Sri. G. Shiva Prasad Yadav

E.P.No.51 of 2022 1 S.C.J.Court, Proddatur

in OS No.293/2018 dt:04.4.2024

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PRODDATUR

Present:- Sri G.Shiva Prasad Yadav,

Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur.

Thursday, this the 4th day of April, 2024

EP No.51/2022

in

OS No.293/2018

Bodela Siva Sankar Reddy … Petitioner/D.Hr

Vs.

Vennapusa Chakrapani Reddy… Respondent/J.Dr.

This Execution petition came up on 26.3.2024 for final hearing

before me in the presence of Sri A.S. Venkata Rathnam, Advocate for

the petitioner/D.Hr. and of Sri C. Sudarsana Reddy, Advocate for the respondent/J.Dr. having stood over for consideration and after perusing the material on record, this Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

This is the Execution petition filed by D.Hr. against J.Dr. under

Order XXI Rule 37 and 38 of C.P.C praying to order for arrest of the

J.Dr. after issuing notice under Rule 37 and after due enquiry and send him to civil prison to realize the decree amount.

2. The averments of the Execution petition that, the D.Hr.

obtained decree against the J.Dr. on 18.10.2022, after passing the decree, the D.Hr. demanded the J.Dr. several times for payment of the decretal amount, but the J.Dr. postponed the payment. J.Dr. is having house, doing business and also having cash of Rs.30 lakhs on hand and J.Dr. also doing finance business and getting Rs.30,000/- per month. Even though the J.Dr. has sufficient means, he failed to pay the decretal amount. Hence, D.Hr. filed this Execution Petition.

E.P.No.51 of 2022 2 S.C.J.Court, Proddatur

in OS No.293/2018 dt:04.4.2024

3. J.Dr. engaged counsel and filed his counter denying the averments of material particulars of the Execution Petition and he took stand that, the D.Hr. took contradictory views with regard to source of income of the J.Dr. In the petition at column No.2 the occupation of the J.Dr. is shown as business. But in the affidavit of chief examination shown as Correspondent of Ushodaya School.

The D.Hr. and other person by name Lava Kumar filed creditor

I.P. and in that petition it was clearly mentioned “that the

respondent had no property except that petition schedule

property and his debts exceeds than the assets”. So this

proposition of averment in IP No.69/2017 clearly established

that this respondent has no source of income. Further it is alleged that, the alleged Correspondent post is Honourising post and may not generate any income and so even assuming that the J.Dr. is acting as Correspondent, no evidence is placed to show that the J.Dr.

is getting income. Hence prayed to dismiss the Execution Petition with costs.

4. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the record.

5. Now the point for consideration is :-

Whether the J.Dr. has means to pay E.P. amount and whether the J.Dr. has neglected or refused to discharge the same ?

6. In order to prove the means of J.Dr, the D.Hr. himself was examined as PW.1. Exs.P.1 to P.3 were marked. Ex.P.2 was marked in the evidence in cross examination of RW.1, Ex.P.3 was marked in the

E.P.No.51 of 2022 3 S.C.J.Court, Proddatur

in OS No.293/2018 dt:04.4.2024 evidence in cross examination of RW.2. One witness namely Bodela

Rama Krishna Reddy was examined as PW.2.

On the other hand, J.Dr. was examined as RW.1. One witness namely Meda Chandra Sekhar was examined as RW.2.

7. POINT:-

The contention of the D.Hr. is that, he obtained decree against

J.Dr. on 18.10.2022. J.Dr. has means, source of income as J.Dr. has house, having cash of Rs.30 lakhs on hand and also doing finance business and getting Rs.30,000/- per month.

The contention of the J.Dr. through his counter that, the D.Hr.

and other person by name Lava Kumar filed creditor IP No.59/2017 wherein the D.Hr. has categorically mentioned that, J.Dr. had no property except I.P. schedule property and his debts exceeds than the assets. So it clearly establishes that J.Dr. has no source of income and further his another contention raised in para No.5 of the counter that the Correspondent post is Honourising post and may not generate any income.

8.In this nature of Execution petition, the D.Hr. has to prove that the J.Dr. has means to pay the decree amount and neglected to pay the same even after demands. Since the J.Dr. has taken plea of no means, the initial burden lies upon the D.Hr. to prove that J.Dr. has sufficient means to pay the E.P. amount, for which the D.Hr. was examined as PW.1, who stated in his chief evidence reiterating contents raised in his affidavit filed along with the E.P. and he was cross examined wherein he stated admitting that,

E.P.No.51 of 2022 4 S.C.J.Court, Proddatur

in OS No.293/2018 dt:04.4.2024

“It is true myself and one Lava Kumar filed I.P. against

J.Dr. vide IP No.59/2017 on the file of this Court”

“It is true I mentioned in IP No.59/2017 that J.Dr. has no

means except schedule property in I.P.”

“I have not filed any documentary proof in Court to show

the occupation of J.Dr. and that no documents were filed by me

to show that J.Dr. has Rs.30 lakhs on in hand and his finance

business”.

D.Hr./PW.1 denied that, J.Dr. has no means to discharge E.P.

amount and that he is not correspondent and that this E.P. is not maintainable.

9.So PW.1 has categorically stated in his cross examination admitting that, he along with one Lava Kumar filed IP No.59/2017 against J.Dr. wherein it was mentioned that, J.Dr. has no means except schedule property in I.P.No.59/2017 and he had not filed any documentary proof to show the occupation of the J.Dr. and also J.Dr.

has Rs.30 lakhs on his hand and also doing finance business.

10.PW.2 who stated in his evidence in chief examination that,

J.Dr. is Correspondent to Ushodaya school of Proddatur town, having own house, doing business, J.Dr. is also having Rs.30 lakhs on hand and J.Dr. is doing finance business, getting Rs.30,000/- per month.

11.At this juncture, the counsel for the J.Dr. argued that, D.Hr.

himself admitted in his cross examination about filing of the

I.P.No.59/2017 wherein it was mentioned that J.Dr. has no source of income except I.P. schedule property. As it is already mentioned

E.P.No.51 of 2022 5 S.C.J.Court, Proddatur

in OS No.293/2018 dt:04.4.2024 above, the evidence in cross examination of PW.1 appears, the

D.Hr./PW.1 admitted that, himself and one Lava Kumar filed I.P.

against J.Dr. vide IP No.59/2017 and they mentioned in the I.P. that,

J.Dr. has no means except schedule property in the I.P.

12.Ex.P.1 is also marked in chief examination of PW.1 and it is a certified copy of sale deed dt.13.7.2017 vide document

No.3627/2017. Exs.P.2 and P.3 were marked in the evidence of Rws.1 and 2 in the cross examination. The recitals of Ex.P.1 shows, the

J.Dr./Vennapusa Chakrapani Reddy sold the schedule property covered under Ex.P.1 in favour of one Meda Sreevani. The another sale deed under Ex.P.3 shows, the J.Dr./Vennapusa Chakrapani Reddy sold the schedule property covered under Ex.P.3 in favour of same vendor by name Meda Sreevani. The above sale deeds under Exs.P.1 and P.3 appears the property covered by Exs.P.1 and P.3 were sold by J.Dr. in favour of one Meda Sreevani. The alleged sale deeds have been taken place in the year 2017 i.e., before filing the suit which filed in the year 2018 and the D.Hr./PW.1 also admitted in his cross examination that, he filed creditor I.P.No.59/2017 against J.Dr. on the file of this Court and further he admitted that J.Dr. has no means except the I.P.

schedule property.

13.So the property which marked under Exs.P.1 and P.3 were already sold by the J.Dr. in favour of one Meda Sreevani in the year 2017 itself. Now the D.Hr. has to prove the means of J.Dr. after the date of decree that the J.Dr. has means and neglected to pay it when he demands after date of the decree. Further the D.Hr. has contended

E.P.No.51 of 2022 6 S.C.J.Court, Proddatur

in OS No.293/2018 dt:04.4.2024 in his affidavit that, J.Dr. was doing finance business and getting

Rs.30,000/- per month and having house, doing business and having means, for which also PW.1 has admitted in his cross examination that he had not filed any documentary proof in Court to show the occupation of the J.Dr. and also J.Dr. has Rs.30 lakhs on his hand and also doing finance business. It appears D.Hr. has not filed any documentary proof to support the avements made in the affidavit that, J.Dr. was doing finance business and also having house. Even

D.Hr. has not furnished the house number, its worth and no documentary proof to that effect and also there is no averment that how much amount J.Dr. is getting out of his alleged properties.

14.PW.2 has stated in his evidence in chief examination that,

J.Dr. is Correspondent of Ushodaya School in Proddatur town. For which J.Dr. has contended in his counter allegations that, the alleged

Correspondent post is Honourising post and may not generate any income.

15. The J.Dr. also adduced evidence by examining the J.Dr. as

RW.1 who stated in his chief evidence reiterating the contents raised in the counter allegations and he was cross examined wherein he stated admitting that, the photo shown to him on the pamphlet belongs to him and he was not Chairman of Ushodaya Vidya Samstha and the said pamphlet contains his cell phone number. He denied suggestion put to him that, he is running Ushodaya Vidya Samstha since 30 years and that he had crores of rupees and to evade E.P.

amount he is deposing false evidence.

E.P.No.51 of 2022 7 S.C.J.Court, Proddatur

in OS No.293/2018 dt:04.4.2024

16.RW.2 was examined to support the case of the RW.1. RW.2 stated in his chief examination that, J.Dr. indebted heavily to the financial institutions and also to the individuals and sold his property in survey Nos.288 and 299. He was cross examined wherein he stated, he had no personal knowledge with regards to the debts of the

J.Dr. Ex.P.3 was marked in his evidence under it, his wife purchased the schedule property covered by Ex.P.3 and he denied that, the possession of the property covered by Ex.P.1 and P.3 by J.Dr. only.

Further he stated J.Dr. was Correspondent to Ushodaya school till 2017-2018 and he denied suggestion put to him that, still J.Dr. is running the said Ushodaya school and having means to pay the E.P.

amount.

17.So his evidence appears J.Dr. was Correspondent to

Ushodaya School till 2017-2018. But the contention of the D.Hr. is that, still the J.Dr. is Chairman to Ushodaya Vidya Samstha and he got marked Ex.P.2 which is photo and cell phone number of the J.Dr.

contains by pamphlet. Ex.P.2 appears it is a pamphlet having students photos and having photo of J.Dr. and his cell phone number that he is

Chairman to the said school. Mere the pamphlet containing the photo of J.Dr. and his cell phone number indicating, he is Chairman to the

Ushodaya School does not perse to say that, J.Dr., is Chairman to the said school and has means to pay the E.P. amount. The D.Hr. himself contended that, J.Dr. is Correspondent to Ushodaya School. So once he has contended that, J.Dr. is Chairman to the said school, he ought to file some documentary proofs that J.Dr. is only Chairman to the

E.P.No.51 of 2022 8 S.C.J.Court, Proddatur

in OS No.293/2018 dt:04.4.2024 said school, except getting marking of photo and his cell phone number on the pamphlet does not become proof that J.Dr. is Chairman of the said school. Even D.Hr. has not assigned any reasons why he has not placed any record of Ushodaya School showing J.Dr. is only

Correspondent/Chairman to the said school. Even according to the evidence of RW.2, J.Dr. is Correspondent to the Ushodaya School till 2017-2018 and he denied that, still J.Dr. is running said school. D.Hr.

has not filed any proof that, still the J.Dr. is running said school and getting income and having means.

18. As it is already stated above, though PW.1/D.Hr. Stated in the affidavit filed along with E.P. that, J.Dr. is doing finance business and getting Rs.30,000/- per month, having house and doing business, he himself admitted in his cross examination that, no documents have been filed to prove the same and he himself admitted filing of the creditor I.P. wherein he himself admitted in his cross examination that, J.Dr. has no means except schedule property in I.P. and as per his evidence and evidence of RW.1, apart from Exs.P.1 and P.3, already the alleged property was sold to the wife of RW.2 in the year 2017 itself.

In the above reasons, D.Hr. failed to place any material evidence to show that, J.Dr. has means to pay E.P. amount and he neglected to pay it. In the light of the above discussion, D.Hr. failed to prove the means of J.Dr, and this E.P. is liable for dismissal. Accordingly, this point is answered.

E.P.No.51 of 2022 9 S.C.J.Court, Proddatur

in OS No.293/2018 dt:04.4.2024

19.In the result, this Execution petition is dismissed.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade II, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 4th day of April, 2024.

Sd/- G. Shiva Prasad Yadav,

Senior Civil Judge,

Proddatur.

Appendix of evidence Witness examined for

Petitioner/D.Hr. PW.1: B. Siva Sankar Reddy PW.2: B. Rama Krishna Reddy

Respondent/J.Dr. RW.1: V. Chakrapani Reddy RW.2: M. Chandra Sekhar

Exhibits marked for

Petitioner/D.Hr :-

Ex.P.1: Certified copy of sale deed dt.13.7.2017 vide document No.3627/2017

Ex.P.2: Photo and cell phone number of J.Dr. contains by pamphlet

Ex.P.3: Copy of sale deed dt.06.7.2017 vide document No.3964/2017 issued by Sachivalayam

Respondent/J.Dr :- Nil

Id/- G.S.P.Y.

SCJ, PDTR.

HMOP No.18 of 2024 1 S.C.J Court, PDTR dt.04.4.2024

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PRODDATUR

Present:- Sri G.Shiva Prasad Yadav,

Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur.

Thursday, this the 4th day of April, 2024

HMOP No.18/2024

Sake Swathi @ Lakshmi Swathi ….Petitioner

Vs.

Boggula Ramanjaneyulu ... Respondent

This petition came up on 01.4.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Kum. P. Eswaramma, Advocate for the petitioner and the respondent remained exparte, having heard and upon perusing the material on record, this Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

This is a petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent under Sec.13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with prayer to dissolve the marriage between the petitioner and respondent dated 22.12.2021.

2. The averments of the petition filed by the petitioner Sake

Swathi @ Lakshmi Swathi are as follows:-

The petitioner is legally wedded wife of the respondent, their marriage took place on 22.12.2021 at Sree Kona Malleswara Swami temple, Parnapalli, Lingala Mandal according to Hindu rites and customs.

It is an arranged marriage. Soon after the marriage, the petitioner joined with the respondent in matrimonial home and their marriage was consummated. Due to employment of the petitioner, she used to go to

Animela village every day. Subsequently disputes arose between them due to adamant behaviour of the respondent towards petitioner. The

HMOP No.18 of 2024 2 S.C.J Court, PDTR dt.04.4.2024

respondent deceived the petitioner and her parents by saying that he was doing private job. The respondent addicted to bad habits and used to quarrel and beat the petitioner demanding additional dowry. The petitioner has tolerated all the cruelties perpetrated by the respondent against the petitioner. In the month of May, 2022, the petitioner was necked out by the respondent from matrimonial home and she came to

Proddatur to her parents house, since then she has been residing in her parents house at Proddatur and finally, she decided to get her marriage dissolved by obtaining decree of divorce and filed this petition praying to dissolve their marriage by granting decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. Hence, this petition.

3. After registering the petition, notice ordered to the respondent by this Court which served to him, but he did not appear before this

Court and remained exparte on 26.3.2024.

4. Heard the petitioner. Perused the records.

5. Now the point for determination is :

Whether the petitioner is entitled for decree of

divorce as prayed for ?

6. During enquiry, petitioner was examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.3. One witness namely P. Pullaiah was examined as

PW.2 on behalf of the petitioner.

7. POINT:- In the evidence, PW.1 has reiterated the contents of petition that, she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 22.12.2021 at Sree Kona Malleswara Swami temple, Parnapalli, Lingala Mandal according to Hindu rites and customs.

Soon after the marriage, she joined with the respondent in matrimonial home and their marriage was consummated. Due to her employment,

HMOP No.18 of 2024 3 S.C.J Court, PDTR dt.04.4.2024

she used to go to Animela village every day. Subsequently disputes arose between them due to adamant behaviour of the respondent towards her. The respondent deceived her and her parents by saying that he was doing private job. The respondent addicted to bad habits and used to quarrel and beat her demanding additional dowry. She tolerated all the cruelties perpetrated by the respondent against her. In the month of May, 2022, she was necked out by the respondent from matrimonial home and she came to Proddatur to her parents house, since then she has been residing in her parents house at Proddatur and finally, she decided to get her marriage dissolved by obtaining decree of divorce and filed this petition praying to dissolve their marriage by granting decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

8.PW.2 was examined who stated on the similar lines of PW.1 and supported the case of the petitioner.

9.On overall scrutinizing the evidence of PW.1, it appears that after the marriage, they lived together for a period of nearly 05 months. Later, their marital relationship became strained due to differences cropped between the petitioner and respondent and it led to irretrievable break down of their marriage and they have been living separately since May, 2022 and absolutely there is no possibility for their reunion to lead happy matrimonial life in future. The respondent remained exparte and not challenged the version of Pws.1 and 2. So the version of petitioner/PW.1 and PW.2 is remained unchallenged.

Considering the above reasons, the petition can be allowed. Accordingly, the point is answered.

HMOP No.18 of 2024 4 S.C.J Court, PDTR dt.04.4.2024

10. In the result, this petition is allowed and the marriage in between the petitioner and respondent dated 22.12.2021 is hereby dissolved by way of decree of divorce. No costs.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 4th day of April, 2024.

Sd/- G. Shiva Prasad Yadav,

Senior Civil Judge,

Proddatur.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for

Petitioner Respondent. PW.1: Sake Swathi @ Lakshmi SwathiExparte PW.2: Pamuleti Pullaiah

Exhibits marked for

Petitioner

Ex.P1: Wedding card. Ex.P2: Marriage Photo Ex.P3: Marriage identification certificate Id/- G.S.P.Y.

SCJ, PDTR

HMOP No.130/2023 1 S.C.J Court, PDTR dt.04.4.2024

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PRODDATUR

Present:- Sri G.Shiva Prasad Yadav,

Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur

Thursday, this the 4th day of April, 2024

HMOP No.130/2023

1. Viswanathapuram Hari Prasad

2. Viswanathapuram Amrutha…. Petitioners

Vs.

- Nil - …. Respondent

This petition came up on 03.4.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Jinka Ravi, Advocate for the petitioners and no respondent thereon, having heard and upon perusing the material on record, this Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

This is a petition filed by the petitioners under Sec.13-B of Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 praying to dissolve the marriage between petitioners Nos.1 and 2 dated 17.5.2017 by granting divorce on the ground of mutual consent.

2. The averments of the petition filed by the petitioners

Nos.1 and 2 that, the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are husband and wife, their marriage took place on 17.5.2017 at Sri Sai Baba Kalyana

Mandapam, Kadapa Road, Mydukur, as per Hindu rites and rituals.

Soon after the marriage, the 2nd petitioner joined with the first petitioner and lived at Mydukur for one year. During her stay, she could not cooperate with the first petitioner for smooth running of the family and they have blessed with a male child. Their parents tried to settle the matter, but they both did not heed their words. Both the petitioners have no interest to live together inspite of several

HMOP No.130/2023 2 S.C.J Court, PDTR dt.04.4.2024

meditions held by the elders on both sides. At present the 2nd petitioner is living in her parents house from 15.9.2019 and there is no possibility for their reunion and there is no chance of settlement between them. As per the advise of the elders, the first petitioner returned all the gold ornaments to the 2nd petitioner and also gave amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the 2nd petitioner and minor son towards their permanent alimony and she undertakes that she could not claim any maintenance to them in future. Finally they decided to take divorce on mutual consent. Hence this petition.

3. After registration of the petition, it was posted for reconciliation. On 03.4.2024, the petitioners appeared in court and they reported that there is no chance for their reunion and no change in their decision. The petitioners were examined as PWs.1 and 2 and documents marked Exs.P.1 and P.2.

4. Heard the petitioners. Perused the records.

5.The point for consideration is :-

Whether the petitioners are entitled for decree

of divorce as prayed for ?

6.POINT:- The petitioners who are admittedly spouse seeking for grant of divorce dissolving their marriage on the ground of mutual consent. As per the evidence of Pws.1 and 2, after marriage differences arose in between petitioners and their parents and elders convened panchayath, but no effect and they are living in their parents house from 15.9.2019 and their elders also made effort for their reunion, but there is no result, finally they decided mutually to take divorce and living independent life on terms and there is no

HMOP No.130/2023 3 S.C.J Court, PDTR dt.04.4.2024

chance in future for their living together, having no other go this petition was filed praying to dissolve their marriage dt.17.5.2017 by granting divorce on mutual consent. Pws.1 and 2 mutually agreed to the terms and conditions and there is no chance for their reunion in future.

7. On overall scrutinizing the evidence of Pws.1 and 2, it appears that after the marriage, they lived together for two years.

During their wedlock, they blessed with a male child. Later, their marital relationship became strained due to disputes and it led to irretrievable break down of their marriage and they have been living separately and absolutely there is no possibility for their reunion to lead happy matrimonial life in future and agreed to take divorce on mutual consent.

8. The said evidence of Pws.1 and 2 is convincing and cogent that, they have been living separately and that they have not been able to live together and that they have mutually agreed that their marriage should be dissolved. In such circumstances, no purpose will be served by continuing their marital tie. Therefore, the decree of divorce can be granted to the petitioners on the ground of mutual consent. Accordingly, the point is answered.

9. In the result, this petition is allowed and marriage between the petitioners dated 17.5.2017 is hereby dissolved by way of decree of divorce on the ground of mutual consent.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade II, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 4th day of April, 2024.

Sd/- G. Shiva Prasad Yadav,

Senior Civil Judge,

Proddatur.

HMOP No.130/2023 4 S.C.J Court, PDTR dt.04.4.2024

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for Petitioners Respondent.

PW.1: Viswanathapuram Hari Prasad - None - PW.2: Viswanathapuram Amrutha

Exhibits marked for

Petitioners Respondent.

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

Id/- G.S.P.Y.

SCJ, PDTR

HMOP No.131/2023 1 S.C.J Court, PDTR dt.04.4.2024

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PRODDATUR

Present:- Sri G.Shiva Prasad Yadav,

Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur

Thursday, this the 4th day of April, 2024

HMOP No.131/2023

1. Poluka Amrutha

2. Marthala Krishna Sai Reddy…. Petitioners

Vs.

- Nil - …. Respondent

This petition came up on 03.4.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P. Chandra Sekhar, Advocate for the petitioners and no respondent thereon, having heard and upon perusing the material on record, this Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

This is a petition filed by the petitioners under Sec.13-B of Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 praying to dissolve the marriage between petitioners Nos.1 and 2 dated 08.1.2022 by granting divorce on the ground of mutual consent.

2. The averments of the petition filed by the petitioners

Nos.1 and 2 that, the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are wife and husband, their marriage took place on 08.1.2022 at Sri Vasavi Function Hall,

Proddatur according to Hindu custom and usage and it was arranged marriage. Soon after the marriage, petitioner No.1 joined with the petitioner No.2 to lead their marital life and they lived happily for few days only. After that, their relationship became strained and they had been residing separately since February, 2022 and they have no children. They are residing separately in view of the incompatibility

HMOP No.131/2023 2 S.C.J Court, PDTR dt.04.4.2024

and they went on counseling under family members, well wishers, but their sincere efforts were futile. The petitioners are agreed that the 2nd petitioner has to return all the gold jewels to the first petitioner.

Accordingly, the 2nd petitioner had given all belongings to PW.1 including gold jewels. She agreed not to claim any maintenance and finally they decided to take divorce on the ground of mutual consent by dissolving their marriage. Hence this petition.

3. After registration of the petition, it was posted for reconciliation. On 03.4.2024, the petitioners appeared in court and they reported that there is no chance for their reunion and no change in their decision. The petitioners were examined as PWs.1 and 2 and documents marked Exs.P.1 to P.3.

4. Heard the petitioners. Perused the records.

5.The point for consideration is :-

Whether the petitioners are entitled for decree

of divorce as prayed for ?

6.POINT:- The petitioners who are admittedly spouse seeking for grant of divorce dissolving their marriage on the ground of mutual consent. As per the evidence of Pws.1 and 2, after marriage differences arose in between petitioners and their parents and elders convened panchayath, but no effect and they are living in their parents house from February, 2022 and their elders also made effort for their reunion, but there is no result, finally they decided mutually to take divorce and living independent life on terms and there is no chance in future for their living together, having no other go this petition was filed praying to dissolve their marriage dt.08.1.2022 by

HMOP No.131/2023 3 S.C.J Court, PDTR dt.04.4.2024

granting divorce on mutual consent. Pws.1 and 2 mutually agreed to the terms and conditions and there is no chance for their reunion in future.

7. On overall scrutinizing the evidence of Pws.1 and 2, it appears that after the marriage, they lived together for few days.

During their wedlock, they have no children. Later, their marital relationship became strained due to disputes and it led to irretrievable break down of their marriage and they have been living separately and absolutely there is no possibility for their reunion to lead happy matrimonial life in future and agreed to take divorce on mutual consent.

8. The said evidence of Pws.1 and 2 is convincing and cogent that, they have been living separately and that they have not been able to live together and that they have mutually agreed that their marriage should be dissolved. In such circumstances, no purpose will be served by continuing their marital tie. Therefore, the decree of divorce can be granted to the petitioners on the ground of mutual consent. Accordingly, the point is answered.

9. In the result, this petition is allowed and marriage between the petitioners dated 08.1.2022 is hereby dissolved by way of decree of divorce on the ground of mutual consent.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade II, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 4th day of April, 2024.

Sd/- G. Shiva Prasad Yadav,

Senior Civil Judge,

Proddatur.

HMOP No.131/2023 4 S.C.J Court, PDTR dt.04.4.2024

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for Petitioners Respondent.

PW.1: Poluka Amrutha - None - PW.2: Marthala Krishna Sai Reddy

Exhibits marked for

Petitioners Respondent.

Ex.P1: Wedding card - Nil- Ex.P2: Marriage photo Ex.P3: Marriage identification certificate

Id/- G.S.P.Y.

SCJ, PDTR

HMOP No.127/2023 1 S.C.J Court, PDTR dt.04.4.2024

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PRODDATUR

Present:- Sri G.Shiva Prasad Yadav,

Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur

Thursday, this the 4th day of April, 2024

HMOP No.127/2023

1. Chenchu Geetha

2. Ananda Reddy…. Petitioners

Vs.

- Nil - …. Respondent

This petition came up on 01.4.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt. T. Padmaja, Advocate for the petitioners and no respondent thereon, having heard and upon perusing the material on record, this Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

This is a petition filed by the petitioners under Sec.13-B of Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 praying to dissolve the marriage between petitioners Nos.1 and 2 dated 14.2.2021 by granting divorce on the ground of mutual consent.

2. The averments of the petition filed by the petitioners

Nos.1 and 2 that, the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are wife and husband, their marriage took place on 14.2.2021 as per Hindu rites and customs at Sri Omkareswara Temple, Chikkatitupathi, Lakkuru Hobli,

Maluru Taluk, Kolar District. Soon after the marriage, petitioner No.1 joined with the company of petitioner No.2 and they performed all the celebrations as per the Hindu customs and after that, disputes arose between them and they have no proper understanding and they did not adjust with each other. Their parents tried to settle their disputes

HMOP No.127/2023 2 S.C.J Court, PDTR dt.04.4.2024

several times, but in vain. The petitioners are living separately from

May, 2021. Recently the parents of both the petitioners convinced them, but they have not convinced and they are not willing to live together. They have no children and it has become highly impossible to them to live together and having no other go, this petition was filed praying to dissolve their marriage by granting decree of divorce on mutual consent. Hence this petition.

3. After registration of the petition, it was posted for reconciliation. On 01.4.2024, the petitioners appeared in court and they reported that there is no chance for their reunion and no change in their decision. The petitioners were examined as PWs.1 and 2 and documents marked Exs.P.1 and P.2.

4. Heard the petitioners. Perused the records.

5.The point for consideration is :-

Whether the petitioners are entitled for decree

of divorce as prayed for ?

6.POINT:- The petitioners who are admittedly spouse seeking for grant of divorce dissolving their marriage on the ground of mutual consent. As per the evidence of Pws.1 and 2, after marriage differences arose in between petitioners and their parents and elders convened panchayath, but no effect and they are living in their parents house from May, 2021 and their elders also made effort for their reunion, but there is no result, finally they decided mutually to take divorce and living independent life on terms and there is no chance in future for their living together, having no other go this petition was filed praying to dissolve their marriage dt.14.2.2021 by

HMOP No.127/2023 3 S.C.J Court, PDTR dt.04.4.2024

granting divorce on mutual consent. Pws.1 and 2 mutually agreed to the terms and conditions and there is no chance for their reunion in future.

7. On overall scrutinizing the evidence of Pws.1 and 2, it appears that after the marriage, they lived together for 03 months.

During their wedlock, they have no children. Later, their marital relationship became strained due to disputes and it led to irretrievable break down of their marriage and they have been living separately and absolutely there is no possibility for their reunion to lead happy matrimonial life in future and agreed to take divorce on mutual consent.

8. The said evidence of Pws.1 and 2 is convincing and cogent that, they have been living separately and that they have not been able to live together and that they have mutually agreed that their marriage should be dissolved. In such circumstances, no purpose will be served by continuing their marital tie. Therefore, the decree of divorce can be granted to the petitioners on the ground of mutual consent. Accordingly, the point is answered.

9. In the result, this petition is allowed and marriage between the petitioners dated 14.2.2021 is hereby dissolved by way of decree of divorce on the ground of mutual consent.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade II, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 4th day of April, 2024.

Sd/- G. Shiva Prasad Yadav,

Senior Civil Judge,

Proddatur.

HMOP No.127/2023 4 S.C.J Court, PDTR dt.04.4.2024

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for Petitioners Respondent.

PW.1: Chenchu Geetha - None - PW.2: Ananda Reddy

Exhibits marked for

Petitioners Respondent.

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

Id/- G.S.P.Y.

SCJ, PDTR