggestion

Page No.7 HMOP No. 40 of 2022

that having no interest to live and lead matrimonial life in village, she is troubling the petitioner. She replied specifically that, she is not willing to join the petitioner as she has no confidence that petitioner will look after her well.

14. The mother of respondent is examined as Rw.2, her chief-examination affidavit is replica of that of Rw.1. In her cross-examination, Rw.2 admitted that the respondent is her eldest child; that her husband died 8 years back; the marriage of respondent was performed in Kalukuntla village, the native place of petitioner; that the petitioner is only son of his parents and that the father of petitioner is Ex-

Sarpanch on the village. Rw.2 further admitted that, respondent was never sent by petitioner for any agricultural coolie work or for any employment. She further admitted that, in a panchayath before elders respondent declared that, she will join the petitioner only if he do some job. When this admission coupled with the allegation of respondent that, petitioner made false representation that he is employee at the time of marriage, goes to show that the respondent is not interested to lead matrimonial life with an agriculturist. So, as suggested to Rw.1, though denied by her, it is more probable that she is not willing to join the petitioner at his village and also not able to accept the petitioner as her husband, if he does not do any job. This is not a reasonable excuse for the respondent to live away from her husband.

15. There is no material on behalf of respondent to believe her contention that petitioner made false representation that he is an employee. Admittedly petitioner is an agriculturist and lives in a village area and admittedly, respondent is from a well developed city/Kurnool. Naturally, the expectation of respondent from her husband would be on higher side, may be the same is reason for her not willing to join petitioner, a villager and an agriculturist. Law does not permit a wife to demand her husband to set up a separate family of her choice. It is held in catena of decisions that the wife has to lead matrimonial life, in general parlance, by staying with her husband, unless she has any special reasons to ask the husband to join her at the place of her choice, such as, employment, better opportunities at her place, so on and so forth. But, this is not so in the case on hand. The respondent has no specific

Page No.8 HMOP No. 40 of 2022

reason to demand for shifting of family from Kalukuntla village to Kurnool, whereas, there is reasonable ground for refusal of the same by the petitioner, since his family is agriculture based family. Further, it can be understood from the admissions of

Rw.2 that the respondent was not put to hard labour or insisted to do some work for gain.

16. Rw.3 /Chinna Gopal is the paternal uncle of respondent. By filing elaborate chief-examination, reiterated the contention of Rw.1 and 2 in their chief- examination. So also, Rw.4 /Krupanandam, who is grandfather of respondent. In simple, what is deposed by Rws 1 to 4 in their chief-examination is that marriage of petitioner and respondent was performed on 03-02-2022 and that respondent was subjected to harassment for want of additional dowry and that respondent was necked out from the house of petitioner. Rw.3 made it clear in his cross-examination that, had it been known to them that petitioner is agriculturist they would not given respondent in marriage. Rw.4 stated the details of giving dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- in advance, Rs.5,00,000/- on the date of marriage, in total Rs.8,00,000/- given as dowry, but there are no proofs to that effect. Insofar as dowry is concern it is only oral testimony of witnesses. Rw.4 also clearly stated that there is no chance of sending respondent for conjugal life. As can be seen from the evidence, no material is produced either to show that dowry was given or that demand for additional dowry was made by the petitioner or his parents. As observed supra, there is an allegation that, petitioner demanded Rs.10,00,000/- as additional dowry whereas, it was suggested to Pw.2 that they demanded Rs.20,00,000/- as additional dowry. In these circumstances, the allegation of giving dowry or demand for additional dowry becomes unbelievable.

17. Insofar as the gist of evidence adduced by both parties clearly project that just because the petitioner is an agriculturist and that he is not doing job, the respondent is not willing to join petitioner, as per the admissions of respondent and her witnesses extracted supra, which is unknown to law. Once marriage is solemnized, the parties are bound to respect the rituals and lead happy marital life,

Page No.9 HMOP No. 40 of 2022

whereby they must render justice to the act of marriage. None of the parties are expected to deny marital life for any unreasonable ground. The grounds urged by respondent are found untenable and it is believe that as the petitioner is an agriculturist, not doing job and also not willing to shift to Kurnool, the respondent is not willing to join the petitioner, for which exactly the petitioner is before this court.

18. From the above facts and circumstances, this court is of the considered view, that the respondent has withdrawn from the company of petitioner without any reasonable excuse and she is bound to respect the marriage tie and develop bond with the petitioner, to lead happy marital life. However, these findings would not come in the way if the parties to the application with their mutual understanding tend to shift to any place and love together the only concern of these proceedings, in the circumstances is to see that the respondent resumes conjugal life with the petitioner. Point is answered accordingly, holding that the petitioner is entitled for reinstitution of conjugal rights.

19. In the result, petition is allowed, granting decree of restitution of conjugal rights, directing the respondent to join the company of petitioner within (02) months. No order as to costs.

Typed to dictation corrected and pronounced by me in the open

court on this the 23rd day of April, 2024.

Additional Senior Civil Judge

Gadwal

Page No.10 HMOP No. 40 of 2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner:- For Respondent:-

Pw.1: K. Anji Babu Rw.1: M. Sravani Pooja

Pw.2: K. Kamaraju Rw.2: Padmavathi

Rw.3: Chinna Gopal

Rw.4: Krupanandam

EXHIBITS MARKED

For petitioner:

Ex.P1: Original Wedding card

Ex.P2: Wedding photograph

Additional Senior Civil Judge

Gadwal

TSJG010001142021

Presented on : 12-08-2021 Registered on : 12-08-2021 Decided on : 23-04-2024 Duration : 2 years, 8 months, 11 days

IN THE COURT OF

Senior Civil Judge AT GADWAL ,MAHABOOBNAGAR

Presided Over by Smt.Ganta Kavitha Devi

EP/7/2021

Exhibit No.:

: Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank Gadwal Branch Age: 33 Occupation : Address: Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank Gadwal Branch, Represented by its Branch Manager. Mamidipelli Naresh, S/o Indaiah,R/o Gadwal Town.

VERSUS : Mariyamma Age: 48 Occupation : Address: Occ. Agril, R/o Melacheruvu village of Gadwal Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : R.Raghu Ram Reddy Advocate for : appearing for Mariyamma: Advocate appearing for respectively.

Claim :

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 23-04-2024 )

ORDER

Full satisfaction memo filed, recorded, EP is terminated. No costs.

Date : 23-04-2024 (Smt.Ganta Kavitha Devi)

Senior Civil Judge

GADWAL ,MAHABOOBNAGAR

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

(Smt.Ganta Kavitha Devi) {JUDGE_DESIGNATION_NAME}

GADWAL ,MAHABOOBNAGAR

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS

TSJG010001052020

Presented on : 07-10-2020 Registered on : 10-11-2020 Decided on : 25-04-2024 Duration : 3 years, 6 months, 18 days

IN THE COURT OF

Senior Civil Judge AT GADWAL ,MAHABOOBNAGAR

Presided Over by Smt.Ganta Kavitha Devi

EP/32/2020

Exhibit No.:

: A.P.G.V. Bank Age: 50 Occupation : Address: A.P.G.V. Bank Br. Gadwal

VERSUS : Boya Buchanna Age: 63 Occupation : Address: R/o Khammampad village now at Yemunonipally village, Dharoor Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : P.Siv Narayana Advocate for : appearing for Boya Buchanna: Advocate appearing for respectively.

Claim :

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 25-04-2024 )

ORDER

Full satisfaction memo filed, recorded, EP is terminated. No costs.

Date : 25-04-2024 (Smt.Ganta Kavitha Devi)

Senior Civil Judge

GADWAL ,MAHABOOBNAGAR

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

(Smt.Ganta Kavitha Devi) {JUDGE_DESIGNATION_NAME}

GADWAL ,MAHABOOBNAGAR

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS

TSJG010001072020

Presented on : 07-10-2020 Registered on : 10-11-2020 Decided on : 25-04-2024 Duration : 3 years, 6 months, 18 days

IN THE COURT OF

Senior Civil Judge AT GADWAL ,MAHABOOBNAGAR

Presided Over by Smt.Ganta Kavitha Devi

EP/34/2020

Exhibit No.:

: A.P.G.V. Bank Age: 50 Occupation : Address: A.P.G.V. Bank, Br. Gadwal

VERSUS : Mutha Laxmanna Age: 44 Occupation : Address: R/o Yenumonipally village, Dharoor Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : P.Siv Narayana Advocate for : appearing for Mutha Laxmanna: Advocate appearing for respectively.

Claim :

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 25-04-2024 )

ORDER

Full satisfaction memo filed, recorded, EP is terminated. No costs.

Date : 25-04-2024 (Smt.Ganta Kavitha Devi)

Senior Civil Judge

GADWAL ,MAHABOOBNAGAR

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

(Smt.Ganta Kavitha Devi) {JUDGE_DESIGNATION_NAME}

GADWAL ,MAHABOOBNAGAR

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS

TSJG010001062020

Presented on : 07-10-2020 Registered on : 10-11-2020 Decided on : 25-04-2024 Duration : 3 years, 6 months, 18 days

IN THE COURT OF

Senior Civil Judge AT GADWAL ,MAHABOOBNAGAR

Presided Over by Smt.Ganta Kavitha Devi

EP/33/2020

Exhibit No.:

: A.P.G.V.Bank Age: 50 Occupation : Address: A.P.G.V.Bank, Br. Gadwal

VERSUS : Mutha Amaresh Age: 40 Occupation : Address: R/o Yemunonipally Village, Dharoor Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : P.Siv Narayana Advocate for : appearing for Mutha Amaresh: Advocate appearing for respectively.

Claim :

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 25-04-2024 )

ORDER

Full satisfaction memo filed, recorded, EP is terminated. No costs.

Date : 25-04-2024 (Smt.Ganta Kavitha Devi)

Senior Civil Judge

GADWAL ,MAHABOOBNAGAR

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

(Smt.Ganta Kavitha Devi) {JUDGE_DESIGNATION_NAME}

GADWAL ,MAHABOOBNAGAR

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS