G. Srinivas

1 of 14 SC No.18 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT

NIRMAL

Present:-

Sri G. Srinivas,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Nirmal

Monday, this the 3rd day of November, 2025

S.C. No.18 of 2025

( On Committal by the learned Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal by order dated 30.12.2024 in PRC.No.50 of 2020 of P.S. Laxmanchanda)

Name of : The State of Telangana through Sub- ComplainantInspector of Police, P.S. Laxmanchanda.

Name of accused: Edla Harikrishna, S/o.Pochaiah, Age : 31 years, Occ : Ambulance Staff, R/o.Govur village of Nizamabad.

Nature of Offence: Under Sections 455, 307, 354-C and 506 IPC

Plea of accused: Not guilty

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty

Sentence /Order: In the result, the accused is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C for the offences punishable under Sections 455, 307, 354-C and 506 IPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after a period of six months in view of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. M.O.1 is directed to be destroyed after appeal period is over.

Counsel for the : Sri K. Vinod Rao, Public Prosecutor/In- prosecutioncharge Additional Public Prosecutor Counsel for defence: Sri Ms. Varalaxmi, Learned Counsel for the accused

ASJ, Nirmal 2 of 14 SC No.18 of 2025

This Case is coming before me for final hearing on 31.10.2025 in the presence of Sri K. Vinod Rao, Public Prosecutor/In-charge Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Ms. Varalaxmi, learned Counsel for the Accused and having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

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

1.The accused is tried for the offences punishable under

Sections 455, 307, 354-C and 506 IPC.

2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Laxmanchanda, filed charge sheet against the accused alleging that on 21.02.2020 at 01:30 p.m., the defacto complainant-Thokala Kalyani presented a report and basing on it, the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.

Laxmanchanda registered a case in Crime No.8/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 454, 307, 354-C and 506 IPC and issued FIR. During the course of the investigation, the

Investigating Officer examined the defacto complainant and recorded her statement. He visited the scene of offence situated at

Rachapur village of Laxmanchanda Mandal, examined L.W.2 and

L.W.3(Parents of the defacto complainant). L.W.3/Bonthala

Bhojavva, L.W.4/Thoparam Lingaiah, L.W.5/Thoparam Muthavva and recorded their statements. He secured the presence of

Satham Gangaram/L.W.7 and Thoparam Lavanaya/L.W8 and in their presence he prepared Crime Details Form and drafted Rough

ASJ, Nirmal 3 of 14 SC No.18 of 2025

Sketch of scene of offence. On 28.02.2020 at 11.00 a.m., the accused voluntarily surrendered before the Investigating Officer and on interrogation, the accused admitted his guilt of commission of offence. In the presence of Kondra Narsaiah/L.W.9 and Barath Muthyam/L.W.10, the Investigating Officer conducted confession and seizure panchanama and recovered cell phone from the possession of the accused, that was used in the offence by blackmailing to show the images of the defacto complainant with the accused to L.W.6 who is the husband of defacto complainant.

That the accused further stated that the crime weapon i.e., knife was thrown from there and as such, it was not seized. After informing grounds of arrest and informing his relatives as to arrest of the accused, the accused was sent for judicial remand. The

Investigating Officer gave requisition to L.W.11/V.Eshwaraiah,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhainsa to record the statement

of the defacto complainant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. On transfer of the Investigating Officer/L.W.12, the Investigating

Officer/L.W.13/K.Vinay, S.I of Police filed charge sheet alleging the investigation disclosed that in the year 2017, the defacto- complainant joined in ANM nursing course in Vaani Vocational college, at Nizamabad and in the year-2019 when she was

ASJ, Nirmal 4 of 14 SC No.18 of 2025 pursuing her final year, she was deputed to Government Area

Hospital, Nizamabad for training as a part of internship; meanwhile, the accused who was also working under Ambulance department, got acquaintance with the defacto complainant and started harassing her to love him, when the defacto-complainant refused his love proposals and agreed to continue their friendship, the accused took advantage of their friendship and snapped some photos of the defacto-complainant with the accused and thereafter started blackmailing her by showing their photos; that being a private matter, the defacto complainant did not elaborate the same to anyone. That meanwhile, LWs.2 and 3 arranged and performed the marriage of the defacto complainant with one

Thokala Bharath/LW-6 who was residing at Rengerla village of

Nizamabad District; that on coming to know the same, the accused came to the house of L.Ws.2 and 3 situated at Rachapur village of Laxmanchanda (M) on 14.02.2020, broke open the doors of the house of L.Ws.1 to 3 and committed lurking house trespass into the house with a knife and stated that he would kill LW2 and his daughter, and tried to kill L.Ws.2 and 3 with knife and that they escaped from the accused; on hearing their hues and cries,

L.Ws.4 and 5 came there and on seeing them the accused fled

ASJ, Nirmal 5 of 14 SC No.18 of 2025 away from the place. The accused committed offences punishable under Sections 455, 307, 354-C and 506 IPC.

