Smt G Sabitha

Page 1 of 7 - H.M.O.P No .11 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT :: RAMANNAPET

MONDAY, THIS THE 27th DAY OF APRIL , 2026

PRESENT: SMT. G. SABITHA,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMANNAPET

HMOP. No. 11 OF 2024

Between:- Aleti Rajesh Kumar, S/o.Aleti Bikshapati, Age: 33 years, Occ: Private Job, R/o.H.No.1-47, Juluru, Bhudan Pochampally, Yadadri Bhongir District.

...Petitioner

AND

K. Shrilata, W/o.Aleti Rajesh Kumar, D/o.K.Ramanjaneyulu, Age: 32 years, Occ: Private Job, R/o.H.No.2-56, Ponnakal, Addakal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

...Respondent

This petition has come-up before me for hearing on dt.17.04.2026 for disposal in the presence of Sri P. Linga Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri N.Malleshwar, Advocate for the Respondent; the matter having stood for consideration till this day, Court made the following:-

O R D E R

1.Originally this O.P was filed by the Petitioner/Husband on the file of Hon’ble

Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Yadadri Bhongir, vide HMOP.No.85/2022. At the stage of “Counter”, as per the orders of the Hon’ble Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Yadadri Bhongir, vide Procs.Dis.No.1795/2024/A1, dt.17-10-2024, case file was transferred to this Court & re-registered as HMOP.No.11/2024.

2.This petition is filed by the Petitioner/Wife u/S.13 (1) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act praying the Court to grant decree of divorce on the ground of “Desertion”.

3.Brief averments of petition filed by the Petitioner/Husband are as follows:-

Marriage of Petitioner & Respondent was performed on 17/5/2019 according to

Vedic rites & out of their free will and consent, at Arya Samaj, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad.

After marriage, both the Petitioner & Respondent lived together at the house of Petitioner, i.e., at Julur village, Bhudan Pochampally. As they performed marriage without inviting

Page 2 of 7 - H.M.O.P No .11 of 2024 their relatives and away from public eye, they thought of marrying again in grand manner in presence of their near and dear relatives. As such, on 14/6/2020, once again Petitioner & Respondent remarried at the house of Petitioner from Julur village, Bhudan Pochampally mandal, as per Hindu rites and customs in the presence of elders, relatives and well wishers of both the sides. After 15 days of the remarriage, i.e., on 28/6/2020, Respondent left to her parents house without any intimation to the Petitioner, for the reasons best known to her. Several times Petitioner tried to get back the Respondent into his house for restitution, but she gave an impaired hearing. The Respondent deserted the Petitioner from 28/6/2020 to till date and not responding to the phone calls of the Petitioner. Hence, having vexed with the behavior of the Respondent, the present petition is filed seeking divorce on the ground of desertion.

4.Notices were served on Respondent and she filed counter admitting solemnization of her marriage with the Respondent on 17/5/2019, at Arya Samaj, Sultan Bazar and remarriage of them in front of the elders of both the sides on 14/6/2020. At the same time,

Respondent denied desertion of the Petitioner on 28/6/2020. She contended that the allegations trumped-up in the OP are false, baseless, concocted and created for the purpose of this O.P.

5.It is the case of the Respondent that her parents have performed the marriage of the Petitioner & Respondent in grand manner once again on 14/6/2020, at Julur village

before the elders and presented 7 tulas of gold ornaments and Rs.2,00,000/-cash, towards

dowry to the Petitioner, in addition to household articles. Thereafter, both the parties lived together, at Julur village and during such stay parents of the Petitioner used to abuse her in filthy language and harassed both physically and mentally, on petty matters. Further, the parents of the Petitioner demanded additional dowry stating that she brought less amount

Page 3 of 7 - H.M.O.P No .11 of 2024 at the time of her marriage. On 10/4/2021, Respondent gave birth to a male child. During her pregnancy, Petitioner and his family members did not take proper care of the

Respondent. All the hospital expenditure at the time of delivery were also borne by the

Respondent. On 21st day ceremony, Petitioner and his parents created galata in demand of additional dowry and abused her on the name of her caste. For the unbearable harassment Respondent was compelled to obtain loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from bank and gave the same to the Petitioner, to meet his demand of additional dowry. Even, after paying the additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-, the Petitioner and his parents did not change their attitude. Again, they started physically and psychologically harassing the Respondent stating that they will perform the second marriage of the Petitioner to get handsome dowry.