3.Learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nirmal took cognizance of the offences under Sections 455, 307, 354-C and 506 I.P.C against the accused and registered the case as PRC.No.50/2020. After securing presence of the accused, the case documents are furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. At this stage, the case was transferred to the Court of

Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal on the point of

jurisdiction. The learned Principal Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Nirmal committed the case to the Hon’ble Court of

Sessions, Nirmal as per the Orders, dated 30.12.2024 in PRC

No.50/2020, since prima-facie case disclosed for the offences under Sections 307, 455, 354-C and 506 IPC and out of which

Section 307 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.

4.The Hon'ble Court of Sessions, Nirmal took the case on file for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 455, 354-C and 506 IPC against the accused and registered the case as

Sessions Case No.18/2025 and made over to this court for

disposal according to law.

ASJ, Nirmal 6 of 14 SC No.18 of 2025

5.After securing the presence of the accused before this

Court, after hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the Learned Counsel for the accused, since there is a ground to presume that the accused committed the offence exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, charges for the offences punishable under Sections 455, 307, 354-C and 506 IPC are framed, read over and explained to the accused in vernacular language, for which the accused denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.Prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.11 and M.O.1.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard the learned Public Prosecutor, who is in-charge

Additional Public Prosecutor of this court, and also the learned

counsel for the accused.

ASJ, Nirmal 7 of 14 SC No.18 of 2025

9. The point that arises for consideration is as to whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences with which he stood charged, beyond reasonable doubt.

POINT:

10.P.W.1 is examined as the defacto complainant and victim. However, she did not support the case of the prosecution.

According to the evidence of P.W.1 there are issues at the time of her marriage with L.W.6 in the year 2020. Her evidence is that she has not presented report to Police and she has not written the report and she has no idea as to the contents of the report. She identified the signature shown to her on the report as that of her signature. She is declared as hostile and she was permitted to be put questions as in the nature of cross-examination. She denied the suggestion that she presented report to the police and stated to the police as in Ex.P2 that the accused harassed her to love him and blackmailed her with the help of photos obtained and that on 14.02.2020, the accused criminally tress-passed into their house by break opening the doors and attempted to kill her parents with a knife brought by him and that on the same day the accused came to the house of her husband and obtained his phone

ASJ, Nirmal 8 of 14 SC No.18 of 2025 number and sent photographs to his whatsapp and threatened her husband to leave her. Though she denied the said suggestion that she is giving false evidence to see that her matrimonial life is not disturbed for that, it is elicited from cross-examination that she compromised with the accused. P.W.3 is examined as an eye witness. However, his evidence is that he does not know the accused present in the Court and does not know the case facts. He is also declared as hostile and the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor is permitted to put questions to him as in the nature of cross-examination. P.W.3 denied the suggestions that he stated to police as in Ex.P3 that on 14.02.2020 at about 04:00 A.M. he heard alarm from the house of P.W.2, thereon himself and L.W.5 rushed there and found that the doors of the house of L.W.2 were broken and a person was holding knife in his hand and threatening L.W.2 and P.W.2 and on noticing arrival of them, he attacked himself with the knife and fled away; that on enquiry they came to know that the said person used to follow P.W.1 that he was in love with her and also that he went to the house of son- in-law of L.W.2 in Renjarla village and also threatened to leave

P.W.1 otherwise he would kill her, and also sent the photographs of P.W.1 and that person to L.W.6. P.W.4 is also examined as an

ASJ, Nirmal 9 of 14 SC No.18 of 2025 eye witness. However, her evidence is also that she does not know the accused present in the Court. She deposed that there were quarrels in respect of the marriage of P.W.1, which was performed in Tirupathi and other than that she does not know anything. She is also declared as hostile and in her cross-examination she denies the suggestion put by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and nothing could be elicited from her cross-examination, that is helpful to the prosecution case.

11.It is to be mentioned that P.W.2 is the mother of P.W.1.

Her evidence is that about five years back at about 05:00 A.M. the accused came to their house in Rachapur village, pushed their doors and broken the doors and stated that he loved P.W.1, and that he was holding knife and threatened her and her husband i.e., L.W.2. She also deposes that on the same day, the accused also went to the house of L.W.6 and also disclosed that he loved

P.W.1 and questioned as to how he would marry her and quarreled with him. Her further evidence is that the accused also sent photographs of him with P.W.1, to the cell phone of L.W.6 and that as such, L.W.6 dropped her daughter in their house on the said incident. It is to be mentioned that in regard to the evidence

ASJ, Nirmal 10 of 14 SC No.18 of 2025 of P.W.2 as to the accused going to the house of L.W.6 and disclosing that he loved P.W.1 and as to the quarrel with him is concerned, P.W.1 did not support the case of the prosecution.

Further, the prosecution did not choose to examine L.W.6 and the learned Public Prosecutor gave up the evidence of L.W.6. It is to be mentioned that with regard to the accused sending the photographs of P.W.1 and accused to the cell phone of L.W.6 is concerned, the stated cell phone of L.W.6 is not seized. It is also to be mentioned that though P.W.7 deposes that on 28.02.2020 at 11:00 A.M. the accused voluntarily surrendered before him at

Police Station, on interrogation in the presence of P.W.6 and

K.Narsaiah/L.W.9, the accused confessed as to commission of offence and M.O.1-cellphone was recovered from the accused under cover of Ex.P11-panchanama, P.W.6 did not support the case of the prosecution. According to P.W.6 about 5 years back

Police called him to the Police Station and obtained his signature, but he did not inform as to the purpose for which his signature was obtained. In the cross-examination by the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor, nothing is elicited so as to support the evidence of P.W.7 as to confession and seizure of M.O.1. It is to be mentioned that even if the evidence P.W.7 is considered in regard

ASJ, Nirmal 11 of 14 SC No.18 of 2025 to seizure of M.O.1, in the cross-examination of P.W.7 it is elicited that he has not sent the M.O.1 to F.S.L for examination. When

M.O.1 is not subjected to FSL, and M.O.1 is not displayed before the Court through the witness, it cannot be said that the M.O.1 contained the Photographs sent by accused to P.W.1. It is also to be mentioned that the mobile phone of P.W.1 and L.W.6 is also required to be seized and examined as to the stated photographs, but that the Investigating Officer did not seize the cell phone of

P.W.1 and of L.W.6. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.7 as to seizure of M.O.1 is not of much avail to the prosecution.

12.It is to be mentioned that though P.W.2 deposes that the accused came to their house, pushed their doors and break open the doors and threatened them by holding knife, none of the eye witness are examined, and P.W.1, who is the daughter of

P.W.2-stated defacto complainant, did not support the prosecution evidence. There is no supporting evidence as to the stated incident deposed to by P.W.2. It is also to be mentioned that P.W.5 is examined to prove the Crime Details Form, but she also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. The prosecution gave up the evidence of father of P.W.1 i.e., L.W.2. It is also to be

ASJ, Nirmal 12 of 14 SC No.18 of 2025 mentioned that none of the witnesses from the Educational

Institution of P.W.1 are examined as to the accused following P.W.1 and harassing her under the guise of love. It is also to be mentioned that though P.W.2 deposes that the accused break opened the doors of their house, there is no evidence as to the alleged break opening of the doors of the house of P.W.2. No photographs are obtained as to the condition of the doors allegedly broke open. Having regard to the above evidence, it is to be held that the prosecution could not establish guilt of the accused for the offences under Sections 307, 455, 354-C and 506 IPC beyond reasonable doubt and the accused and the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered.

13.In the result, the accused is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C for the offences punishable under Sections 455, 307, 354-C and 506 IPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after a period of six months in view of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

M.O.1 is directed to be destroyed after appeal period is over.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, after corrections

pronounced by me in open court on this the 3 rd day of November, 2025.

Sd/-

Assistant Sessions Judge, Nirmal

ASJ, Nirmal 13 of 14 SC No.18 of 2025

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:-

PW.1: Victim(name is not typed to protect identity of victim) PW.2: Mother of P.W.1 PW.3: T.Lingaiah PW.4: T.Muthavva PW.5: T.Lavanya PW.6: Bharath Muthyam PW.7: K. Vinay

For Defence:

None

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:-

Ex.P1: is the signature of P.W.1 on the report Ex.P2: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1 Ex.P3: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3 Ex.P4: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4 Ex.P5: is the Signature of P.W.5 on Crime Details Form Ex.P6: is the signature of P.W.5 on rough sketch Ex.P7: is the Signature of P.W.6 on Confession and Seizure panchanama Ex.P8: is First Information Report Ex.P9: is the report Ex.P10 is the Crime Details Form Ex.P11 is the admissible portion of confession and seizure panchanama

For Defence:

Nil

ASJ, Nirmal 14 of 14 SC No.18 of 2025

Material Objects

M.O.1:Nokia Company Mobile Phone

Sd/-

Assistant Sessions Judge, Nirmal

ASJ, Nirmal

Page 1 of 8 Order in HMOP No.17/2022 on the file of SCJ Court, Nirmal

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NIRMAL

Present: Sri G. Srinivas,

Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal.

Friday, this the 07th day of November, 2025

H.M.O.P.No.17 of 2022

Between:

Kola Narsaiah, S/o.Narsimhulu, Age:28 years, Caste:Mala (SC), Occ:Nil, R/o.H.No.8-80, PeddaBellalVillage,Mandal:Kadam, Dist:Nirmal. …Petitioner // AND //

Smt. Kola @ Panthakani Sandya, W/o. Kola Narsaiah, Age:27 years, Caste:Mala (SC), Occ:Beedi Roller, R/o.Pedda Bellal Village, Mandal:Kadam, Dist:Nirmal, present residing at Subhashnagar, Khanapur R/M, Dist:Nirmal. …Respondent

This petition is coming before me for final hearing on 06.11.2025 in the presence of Sri N.Gangadhar, Counsel for the Petitioner and having heard and stood over for consideration, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955, praying to dissolve the marriage of the petitioner and respondent on the ground of cruelty.

2.The brief averments of the petition are that the marriage of the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 26.10.2020 according to their caste and customs prevailed in their community which is

Page 2 of 8 Order in HMOP No.17/2022 on the file of SCJ Court, Nirmal governed by the Hindu Marriage Act. The parents of the petitioner presented ½ Tula gold and 10 tulas of silver leg chains to the respondent at the time of the marriage. The petitioner did not receive any sort of dowry at the time of marriage and the petitioner incurred the marriage expenses. That after marriage the respondent joined in matrimonial company of the petitioner at the petitioner's house. The said marriage was an arranged marriage and was consummated and still subsists. The petitioner and the respondent led their conjugal life for the period of two months only. That since the very beginning of the marriage, the respondent’s behaviour was very adamant with the petitioner, was in rude and moody manner and started disputes with the petitioner and his family members on petty domestic disputes by making galata and used to leave the house of the petitioner without any just cause, intimation and consent of the petitioner and stayed at her relatives house by stating that the respondent is not at all interested to lead martial life with the Petitioner. That in that regard, several panchayaths were conducted in the presence of elders at different places to solve the disputes, but the respondent did not heed the advice of the elders. The respondent without consent and intimation of petitioner left the matrimonial company of petitioner number of times and the respondent joined the company of the

Petitioner on the advice of her village elders. These things are continued by the respondent and the petitioner got lot of mental agony

Page 3 of 8 Order in HMOP No.17/2022 on the file of SCJ Court, Nirmal due to adamant behavior of the respondent. That life of the petitioner became like a hell due to the respondent’s behavior. Meanwhile, the

Respondent conceived and when the respondent was carrying two months of pregnancy, the respondent went to her aunt’s house and came back to the petitioner after three months and again after 15 days, the respondent left to her aunt’s house without knowledge and consent of the petitioner and since then the respondent is residing at her aunt’s house at Khanapur village. The respondent is blessed with a baby girl and after the birth of respondent's daughter the petitioner and his parent went to the house of the respondent for cradle ceremony and the petitioner and his parent requested to come and join matrimonial company of petitioner, but the respondent stated with the petitioner that she was not at all interested to lead marital life with the petitioner and the respondent has been residing at her aunt’s house from 15.04.2021 without just cause. The Petitioner went to the house of the respondent along with his villagers, caste and his family members and requested the respondent to join his company, along with her minor daughter, and to lead happy marital life at least for the future and welfare of their minor daughter, but the respondent being arrogant and adamant bluntly refused the request of the petitioner and that the respondent and all of her family members threatened the petitioner with dire consequences that if the petitioner again come to their house they would file false cases against the petitioner and his

Page 4 of 8 Order in HMOP No.17/2022 on the file of SCJ Court, Nirmal family members. As there was no other way left to the petitioner, he came back to his house at Pedda Bellal village. That the respondent, during the conjugal life, tortured the petitioner mentally and physically. The Petitioner waited for the respondent that she would change her mind and join in his company, but the respondent being stubborn did not change her mind. The respondent deserted the petitioner on 15.04.2021 without any reason. In this period the petitioner requested the respondent number of times to join his company, but she bluntly refused and for that, it caused mental torture and agony to the petitioner.

3.Notice was served on the father of the respondent, she was called absent, and that as such, the respondent was set exparte.

During the course of enquiry, the petitioner himself is examined as

P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, by the Order dated 02.06.2023, this court decreed the petition granting divorce.

4.The respondent filed a petition under Order IX rule 13

CPC with a prayer to set-aside the ex-parte Order of dissolution of marriage of the petitioner with the respondent, dated 02.06.2023, and the same was allowed on 27.12.2024 by setting-aside the ex-parte decree, dated 02.06.2023 in H.M.O.P. No.17 of 2022 and restored the

H.M.O.P. to file.

Page 5 of 8 Order in HMOP No.17/2022 on the file of SCJ Court, Nirmal

5. Inspite of giving ample opportunities, the respondent did not file any counter, hence, it was treated that the respondent has no counter to file.

6.The petitioner himself is examined as P.W.1 and exhibited

Exs.P1 and P2.

7.The respondent filed petition under Order IX Rule 7 C.P.C.

on 11.07.2023, but notice was not served on the otherside till 30.10.2025 and as such, the petition was dismissed. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent throughout.

8.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

9.Now the point that arises for consideration is :

“ Whether the petitioner is entitled for dissolution

of marriage on the ground of cruelty granting a decree of divorce as prayed for” ?

POINT :

10.The evidence of P.W.1 is that his marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 26.10.2020 according to their caste and customs which prevailed in their community which is governed by

Hindu Marriage Act. The petitioner has filed Ex.P.1 which is the

Page 6 of 8 Order in HMOP No.17/2022 on the file of SCJ Court, Nirmal

Marriage wedding card and Ex.P.2 which is the Marriage photographs in proof of marriage. The petitioner has filed his examination-in-chief affidavit as P.W.1 making out the grounds of cruelty for dissolution of marriage. P.W.1 deposes that since the beginning of the marriage, the respondent’s behavior was very adamant with him and she is rude and moody manner and started disputes with him and his family members. He also deposes that the respondent used to behave with him and his family members on petty domestic disputes by making galata and used to leave his house without any just cause, intimation and his consent and stayed at her relative’s house by stating that she was not at all interested to lead martial life with him. He also deposes that several times panchayaths were conducted in the presence of elders at different places to solve the disputes, but the respondent did not heed them. P.W.1 further deposes that number of times, the respondent, without consent and intimation, left the matrimonial company and joined his matrimonial company on the advice of village elders. He also deposes that these things have been continued, due to which he got lot of mental agony due to adamant behavior of the respondent. He further deposes that the respondent has conceived and when the respondent was carrying two months of pregnancy, the respondent went to her aunt’s house and came back to him after three months and again after 15 days, the respondent left to her aunt’s house without knowledge and his consent and since then the

Page 7 of 8 Order in HMOP No.17/2022 on the file of SCJ Court, Nirmal respondent is residing at her aunt’s house at Khanapur village. He also deposes that the respondent blessed with a baby girl and after the birth of respondent's daughter, himself and his parents went to respondent’s house for cradle ceremony and requested the respondent to come and join his matrimonial company, but the respondent stating that she was not at all interested to lead marital life with him, started residing at her aunt’s house from 15.04.2021 without just cause.

P.W.1 also deposes that the respondent is not at all interested to join his matrimonial company and she deserted him and since 15.04.2021 she is residing at her Aunt’s house; that even though the petitioner has made efforts number of times to join the company of respondent, but she has bluntly refused. The evidence of P.W.1 discussed above clearly establishes that the respondent subjected him to cruelty.

Therefore, the petition can be allowed. Accordingly, the point is answered.

11.In the result, the petition is allowed and the marriage between the petitioner and respondent is dissolved by granting decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

(Typed to my dictation directly, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7 th day of No vember , 2025.)

Senior Civil Judge

Nirmal

Page 8 of 8 Order in HMOP No.17/2022 on the file of SCJ Court, Nirmal

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER

P.W.1: Kola Narsaiah

FOR RESPONDENT: None

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER:

Ex.P1: is the Marriage Wedding Card. Ex.P2: is Photograph.

FOR RESPONDENT: Nil

Senior Civil Judge

Nirmal

1 of 6 Order in HMOP No.82 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: AT NIRMAL

Present:- Sri G. Srinivas,

Senior Civil Judge,

Nirmal

Tuesday, this the 4th day of November, 2025

H.M.O.P. No. 82 of 2025

Between:-

Sriramoju Saikiran, S/o.Sriramulu, aged about 32 years, Occ : Private Employee, R/o.H.No.2-4-31, Brahmanpuri, Nirmal town, Nirmal District, State of Telangana, at Present Residing at Shanthin Nagar, Mahadevapuram, Nirmal Town, Nirmal District State of Telangana. …Petitioner No.1

// A N D //

Smt. Sriramoju Layasri @ Sripadha Vidya, W/o.Sriramoju Saikiran, (D/o.Sripadha Krishna), Aged about 25 years, Occ : Employee, R/o.H.No.2-4-31, Brahmanpuri, Nirmal town, Nirmal District,(Shanthin Nagar, Mahadevapuram, Nirmal Town, Nirmal District) at present residing at her parental house R/o.H.No.1- 153, Nawabpet village, Kaddam Mandal, Nirmal District State of Telangana.

…Petitioner No.2

This petition is coming before me on 03.11.2025 in the presence of Sri.N.Gangadhar and Sri.Y.Sai Kumar, Learned counsel for the Petitioners No.1 and 2 and having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following: -

::O R D E R::

1.This petition is filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 with a prayer to dissolve the marriage of the

Petitioner No.1 and 2 by awarding a decree of divorce on mutual consent.

SCJ 2 of 6 Order in HMOP No.82 of 2025

2.The brief averments of the petition are that the marriage of the petitioners was solemnized on 22.08.2024, as per their caste customs, prevailed in their community, which is governed by the Hindu Marriage Act. That their marriage is consummated. Thereafter, severe disputes arose between the

Petitioners during their conjugal period and the marriage was irretrievably broken down and there is no chance of reunion of the petitioners. In that regard caste and village elders conducted panchayaths several times to settle the matter in amicable manner, but in vain. Therefore, petitioners 1 and 2 are residing separately since 31.08.2024 and since then there is no cohabitation in between them. That several mediations were taken place in between the Petitioners at different places before the caste and village elders regarding reunion. However, petitioners 1 and 2 expressed their unwillingness to reunion and expressed to take divorce on mutual consent. Even after mediation and consultations, there was no result because of the severe disputes between the petitioners which were unable to be solved. Therefore, the parties are not living together being wife and husband. Thus, the parties will take Mutual Consent divorce in due course of law. As per the mediation, according to the advice of their caste and village elders, petitioner No.1

SCJ 3 of 6 Order in HMOP No.82 of 2025 returned the household articles and other articles which were presented at the time of their marriage, to petitioner No.2. That

Petitioner No.2 accepted that she shall not claim anything over person or property from petitioner No.1. That petitioner No.1 should not claim anything over person or property from petitoner

No.2. Petitioner No.1 agreed to give Rs.2,00,000/- to Petitioner

No.2 as permanent alimony i.e., past, present and future maintenance, at the time of disposal of the case and the same is accepted by petitioner No.2. Petitioner No.1 agreed to return 5 grams of gold to petitioner No.2 and petitioner No.2 agreed to return 8 grams gold ear rings to Petitioner No.1, at the time of disposal of the case.

3.Petitioners appeared before this Court and filed I.A.

No.539 of 2025 under Section 151 CPC with a prayer to waive- off the period of six months contemplated under section 13-B (2) of Hindu Marriage Act to enable them for dissolution of their marriage. The said petition was allowed on 31.10.2025 waiving off the 6 months period stipulated under Section 13-B (2) of the

Hindu Marriage Act.

4.The petitioners are examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked Exs.P.1 and P.2.

SCJ 4 of 6 Order in HMOP No.82 of 2025

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

6.The point that arises for consideration is as to whether the petition can be allowed granting decree of divorce on mutual consent.

POINT:-

7.It is the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that their marriage was solemnized on 22.08.2024 as per their caste customs prevailing in their community which is governed by Hindu

Marriage Act. Ex.P1 is Wedding Card and Ex.P2 is photograph.

From the oral and documentary evidence, it is evident that the realationship of the petitioners is not in dispute. As per the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, they are residing separately since 31.08.2024, i.e., since more than one year.

8. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is that severe disputes arose between them during their conjugal period and the marriage was irretrievably broken down and there is no chance of reunion and that caste and village elders conducted panchayaths several times to settle the matter in amicable manner but in vain. The further evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that they are residing separately since 31.08.2024 and since then

SCJ 5 of 6 Order in HMOP No.82 of 2025 there is no cohabitation between them. It is also the evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 2 that several times meditations were taken place and they expressed their unwillingness for reunion and expressed to take divorce on mutual consent. The evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 2 is also that they are not living together as wife and husband and they expressed to take divorce on Mutual Consent.

PWs.1 and 2 deposed that as per the mediation, according to the advice of their caste and village elders, P.W.1 returned the household articles and other articles which were presented at the time of their marriage, to P.W.2 and that P.W.2 accepted that she shall not claim anything over person or property from P.W.1.

They also depose that P.W.1 should not claim anything over person or property from P.W.2 and that P.W.1 agreed to give

Rs.2,00,000/- to P.W.2 as permanent alimony i.e., past, present and future maintenance, at the time of disposal of the case and the same is accepted by P.W.2. They also depose that P.W.1 agreed to return 5 grams of gold to P.W.2 and P.W.2 agreed to return 8 grams gold ear rings to P.W.1, at the time of disposal of the case. From this evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it appears that there are no chances for reunion of the couple and they already settled the matter outside the Court and exchanged gold ornaments which were presented at the time of the marriage and

SCJ 6 of 6 Order in HMOP No.82 of 2025 also agreed on alimony amount. The petitioners as P.Ws.1 and 2 also prayed before this court for grant of divorce on mutual consent. There are no reasons to refuse the request of the petitioners to grant divorce. Therefore, the petition is to be allowed. Accordingly, the point is answered.

9.In the result, the petition is allowed granting decree of divorce under Section 13-B (2) of Hindu Marriage Act and dissolving the marriage of the petitioners that was performed on 22.08.2024, on mutual consent.

(Typed to my dictation directly on the computer , corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4 th day of November,2025.)

Senior Civil Judge

Nirmal

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner s :

PW1: Sriramoju Saikiran PW2: Sriramoju Layasri @ Sripadha Vidya

Exhibits Marked

For Petitioner s :

Ex.P1: is the Wedding card Ex.P2: is the Marriage photograph

Senior Civil Judge

Nirmal

SCJ

1 of 5 Order in HMOP No.79 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: AT NIRMAL

Present:- Sri G. Srinivas,

Senior Civil Judge,

Nirmal

Friday, this the 7th day of November, 2025

H.M.O.P. No. 79 of 202 5

Between:- Muddeti Chandrashekar, S/o.Late Muddeti Poshetty, Aged about 44 years, Caste: BC – D (Mudiraj), Occ: Private Employee, R/o.H.No.6-8-10/15, Market Near Devarakota, Nirmal. …Petitioner No.1

// A N D //

Muddeti – Brundavani, W/o.Muddeti Chandrashekhar, Aged about 36 years, Occ: Household, R/o.H.No.6-8-10/15, Market Near Devarakota, Nirmal, District. Nirmal, presently residing at her parents house at Aloor village, Sarangapur Mandal, District Nirmal. …Petitioner No.2

This petition is coming before me on 07.11.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri L. Laxman Reddy, Learned counsel for the Petitioners and having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following: -

::O R D E R::

1.The H.M.O.P is filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 with a prayer to grant decree of divorce on mutual consent by dissolving the marriage between the

Petitioners No.1 and 2, dated.25.12.2013.

2.The brief averments of the petition are that the petitioners are wife and husband and their marriage was

SCJ 2 of 5 Order in HMOP No.79 of 2025 solemnized on 25.12.2013 at Star Function Hall, Nirmal, as per

Hindu rites and Customs prevailed in their community. In the marriage, the mother of petitioner No.1 presented 7 Tulas of gold and 10 Tulas of Silver leg chains to petitioner No.2. After the marriage, the petitioners lived together happily until July 2014.

The petitioners celebrated their first wedding anniversary on 25.12.2014 at Nirmal. Petitioner No.2 conceived and gave birth to a male child on 10.02.2015 at Sujala Nursing Home, Nirmal, both their families took care of petitioner No.2 and her child.

That petitioner No.2 filed DVC No.13 of 2016 against petitioner

No.1 and his sisters and parents in the Court of I-Additional

JFCM, Nirmal, and in view of compromise between both the parites, filed terms of compromise as agreed by petitioner No.1 i.e., to give an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- towards permanent alimony, maintenance to petitioner No.2, including minor kid.

Apart from Rs.8,00,000/-, Rs.5,00,000/- drawn through D.D. on the name of Petitioner No.2, and remaining Rs.3,00,000/- net cash was paid at the time of compromise in DVC No.13 of 2016.

Both the petitioners are residing separately since past 9 years and there was no cohabitation between them. The petitioner

No.2 agreed that she will not institute any civil and criminal

SCJ 3 of 5 Order in HMOP No.79 of 2025 cases against the petitioner No.1 and his family members even after decree of mutual consent divorce.

3.Reconciliation efforts made by this Court are not fruitful. Petitioners filed petition vide I.A. No.546 of 2025 to

Waive off waiting period of six months to consider the main petition for Divorce on mutual consent and the same was allowed.

4.Petitioners are examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked

Exs.P1 and P2.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

6.The point that arises for consideration is as to whether the petition can be allowed granting Decree of Divorce on mutual consent.

P O I N T :

7.The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is that their marriage was solemnized on 25.12.2013 at Star Function Hall, Nirmal,as per Customes prevailed in their community, as per Hindu rites.

Ex.P.1 is Marriage Wedding Card and Ex.P2 is Marriage

Photograph reflecting the Marriage Ceremony of the petitioners.

SCJ 4 of 5 Order in HMOP No.79 of 2025

Since the petition is filed after one year of the Marriage of the petitioners and the waiting period of Six months is waived off by this Court, now it is to be considered as to whether the petition can be allowed granting Decree of divorce on Mutual Consent.

8.P.Ws.1 and 2 deposed that on 10.02.2015, P.W.2 gave birth to a male child at Sujala Nursing Home, Nirmal, at that time, P.W.1 and his family members have taken care of

P.W.2 and their child. They also depose that P.W.2 filed a D.V.C.

No.13 of 2016 against P.W.1, his sisters and his parents on the file of I Additional JFCM, Nirmal, and in view of compromise between both the parties, P.W.1 agreed to pay an amount of

Rs.8,00,000/- towards permanent alimony, maintenance to

P.W.2 including their minor kid. They also depose that P.W.1 gave

Rs.5,00,000/- through Demand draft in the name of the P.W.2, and remaining Rs.3,00,000/- net cash was paid on the date of compromise in D.V.C. No.13 of 2016. They also depose that there was no cohabitation between them from 16.09.2015 i.e., since past 9 years and are residing separately. They also depose that

P.W.2 agreed that she will not institute any civil and criminal cases against P.W.1 and his family members even after decree on mutual consent divorce. In view of this evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it is evident that there is long separation between the

SCJ 5 of 5 Order in HMOP No.79 of 2025 petitioners and that they settled the matter outside the Court for obtaining divorce on mutual consent and there are no chances for re-union of couple and that there are no reasons to deny the request of the petitioners to grant Divorce. Therefore, the

Petition can be allowed. Accordingly, the point is answered.

9.In the result, the petition is allowed granting decree of divorce under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act and dissolving the Marriage of the petitioners that was performed on 25.12.2013.

Typed to my dictation directly , corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7 th day of November, 2025.

Senior Civil Judge

Nirmal

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner s :

P.W.1: Muddeti Chandrashekar

P.W.2: Muddeti @ J.Brundavani

Exhibits Marked

For Petitioner s :

Ex.P1: Original Marriage Wedding card.

Ex.P2: Marriage Photograph.

Senior Civil Judge

Nirmal

SCJ

1/5

HMOP No.22 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: AT NIRMAL

Present:- Sri G. Srinivas,

Senior Civil Judge,

Nirmal

Thursday, this the 30th day of October, 2025

H.M.O.P. No.22 of 2025

Between:

Vantankar @ Ambhore Ashwini, D/o Saheb Rao, W/o. Ravi Ambhore, Aged about 25 years, R/o.H.No.8-15, Sevadas Nagar, Near X Road, Sagar Village, R/M. Utnoor, District Adilabad. …Petitioner No.1

//AND//

Ravi Yellapa Ambhore, S/o. Yellapa Ambhore, Aged about 32 years, R/o. H.No.8-15, Sevadas Nagar Near X Road Village Sagar, R/M. Utnoor, District Adilabad.

…Petitioner No.2

This petition is coming before me on 29.10.2025 in the presence of Sri. Karipe Ganesh and Sri. P. Naveen Learned Counsel for petitioners No.1 and 2 and having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:

:: O R D E R::

1. This petition is filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu

Marriage Act 1955, with a prayer to grant decree of divorce and dissolve the marriage of the petitioners.

2. The brief averments of the petition are that the marriage between the petitioners was solemnized on 15.10.2016 at Niwagha bazar Village and Thauq Hathgaon, District Nanded, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. That the said marriage was consummated, that the parties co-habited as husband and wife at the matrimonial home at Nirmal. The petitioners could not adjust with each other

SCJ 2/5

HMOP No.22 of 2025

because of temperamental differences and that their marriage was broken down irretrievably and it is not possible for them to live as wife and husband anymore. All the efforts of reconciliation between the petitioners to continue the present marriage failed and there are no further chances of reconciliation. The petitioners are residing separately since 2 years and there is no cohabitation since then between the petitioners; that the petitioners now decided to dissolve the marriage legally through a decree of divorce on mutual consent.

That the Petitioners settled their claims, counter claims etc., and petitioner No.1 received her entire stridhan and permanent alimony, maintenance etc., and there is no due with regard to any other claim between the petitioners. Petitioner No.2 agreed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- in all to petitioner No.1 towards maintenance, past and future,

Stridhan, dowry in whatever form etc., and that Petitioner No.1 will have no right to lay any claim whatsoever on the person or any property of petitioner No.2. Out of the said amount of

Rs.5,00,000/-, petitioner No.2 already paid that amount to petitioner No.1 by way of cash on 18.02.2025 before the villagers and community elders. Hence, the petition.

3.Reconciliation efforts made by this Court are not fruitful.

Inspite of observing the cooling period of 6 months, the petitioners stick to their version to obtain divorce on mutual consent.

SCJ 3/5

HMOP No.22 of 2025

4.The petitioners are examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.P1 to P2.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

6.The point that arises for consideration is as to whether the petition can be allowed granting decree of divorce, as prayed for.

POINT:

7.The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is that their marriage was performed on 15.10.2016 as per the Hindu rites and ceremonies and their marriage is consummated. Their evidence is supported by

Ex.P.1 - Wedding card and Ex.P.2 - marriage photograph. Since the petition is filed after more than one year of the marriage of the petitioners, the same can be considered for divorce.

8.The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is that they could not adjust with each other because of temperamental differences and that their marriage was broken down irretrievably and it is not possible for them to live as wife and husband. They also depose that all efforts of reconciliation between them to continue their marriage failed and there are no further chances of reconciliation between them. P.Ws.1 and 2 also depose that they are residing separately

SCJ 4/5

HMOP No.22 of 2025

since 2 years and there is no cohabitation since then. They also depose that they have decided to dissolve their marriage legally through a decree of divorce on mutual consent and they settled all their claims. It is evident from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that

P.W.2 ageed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- in all to P.W.1 towards her maintenance, past and future, Stridhan, dowry etc., and that P.W.1 would not have any right to lay any claim whatsoever on the person or any property of P.W.2. This evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 establishes that there are no chances for reunion of the couple and that the petitioners already settled their issues outside the court and it appears that there are no chances for reconciliation and that as such, the petition can be allowed, as prayed for. Accordingly, the point is answered.

9.In the result, the petition is allowed granting decree of divorce under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act and dissolving the marriage of the petitioners that was performed on 15.10.2016.

Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed and Typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30 th day of October, 2025.

Senior Civil Judge

Nirmal

SCJ 5/5

HMOP No.22 of 2025

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Petitioners

P.W.1: Vankankar @ Ambhore Ashwini P.W.2: Ravi Yellapa Ambhore

Exhibits Marked

For Petitioners

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

Senior Civil Judge

Nirmal

SCJ