Being a dutiful Hindu lady, Respondent tolerated all the troubles with the hope that the

Petitioner may mend his attitude one or the other day. In helpless condition, Respondent lodged criminal case before PS Kukatpally on 15/11/2023, vide Cr.No.926 of 2023 for the offence u/S.498A of IPC. By suppressing all the above material facts with regard to demand of additional dowry as well as birth of the male child, Petitioner has filed the O.P for divorce deliberately mentioning the wrong date of abandonment of society of Petitioner by the Respondent. Hence, prayed the court to dismiss the petition.

6.As part of enquiry, Petitioner examined himself as PW1, whereas, the Respondent examined herself as RW1 on behalf of Petitioner. Ex.P1 wedding card was marked & no other documents were adduced on behalf of Respondent. Heard both the counsel for

Petitioner and Respondent.

7.Now, the points for consideration are:-

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for divorce on the ground of “Desertion” u/S.13(1) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, as prayed for”? If so, 2.To what relief?

Page 4 of 7 - H.M.O.P No .11 of 2024

8.POINT No.1:-

After going through the rival pleadings of both the parties, it is clear that the marriage of Petitioner & Respondent was performed on 17/5/2019, at Arya Samaj, Sultan

Bazar and thereafter with the consent of both the elders, at Julur village on 14/6/2020, in front of the elders and villagers of both sides. It is the specific contention of the

Petitioner/Husband that after marriage, they lived together, at Julur village and on 28/6/2020, without his knowledge and consent, Respondent left his conjugal society and never turned back. All the efforts of the Petitioner/Husband went in vain. Even, she failed to attend his cell phone calls, hence, he was forced to file the present O.P for divorce.

9.To substantiate his case, Petitioner examined himself as PW1. Surprisingly, during his cross-examination, PW1 categorically admitted that after marriage, Petitioner &

Respondent lived together, at Ramanthapur, Hyderabad, for a period of 1 year 3 months.

Thereafter, Respondent gave birth to one baby boy & 11th day ceremony of the baby boy was performed, at Julur village. If it is so, leaving of the conjugal society of Petitioner by the Respondent on 28/6/2020 and not turning back is practically inconceivable and forces this court to hold that the case of the PW1/Petitioner is untrue and the cause of action was definitely created for the purpose of this case.

10.Per contra, Respondent as RW1 filed her chief-examination-affidavit stating that when she was living along with the Petitioner, at Julur village, with her in-laws, they had psychologically and physically tortured her, for want of additional dowry. Even, in 21st day ceremony of the child also Petitioner & his parents created big galata. As such, by obtaining bank loan of Rs.5,00,000/-, she gave the said amount to the Petitioner, to meet his demand of additional dowry. Even, thereafter, neither he nor his parents satisfied with the same, but continued the harassment. Hence, in helpless condition on 15/11/2023 she

Page 5 of 7 - H.M.O.P No .11 of 2024 filed criminal case against the Petitioner & his family members vide Cr.No.936/2023 of PS

Kukatpally for the offence u/S.498A of IPC. Finally, Respondent prayed the court to dismiss the O.P for not showing the sufficient grounds for divorce as envisaged u/S.13(1) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act.

11.Under section 13(1) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, if one of the spouse deserted the other for a continuous period of not less than two years, immediately preceding the presentation of the petition, divorce may be granted.

12.The word “desertion” has been interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bipin

Chandra Vs Prabhavathi reported in 1957 AIR 176 which reads as follows :-

The court said that only physical act of leaving the home is not to be seen rather it has to be seen who intends to bring the cohabitation to an end and whose conduct in reality causes termination. If, a spouse abandons the other in a state of temporary passions, for example, anger or disgusted without intending permanent cease of cohabitation, it will not amount to desertion.

13.With the above observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that to establish "desertion," two essential conditions shall be satisfied, i.e., 1) factum of separation, 2) intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end (animus descedendi).

14.The burden of establishing "desertion" is on the petitioner. To discharge his burden, the petitioner is expected to prove the above two elements i.e., factum of separation and intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end.

15.In the case on hand, though, the Petitioner has contended that the

Respondent/Wife left his conjugal society on 28/6/2020, the same was proved as ‘untrue’ through the cross-examination of PW1/Petitioner. As already noted, during his cross- examination, Petitioner/PW1 categorically admitted continuous stay of Petitioner &

Page 6 of 7 - H.M.O.P No .11 of 2024

Respondent at Ramanthapur, Hyderabad for 1 year 3 months. Even, performance of 11th day ceremony of the baby child, at Julur village was also stated by the Petitioner.

16.Per contra, the Respondent by filing counter alleged physical and psychological harassment of her by the Petitioner at Julur village for want of additional dowry and abuse of the Respondent on the name of her caste. RW1/Respondent also filed criminal case against the Petitioner and his family members vide Cr.No.936/2023 for the offence u/S.498 (A) of IPC of PS Kukatpally.

17.In this regard, during cross-examination of RW1, it was categorically elicited that the said criminal case was filed in the year 2023, i.e., after one year of filing of the present

O.P. Hence, agreeing with the counsel for the Petitioner, mere filing of the said criminal case may not force this Court to weigh in favour of the Respondent.

18.At this juncture, counsel for the Respondent strenuously argued that for suppression of the material fact and for filing the O.P based on concocted and created cause of action, I.e., showing the date of ‘desertion’ as 28/6/2020, the present petition is liable for dismissal. Agreeing with the counsel for Respondent, the Petitioner shall strengthen his case by adducing reliable evidence, but cannot lay hands on the weakness of the case of the Respondent.

19.In instant case on hand, when Petitioner is claiming divorce on the ground of “desertion”, under section 13 (1) (ib) of HM Act, but to discharge his burden of proof, no reliable evidence has been filed. Instead through cross-examination of PW1, the date of desertion, i.e., 28/6/2020 was proved to be wrong. Specifically, though the Petitioner is alleging that he made all reasonable efforts to bring back the Respondent into his fold, he neither got issued any legal notice nor filed any O.P seeking restitution of conjugal rights,

before any court. The same was elicited from the cross-examination of PW1.

Page 7 of 7 - H.M.O.P No .11 of 2024

20.On the other hand, Respondent when alleging physical and psychological harassment of her in the hands of the Petitioner & his parents and preferred criminal case vide Cr.No.936/2023 for the offence u/S.498 (A) of IPC. Hence, this court comes to the conclusion that the Respondent is having justifiable grounds to stay separately from her

Husband/Petitioner. Desertion is not a single act and it is a continuous course of conduct that shall be determined by the facts & circumstance of each case. For proving the date of ‘desertion’ as shown by the Petitioner as totally wrong and created; and as the Petitioner approached this court by suppressing the material facts, i.e., birth of the child and performance of the 11th day ceremony in the house of the Petitioner, at Julur village, any amount of doubt can be thrown on the credibility of the Petitioner and his case. Hence, this court without any hesitation holds that the Petitioner neither established “factum of separation” nor “animus deserendi”, i.e., “intention of the Respondent to bring cohabitation permanently to an end”. Hence, this court weigh towards the Respondent & answering this point against the Petitioner.

21.POINT No.2:-

IN THE RESULT,this petition is dismissed with costs.

(Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27 th day of April, 2026).

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMANNAPET

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Petitioner:- For Respondent:-

P.W.1: A. Rajesh Kumar.R.W.1: K. Srilatha.

Documents marked

For Petitioner:-

Ex.P1 is the Wedding Card, dt.14-06-2020.

For Respondent:-

Nil.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMANNAPET

Page 1 of 6 - Sessions Case No.11 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

AT RAMANNAPET

(DATED, THIS THE 01st DAY OF M AY , 2026 ) PRESENT: SMT. G. SABITHA,

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

RAMANNAPET

SESSIONS CASE NO.11 OF 2025

Name of the ComplainantTheStateofTelangana,throughthe Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Pochampally. Sole Accused: Kasula Mallesh, S/o.Yadaiah, Age: 45 Name of the Accused years, Occ: Painting Work, R/o.Ghousekonda (V), Pochampally (M).

u/S.326 (B) of IPC. Offences complied of Crime No. & P.S94 of 2020 of PS Pochampally. Plea of the AccusedNot guilty.

Finding of the CourtFound not guilty. IN THE RESULT, Sole Accused is found not guilty for the Sentence or Order offences punishable u/S.326 (B) of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted u/S.235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Sole Accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. MO1: Steel box/Tiffin box. Prosecution conducted byLr.Addl.Public Prosecutor.

Defence conducted bySri E. Nagaraju, Counsel for Accused.

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Lr. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri E. Nagaraju, counsel for the Accused; upon hearing arguments of both sides and on perusal of the material papers 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. The SI of Police, Pochampally filed charge sheet against Sole Accused in the

Court of Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Choutuppal for the offence punishable u/S.326 (B) of IPC.

Page 2 of 6 - Sessions Case No.11 of 2025

2.Story of prosecution as culled out from the charge sheet as follows:-

On 25-04-2020, at about 13:00 hours, PW1 lodged the report before PS

Pochampally alleging that the sons of his younger paternal uncle, by name Kasula

Mallesh/Accused and Kasula Sridhar/PW4 are having land disputes. On 25-04-2020 during morning hours, the accused and PW4 discussed about the land issues, in the village, but the issue was not resolved. Thereafter, they disbursed from there. On the same day, at about 8:00 hours, PW3/Kasula Dhananjaya and PW4/Injured Sridhar went to the house of the accused. By seeing them, the accused sprinkled acid available at his house for the purpose of painting. In result, PW3 received injuries on his face and left shoulder, whereas PW4 sustained injuries on his left eye and left side of the neck.

3.Basing on the above report of PW1, a case vide Cr.No.92/2020 for the offence u/S.326 (B) of IPC was registered. During investigation, PW5/investigating officer examined and recorded the statement of PW1/defacto complainant, at the police station and thereafter visited the scene of offence, situated at Gousukonda village and recorded the statement of PW2/mother of the injured and the accused. PW5 also conducted scene of offence panchnama, after securing the presence of LW5/M. Madhusudhan Reddy &

LW6/P. Mallesh, by drawing rough sketch of the scene and by seizing one empty steel box/tiffin box, used by the accused in the commission of offence, under cover of panchnama.

4.Subsequently, PW5/investigating officer visited Raksha Hospital, Chintalkunta,

Hyderabad and recorded the statements of both the injured, i.e., PW3 and PW4 u/S.161

CrPC. On 03-05-2020, PW5 issued Sec.41A CrPC notices to the accused and in compliance, he appeared before PW5 on 06-05-2020. On interrogation, the accused voluntarily admitted his guilt. LW7/Dr. Anupraman, Medical Officer, Raksha Hospital,

Page 3 of 6 - Sessions Case No.11 of 2025

Chintalkunta, treated both the injured persons, i.e., PW3 & PW4 and issued medical certificates opining that the injuries sustained by PW3 are grievous in nature, whereas the injuries of PW4 are simple. On completion of investigation, PW5 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/S.326 (B) of IPC.

5.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Choutuppal has taken cognizance of the offence punishable u/S.326 (B) of IPC against Accused. Thereafter, following the committal procedure, committed the case file against Accused to the Court of Sessions,

Nalgonda along with case records, vide PRC.No.13 of 2024. The Hon'ble Court of

Sessions, Yadadri Bhongir took cognizance of the offences against the Accused; and

made over the case file to this Court for trial & disposal, according to law.

6.After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/S.313

Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating evidence available against him on record, in his vernacular language, for which, he pleaded all such evidence as false and reported no defence.

7. In order to establish the case, prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.5 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-10 & MO1.

8.Heard both sides & perused the record.

9.Now, the point for determination is:- “Whether prosecution has successfully established the guilt of Sole Accused for the offence punishable u/S.326 (B) of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt”?

10.P O I N T:-

In order to establish the case, prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-5 and got marked Ex.P-1 to P-10 and MO1.

Page 4 of 6 - Sessions Case No.11 of 2025

11.PW1 is defacto complainant and cousin brother of “the accused & injured”. PW2 is mother of “accused, both the injured & eyewitness to the alleged offence”. PW3 & PW4 are the injured persons. PW5 is the investigating officer.

12.Coming to the documentary evidence, Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 on Ex.P2 report. Exs.P3 to P6 are Sec.161 CrPC statements of PW1 to 4. Ex.P7 is FIR. Ex.P8 is crime detail form. Ex.P9 is Medico-legal record of PW3. Ex.P10 is Medico-legal record of

PW4. MO1 is the steel box/tiffin box.

13.The gist of prosecution case is that on 03-05-2020, during morning hours, a discussion in between PW4 and accused with regard to the land disputes had taken place in the village. Thereafter, at about 8:00 AM, when PW3 and PW4 went to the house of accused, he sprinkled acid on both of them (which was kept in his house for the purpose of painting). In result, PW3 sustained grievous injuries on his face and left shoulder, whereas PW4 sustained injuries on his left eye and left side of the neck.

14.On mere perusal of the prosecution evidence, it is glaring on record that neither the defacto complainant/PW1 nor the injured persons/PW3 and PW4 supported the case of prosecution and they turned hostile pleading ignorance as to Exs.P3, P5 & P6 (Sec.161 CrPC statements). Though, PW2/mother of the injured persons was cited as an eyewitness, she totally pleaded ignorance as to the facts of the case.

15.Even, after cross-examination by the Lr. Addl.P.P, PW1 denied to have filed report

before police as in Ex.P2. Sec.161 CrPC statements of PW1 to PW4 were marked as

Exs.P3 to P6 to prove their contradicting statements. It is a trite principle of law that

Sec.161 CrPC statements cannot be utilized except to prove the contradictions, hence, this court comes to the conclusion that no evidence is available on record except the testimony of PW5/investigating officer, to prove the prosecution case.

Page 5 of 6 - Sessions Case No.11 of 2025

16.No doubt, the deposition of PW5/Investigating officer is a replica of contents of the charge sheet, but for turning hostile of the crucial witnesses, i.e., the defacto complainant, two injured persons and eyewitness on record, who are none other than the brothers and mother of the accused, this court holds that it is not a fit case to connect the accused with the alleged offence. For not establishing connectivity in between the accused and the injuries shown in Exs.P9 and P10 medical certificates and MO1 steel box, this court is of the view that it is a fit case to grant benefit of doubt to the accused.

17.IN THE RESULT, Sole Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable u/S.326 (B) of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted u/S.235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of

Sole Accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. MO1: Steel box/Tiffin box.

(Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 01 st day of May, 2026).

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

RAMANNAPET

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prosecution Name of Witness Description

Witness No. LW1/PW1Kasula ShivashankarComplainant LW2/PW2Kasula JayammaMother of LW3, LW4, Accused & Eye witness LW3/PW3Kasula DhanunjayaInjured LW4/PW4Kasula SridharInjured LW8/PW5K. RajuInvestigating Officer FOR DEFENCE:- Nil.

EXHIBITED DOCUMENTS

Exhibit Description of the Exhibit Proved by /

No. Attested by

Ex.P1Signature of PW1 on report, dt.25-04-2020PW1 Ex.P2ReportPW1 Ex.P3Sec.161 CrPC statements of PW1PW1

Page 6 of 6 - Sessions Case No.11 of 2025

Ex.P4Sec.161 CrPC statements of PW2PW2 Ex.P5Sec.161 CrPC statements of PW3PW3 Ex.P6Sec.161 CrPC statements of PW4PW4 Ex.P7FIRPW5 Ex.P8Crime Detail FormPW5 Ex.P9Medico-legal record of PW3PW5 Ex.P10Medico-legal record of PW4PW5

MATERIAL OBJECTS/MUDDAMALS

Material Description of the Exhibit Proved by /

Object No. Attested by

MO1Steel box/Tiffin boxPW5 FOR DEFENCE:- Nil.

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

RAMANNAPET

Page 1 of 4 - H.M.O.P No .72 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT :: RAMANNAPET

TUESDAY, THIS THE 05th DAY OF MAY , 2026

PRESENT: SMT. G. SABITHA,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMANNAPET

H.M.O.P No.72 of 2024

Between :- Devasari Ramulu, S/o.Muthaiah, Aged about 34 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Dathappagudem Village, Mothkur Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District.

...Petitioner

AND

Devasari Aruna, W/o.Ramulu, Aged about 29 years, Occ: Homemaker, R/o.Anajipur Village, Bhongir Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District.

...Respondent

This petition has come-up before me for hearing on dt.28.4.2026 for disposal in the presence of Sri J. Prabhakar, Advocate for the Petitioner and Respondent having been set exparte; the matter having stood for consideration till this day, Court made the following:-

O R D E R

1.Originally this petition is filed by the Petitioner/Husband u/Sec.13 (1) (ia) (ib) of

Hindu Marriage Act before the Hon’ble Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Yadadri Bhongir, vide

HMOP.No.37 OF 2024. At the stage of “Process”, as per the orders of Hon’ble Principal

District Judge, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri vide Procs.Dis.No.1795/2024/A1, dt.17-10-2024, this

case file was transferred to this Court and re-registered as HMOP.No.72 OF 2024.

2.Brief averments of the petition filed by the Petitioner/Husband are as follows:-

The marriage of the Petitioner and Respondent was performed on 17-06-2010, at the house of the parents of the Respondent/Wife at Anajpur village, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri

District, as per Hindu rites and customs prevailing in their community. After marriage,

Respondent joined the conjugal society of the Petitioner. Out of their wedlock, the

Petitioner and Respondent were blessed with one son/Mukesh, who is 10 years old as on the date of filing of the O.P. Gradually, the Respondent started harassing the Petitioner

Page 2 of 4 - H.M.O.P No .72 of 2024 physically and mentally without any reason expressing her dislike towards him. The

Respondent/Wife used to leave the matrimonial home frequently without the consent of the

Petitioner and was staying with her parents for months together. After the birth of the baby boy, the behaviour of the Respondent towards the Petitioner changed. On the instigation of her parents, the Respondent started creating hurdles for the Petitioner. When the

Petitioner requested her not to create nuisance, she gave him a deaf ear and administered a warning to the Petitioner to maintain distance from her. The Respondent was using the most filthy language and was abusing the Petitioner making false and baseless allegations against him. The Petitioner informed the same to the parents of the Respondent, but they never tried to pacify the matter. The Petitioner was providing all the necessities of life to the Respondent according to his means and status. The Respondent was not having respect towards the family life and was not believing the Petitioner. On the instigation of her parents, the Respondent left the matrimonial house and filed a criminal case u/S.498-A of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act vide Cr.No.104 of 2015 and the same is pending vide

C.C.No. 552 of 2015 on the file of Hon’ble Court. During the pendency of said case, the

Respondent also filed M.C.No.6 of 2020 on the file of Prl. JMFC, Bhongir. Later, the

Petitioner approached the Respondent through his counsel, Sri. G. Srinivas Reddy,

Advocate and the matter was referred to elders of both sides, at where, the Petitioner agreed to maintain the Respondent and the child by providing minimum maintenance. But the counsel did not intimate the same before the court. As such, on 04-11-2022, Hon’ble

Prl.JMFC, Bhongir was pleased to direct the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to the Respondent and the child towards their interim maintenance. As the

Respondent deserted the Petitioner without his consent and not even showing interest in marital life with him from 2019 to till date; and all the efforts of the Petitioner to bring back

Page 3 of 4 - H.M.O.P No .72 of 2024 the Respondent into his conjugal society went in vain, the Respondent lost hope & filed the present O.P. seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

3.Notices were served on the Respondent and she failed to appear before the court and remained exparte.

4.As part of the inquiry, the Petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked

Ex.P1.

5.Heard the counsel for Petitioner. Perused record.

6.Now, the points for consideration are:- 1.Whether the present petition may be allowed by granting a decree of divorce on the grounds of “Cruelty” & “Desertion” as prayed for? If so, 2.To what relief?

7.Point No.1:-

The very case of the Petitioner/Husband is that the Respondent after giving birth to a male child started leaving the matrimonial house without his consent & knowledge and was staying at her parents house for months together. She was insulting him by abusing in the most filthy language by leveling false and baseless allegations against him without any fault on his behalf. She was creating nuisance at the instigation and instance of her parents without any cause and warned the Petitioner to maintain distance from her from 08-01-2019. The Respondent/Wife never joined the conjugal society of the Petitioner back.

Panchayat was held in the presence of the elders and the counsel for the Petitioner, Sri G.

Srinivas Reddy, Advocate, at where, the Petitioner agreed to pay maintenance, by conceding the said matter, Respondent obtained interim orders in M.C.No.6 of 2020 on the file of Prl.JMFC, Bhongir. She also filed a criminal case vide CC.No.552 of 2015, at

Bhongir. All the efforts of the Petitioner/Husband to get back the Respondent/Wife back into his conjugal society went in vain.

Page 4 of 4 - H.M.O.P No .72 of 2024

9.To establish the marriage of the Petitioner and Respondent, Ex.P1 wedding card was marked through P.W.1. As already noted, the Respondent remained exparte and could not challenge the oral and documentary evidence of the Petitioner. The oral evidence of P.W.1 manifest desertion of the Petitioner by the Respondent without any sufficient cause. Further, through the unchallenged and unrebutted oral evidence of P.W.1, insulting of the Petitioner by the Respondent with the usage of most abusive language by leveling of false allegations is apparent. She was staying away from the Petitioner for months together and was not responding to the request of the Petitioner, which will definitely amount to ‘cruelty’ as envisaged under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage

Act. Hence, this court weight towards the Petitioner.

10.Point No.2:-

IN THE RESULT,this petition is allowed by granting decree of divorce, dissolving the marriage in between Petitioner and Respondent that was solemnized on 17.6.2010.

There shall be no order as to costs.

(Dictated to Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 05 th day of May, 2026).

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMANNAPET

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Petitioner:- For Respondent:-

P.W.1: D. Ramulu. Remained Exparte.

Documents marked

For Petitioner:-

Ex.P1: Wedding Card, dt.17.6.2010.

For Respondent:-

Remained Exparte.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMANNAPET

Page 1 of 3 - HMOP. No .69 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT :: RAMANNAPET

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 06th DAY OF MAY , 2026

PRESENT: SMT. G. SABITHA,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMANNAPET

HMOP. No.69 of 2025

Between :- Ambala Varsha @ Kappala Varshitha, W/o.Ambala Upendar, D/o.Late Kappala Ilaiah, Age: 25 years, Occ: Homemaker, R/o.Mothkur Town & Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District. Presently residing at H.No.1-82/14/1, Bayyanna Nagar, Near New Town Grammar School, Boduppal, Medipally Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

...Petitioner No.1

AND

Ambala Upendar, S/o.Ambala Venkataiah, Age: 29 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o.H.No.3-68, Near Hanuman Temple, Ambala Village, Gundala Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District.

...Petitioner No.2

This petition has come-up before me for hearing on dt.27.04.2026 for disposal in the presence of Sri Vallamdasu Venkataiah, Advocate for the Petitioners; the matter having stood for consideration till this day, Court made the following:-

O R D E R

1.This petition is moved by both the Petitioners u/S.13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, praying the Court to grant decree of divorce on mutual consent.

2.Brief averments of the petition filed by the Petitioners are as follows:-

On 30-03-2024, marriage of Petitioners No.1 & 2 was performed, at SM Function

Hall, Bhongir Road, Mothkur Town & Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District, as per Hindu rites & customs prevailing in ‘Goud’ community. After marriage, Petitioner No.1 joined Petitioner

No.2 at his house, Ambala Village, Gundala Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District and lead marital life for a period of 45 days. Out of their wedlock, no children were blessed to the couple. Later, disputes and misunderstandings arose in between the Petitioners. Elders of both the sides tried to convince the Petitioners to continue their marital life, but could

Page 2 of 3 - HMOP. No .69 of 2025 not be materialized. On 28-05-2024, Petitioner No.1 left the conjugal society of Petitioner

No.2 and started living at Boduppal, Medchal Malkajgiri District. Matter was confronted

before elders of both the sides on every occasion and the elders tried to reconcile both the

couple. At last, on 22-11-2025, the elders of Bhongir Town conducted a panchayat, but their attempt to reunite the couple was went futile. Instead of hearing of advise of elders, both the Petitioners expressed their intention to obtain decree of divorce by way of mutual consent. From 28-05-2024, both the Petitioners leading separate life away from each other. After panchayath, both the Petitioners exchanged their belongings and presentations presented at the time of marriage. Petitioner No.2 agreed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- to Petitioner No.1 towards permanent alimony. Hence, the present O.P u/S.13 (B) of Hindu Marriage Act praying the Court to grant decree of divorce by way of mutual consent.

3.After registering the HMOP, this Court adjourned the matter for (6) months in observation of cooling period. Even thereafter, both the Petitioners appeared before the court and submitted that they would like to stick to their earlier decision of obtaining divorce on mutual consent. Hence, reconciliation was treated as failed.

4. As part of enquiry, the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 examined themselves as PW1 &

PW2, respectively and Ex.P1 was marked.

5.Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners. Perused the record.

6.Now, the point for consideration is:- “Whether the marriage in between the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 may be dissolved on the premise of their mutual consent”?

7.P O I N T:-

It is clear from oral testimonies of PW1, PW2 and documentary proof/Ex.P1 that the marriage of both the Petitioners was performed legally.

Page 3 of 3 - HMOP. No .69 of 2025

8.Both the Petitioners as PW1 & PW2 affirmed on oath & submitted their affidavits stating that due to difference of opinion and misunderstandings they started living separately from 28-05-2024.

9.Having regard to the facts and circumstances as deposed by PW1 & PW2 for their separation and their decision to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent, this Court is of considered view that there is no possibility of reunion or compatibility between both the spouses. Therefore, it is inevitable to dissolve the marriage between both the Petitioners with their mutual consent.

10.IN THE RESULT, this petition is allowed. The marriage in between Petitioner

Nos.1 & 2, dt.30-03-2024 is dissolved by passing a decree of divorce by mutual consent.

In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to payment of costs.

(Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 06 th day of May, 2026).

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMANNAPET

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Petitioners:-

P.W.1: A. Varsha @ Kappala Varshitha. P.W.2: A. Upender.

Documents marked

For Petitioners:-

Ex.P1: Wedding Card dt.30-03-2024.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMANNAPET

Page 1 of 3 - HMOP. No .78 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT :: RAMANNAPET

MONDAY, THIS THE 04th DAY OF MAY , 2026

PRESENT: SMT. G. SABITHA,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMANNAPET

HMOP. No.78 of 2024

Between :- Bandi Pavan Kumar, S/o.Bandi Bixam, Aged about 37 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o.H.No.1-111/a, Laxmidevikalva Village, Addagudur Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District.

...Petitioner No.1

AND

Bandi Padma, D/o.Vemula Ramulu, W/o.Bandi Pavan Kumar, Aged about 32 years, Occ: Homemaker, R/o.1-191, Gattusingaram Village, Mothkur Mandal, Singaram (P), Yadadri Bhongir District.

...Petitioner No.2

This petition has come-up before me for hearing on dt.27.04.2026 for disposal in the presence of M/s. Ravi Kumar Neelam, Advocate for the Petitioners; the matter having stood for consideration till this day, Court made the following:-

O R D E R

1.Originally this petition is filed by the Petitioner/husband u/Sec.13 (1) (ia) of Hindu

Marriage Act, seeking decree of divorce on the ground of "Cruelty". Thereafter, at the stage of enquiry, the nature of O.P was converted into Sec.13 (B) of the Hindu Marriage

Act as per orders of this Court in IA.No.236/2026, dt.27-04-2026.

2.Brief averments of the amended neat copy of the O.P filed by both the Petitioners are as follows:-

On 04-05-2014, marriage of both the Petitioners was performed, at Laxmidevikalva

Village, Addagudur Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District, as per Hindu rites & customs in the presence of elders. After marriage, Petitioners lived together happily for a period of 5 years, but were not blessed with any children. Thereafter, disputes arose in between the

Petitioners, due to differences in temperament, misunderstandings & incompatibility in between the couple. On 22-04-2019, Petitioner No.2 left the matrimonial home and joined

Page 2 of 3 - HMOP. No .78 of 2024 her parents house without any intimation to Petitioner No.1. Thereafter, both the

Petitioners started living separate life away from each other & their marriage was broken down irretrievably. All the efforts of elders & well-wishers for reconciliation were failed.

Both the Petitioners mutually agreed and came to the conclusion that there is no possibility to continue the marital relationship in between them. Hence, the present O.P u/S.13 (B) of

Hindu Marriage Act praying the Court to grant decree of divorce by way of mutual consent.

3.Originally, the O.P was filed u/S.13 (i) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act & registered as

HMOP. No.78/2024 on 13-11-2024. Whereas, IA.No.236/2026 under Order 6 Rule 17 of

CPC was allowed on 27-04-2026. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the mandatory period of (6) months as envisaged u/S.13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, was waived off, treating the reconciliation as ‘Nil’.

4. As part of enquiry, the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 examined themselves as PW1 &

PW2, respectively and Ex.P1 was marked.

5.Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners.

6.Now, the point for consideration is:- “Whether the marriage in between the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 may be dissolved on the premise of their mutual consent”?

7.P O I N T:-

It is clear from oral testimonies of PW1, PW2 and documentary proof/Ex.P1 that the marriage of both the Petitioners was performed legally.

8.Both the Petitioners as PW1 & PW2 affirmed on oath & submitted their affidavits stating that due to difference of opinion and misunderstandings they started living separately from 22-04-2019.

9.Having regard to the facts and circumstances as deposed by PW1 & PW2 for their separation and their decision to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent, this Court is of

Page 3 of 3 - HMOP. No .78 of 2024 considered view that there is no possibility of reunion or compatibility between both the spouses. Therefore, it is inevitable to dissolve the marriage between both the Petitioners with their mutual consent.

10.IN THE RESULT, this petition is allowed. The marriage in between Petitioner

Nos.1 & 2, dt.04-05-2014 is dissolved by passing a decree of divorce by mutual consent.

In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to payment of costs.

(Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 04 th day of May, 2026).

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMANNAPET

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Petitioners:-

P.W.1: B. Pavan Kumar. P.W.2: B. Padma.

Documents marked

For Petitioners:-

Ex.P1: Wedding Card dt.04-05-2014.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMANNAPET