G. Uday Bhaskar Rao

Page 1 of 7 Order in H.M.O.P.No.34/2019

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NIRMAL

Present: Sri G. Uday Bhaskar Rao,

Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad

FAC: Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal.

Monday, the 5th day of July, 2021.

H.M.O.P.No.34/2019

Between: Bandari Aravind S/o. B. Shankaraiah, Aged 27 years, Occ: Soldier, Indian Army, R/o. Munnanoor village of Midjil Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. …Petitioner. // AND //

Rapelli Saritha D/o. Bhumanna, Aged 24 years, Caste: Golla, Occ: Tailor, Native of Patha Yellapur Village of Khanapur Mandal, presently residing at Vidyanagar, Khanapur Mandal, Nirmal District. …Respondent.

This petition is coming on 09.04.2021 before me in the presence of Sri G. Srinivas and Sri M. Suresh, Counsel for the Petitioner and of Sri V. Shyam Sunder Reddy, Counsel for Respondent, having heard and stood over for consideration this Court delivered the following :

O R D E R

This Original Petition is filed by the Petitioner Under

Section 12(1)(C) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to declare the marriage between the petitioner and respondent as void by granting decree of Nullity of marriage which registered on 13.03.2019 before Marriage Officer, Khanapur vide registration

HM.No.120/HM/2019.

2(a).The brief case of the Petitioner as disclosed in the

Petition is that the respondent is known to petitioner in the year

Page 2 of 7 Order in H.M.O.P.No.34/2019 2016 through one of the colleague, used to talk over cell phone now and then by the petitioner as well as by the respondent and used to meet on holidays of the petitioner. The Petitioner further submitted that his marriage was fixed with the relative by name

Aruna and the engagement ceremony was conducted on 08.03.2019 by both side elders. The Petitioner further submitted that the respondent called him several times on mobile and he met the Respondent on 10.03.2019 at Nirmal, then some of the followers of respondent and the Police, Nirmal forcefully took the petitioner along with respondent to Police Station, Nirmal and the

Police directed the petitioner to act as per the terms of respondent, otherwise the petitioner will be booked in a criminal case and job of the petitioner will be loosed and the future of the petitioner will be spoiled. The petitioner further submitted that from there the petitioner and respondent were sent to Police Station Khanapur, from there again came to Nirmal and stayed in a hotel and that the respondent and followers obtained some photos in a photo studio with Garlands showing that the petitioner is tied Thali on the neck of respondent and created some evidence as if to show that there was a marriage between the petitioner and respondent and on 13.03.2019 with the help of created evidence, marriage was registered before the Registrar of Marriage, Khanapur.

2(b). The Petitioner further submitted that the registration of marriage is by force and playing fraud and also the respondent and

Page 3 of 7 Order in H.M.O.P.No.34/2019 other her relatives compelled to stay with them by snatching I.D.

Cards and all other documents.

2(c). The Petitioner further submitted that the respondent got registered the criminal case before Police Midjil vide Crime

No.44/2019 under sections 498-A, 494 IPC against the petitioner on 16.05.2019 and also got registered a case in Crime No.89/2019 under sections 494, 198-A r/w. Section 34 IPC against 15 members.

Hence the Petitioner prays to declare the marriage between the petitioner and respondent as void by passing a decree of Nullity of marriage.

3(a).The Brief case of the Respondent is that, the

Respondent denied all the allegations made by Petitioner except lodging of complaint before Police Midjil and submitted that in the year 2016, the petitioner and respondent known to each other and started love and affection towards each other, they performed marriage on 10.03.2019 at Sai Baba Temple, Nirmal as per Hindu custom and traditions. The Respondent further submitted that after the marriage, with the mediation of elders, the parents of respondent accepted the marriage of respondent with petitioner and it was also registered at SRO, Khanapur in the presence of witness on 13.03.2019. The Respondent stated that her parents presented an amount of Rupees Twenty Lakhs to the petitioner as dowry and the parents of respondent performed marriage reception at Adelly Pochamma Temple.

Page 4 of 7 Order in H.M.O.P.No.34/2019 3(b).The Respondent further submitted that Petitioner went to Rajasthan to perform his duties and after that he never called the respondent on phone for so many days, hence the respondent along with her parents went to village of petitioner and on their enquiry, they came to know that the petitioner illegally performed second marriage with one Aruna, hence the Respondent and her parents questioned the parents of petitioner, but they recklessly warned the respondent with dire consequences with support of their other family members, hence the respondent under helpless condition filed complaint before the police. The Respondent further submitted that their marriage was performed with free will and consent and without any force or fraud and the registration of their marriage at SRO, Khanapur also done under the due process of law and the petitioner performed second marriage with one Aruna, which is illegal and punishable under law; and the Respondent finally prayed to dismiss petition.

04.In order to prove the case, the Petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and Exs.A1 and A2 are marked in support of the case of Petitioner. The Respondent examined herself as RW-1, but no documents are marked on her behalf.

05.Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the record.

06.Basing on the contentions of both sides, now the point for consideration before this Court is :

Page 5 of 7 Order in H.M.O.P.No.34/2019 “Whether the marriage between the petitioner

and respondent is to be declared as void by granting

decree of Nullity of marriage, which registered on

13.03.2019 before Marriage Officer, Khanapur vide

registration HM.No.120/HM/2019 as prayed for ? ”

07. POINT :

The petitioner’s contention is that by playing fraud and force his marriage was performed with the respondent and fraudulently got registered his marriage, hence prays to declare his marriage as null and void.

08.The petitioner examined himself as Pw1 and marked

ExA1/Marriage certificate, ExA2 is Form-B issued by SRO are in support to his claim.

09.On the other hand, respondent filed her chief affidavit in contrary to her counter pleadings. RW1 in her entire chief affidavit admitting the contents of pleadings of petition, she also stated that they compromised the matter out side the court for an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- and she received advance of Rs.

12,00,000/- and remaining Rs. 8,00,000/- is due, the same to be paid at the time of closing of criminal case. Respondent in her counter stated that she fell in love and married the petitioner. The petitioner again married another woman. RW1 in her evidence she did not depose the same in contrary, she admitted the contents of the petition, hence petitioner’s counsel reported cross nil.

Page 6 of 7 Order in H.M.O.P.No.34/2019 10.On going through the evidence on record, the petitioner has proved that, he was threatened by the police and under the influence of respondent family members and by playing fraud his marriage was performed with the respondent. As in this case respondent did not gave evidence in support to her own pleadings and as evident by the chief affidavit that the parties compromised out side the court, hence in these peculiar circumstances as respondent also being admitted the contents of the petition in her chief evidence. Further the respondent did not adduce any evidence, therefore the petitioner has proved that force and fraud is played against him for marrying the respondent. Therefore, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner.

11.In the result, the Petition is allowed and accordingly the marriage between the petitioner and respondent is declared as void by granting decree of Nullity of marriage. No cost.

Typed to my dictation directly on the Computer by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 5th day of July, 2021.

FAC: Senior Civil Judge,

Nirmal.

Page 7 of 7 Order in H.M.O.P.No.34/2019

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner For Respondent

PW-1Sri Bandari Aravind RW-1Smt. Bandari @ Rapelli [Petitioner/Husband]Saritha (Respondent/Wife)

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

For Petitioner For Respondent

Ex.A1Marriage Certificate Ex.A2Certified copy of proceedings of Nil. Form-B issued by SRO.

FAC: Senior Civil Judge,

Nirmal.

Page 1 of 4 Order in H.M.O.P.No.23/2021

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NIRMAL

Present: Sri G. Uday Bhasker Rao,

Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad

FAC: Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal.

Friday, the 2nd day of July, 2021.

H.M.O.P.No.23/2021

Between: Kusma Sandhya @ Manpuri Sandhya W/o. Sridhar, Age: 26 years, Caste: Padmashali, Occ: Household, R/o. Vidyanagar, Khanapur Town, District: Nirmal. Presently residing at her parents house Eidgaon, R/M. Nirmal, District: Nirmal.

…Petitioner No.1 AND

Kusma Sridhar S/o. Narayana, Age: 34 years, Caste: Padmashali, Occ: Govt. Employee, R/o. Vidyanagar Street of Khanapur, District: Nirmal. Present R/o. Asifabad. … Petitioner No.2

This petition is coming on 09.04.2021 before me in the presence of Sri D. Rajashekar and Sri V. Mahender, Counsel for the Petitioners No.1 and 2, having heard and stood over for consideration this Court delivered the following :

O R D E R

This is a Original Petition filed by the Petitioners No.1 and 2

Under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying this court to grant a Decree of Divorce between both the Petitioners on mutual consent by dissolving their marriage.

2.The brief case of the Petitioners is that both the Petitioners were married on 06.07.2018 as per traditional caste and customs prevailed in their community according to Hindu rites at CM Rao

Gardens, Khanapur and that soon after their marriage the Petitioner

No.1 joined the company of Petitioner No.2 at her in-law’s house and lead happy matrimonial life. The Petitioners No.1 and 2 further submitted that during their conjugal life, there were several disputes

Page 2 of 4 Order in H.M.O.P.No.23/2021 aroused between them and after the marriage of two months those disputes could be resolved despite of several mediation have been taken place between them in the presence of both side elders and family members. The Petitioners No.1 and 2 further submitted that the petitioner No.1 has been residing separately from the petitioner No.2 from 06.11.2018 at her parents house, since then no cohabitation has taken place between them and ended relationship as being husband and wife and out of the conjugal life, no issues begotten. The

Petitioners No.1 and 2 further submitted that petitioner No.1

filed HMOP.No.25/2020 dissolving her marriage against the

petitioner No.2 on the file of this Court and in the meantime

the petitioner No.2 also filed divorce petition at Hon’ble Senior

Civil Judge’s Court, Asifabad and the said case has transferred

to this Court as per the orders of Hon’ble District Court,

Adilabad renumbered vide HMOP.No.13/2011. The Petitioners

No.1 and 2 further submitted that six months of sleeping

period may be calculate as the petitioner No.1 already filed

divorce petition vide HMOP.No.25/2020 before this Court.

Hence the petitioners have mutually agreed and decided to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent as there is no chance of reconciliation. Therefore, both the Petitioners have filed the present petition for decree of divorce by mutual consent.

3.Heard the arguments of counsel of both parties and perused the material on record.

4.Basing on the contention of Petitioners, now the point for consideration is :

“Whether the decree of divorce by mutual consent is to be granted to Petitioners by dissolving their marriage”.

Page 3 of 4 Order in H.M.O.P.No.23/2021

5. POINT :

Petitioner No.1 examined as PW.1 and Petitioner No.2 examined as PW.2. Ex.A1 is the xerox copy of Wedding Card and Ex.A2 is the xerox copy of wedding photograph are marked through PW.2.

During course of enquiry, both the petitioners present and both of them have voluntarily deposed that their marriage was performed as per Hindu rites and customs, but later due to some misunderstandings between them, they have decided to take decree of divorce by mutual consent and that there was no cohabitation between them and that

Mediation took place, but it was failed to make both the parties live together.

6.In view of the contents of the petition and the testimonies of PWs.1 and 2 before this Court, the ingredients required U/sec.13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are complied with, both the Petitioners willing to take divorce on mutual consent by dissolving their marriage.

The statutory waiting period of six months as required

U/Sec.13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is waved as per the

orders in IA.No.35/2021 dated 9.4.2021. During the course of enquiry, this Court also made efforts for re-union of both the petitioners, but in vain.

7.In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, this Court holds that it is just and proper to grant decree of divorce on mutual consent by dissolving the marriage between both the

Petitioners No. 1 and 2.

Page 4 of 4 Order in H.M.O.P.No.23/2021

8. In the result, the Petition is allowed and accordingly, the decree of divorce is granted on mutual consent by dissolving the marriage between the Petitioners No.1 and 2 with effect from the date of decree. There shall be no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation directly on the Computer by Typist, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 2nd day of July, 2021.

FAC: Senior Civil Judge,

Nirmal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioners:

PW-1:Kusma Sandhya [Petitioner No.1/Wife].

PW-2:Kusma Sridhar [Petitioner No.2/Husband].

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioners:

Ex.A1 : Xerox copy of wedding photograph

Ex.A2 : Xerox copy of wedding photograph

FAC: Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal.

Page No.1 of 2 OS.No.31/2011

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NIRMAL.

Present: Sri G. Uday Bhaskar Rao,

Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad,

FAC: Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal.

Friday, the 9th day of April, 2021.

O.S.No.31/2011

Between:

1. M. Peeraji S/o. Dashrath, Age: 48 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Kharbala, R/M. Tanoor, Dist. Adilabad.

2. M. Dhrupada Bai W/o. Dashrath, Age: 70 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Kharbala.

3. M. Gangu Bai W/o. Dashrath, Age: 52 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Kharbala, R/M. Tanoor, Dist. Adilabad.

....Plaintiffs

// And //

1. M. Lalu S/o. Kamanna, Age: 60 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Kharbala.

2. M. Marothi S/o. Kamanna, Age: 55 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Kharbala

3. M. Nagorao S/o. Kamanna died per LRs Defendant No.4 to 9

4. Sumanbai W/o. Nagorao, Age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture

5. Shankar S/o. Nagorao, Age: 30 years, Occ: Agriculture

6. Shivaji S/o. Nagorao, Age: 26 years, Occ: Agriculture

7. Mahadu S/o. Nagorao, Age: 24 years, Occ: Agriculture

8. Dattatray S/o. Nagorao, Age: 22 years, Occ: Agriculture

All R/o. Kharbala, R/M. Tanoor, Dist. Nirmal.

9. Sagar bai W/o. Sainath, Age: 28 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Yelvi village, R/M. Tanoor.

(Defendants No.1 to 9 are brought on record as per orders in IA.No.364/2017 dated 13.10.2017)

.... Defendants No.1 to 9

CLAIM FOR: The suit is filed by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants under Order VII Rule 1 R/W. Section 26 of CPC to declare the Plaintiffs as the owners of the suit lands and put the plaintiffs into the possession of the suit property by evicting the defendants from it.

Page No.2 of 2 OS.No.31/2011

This original suit is coming before me on 09.04.2021 in the presence of Sri Dileep Kulkarni, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and of Sri Venkatesh Pardikar, Advocate for Defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

The suit is restored as per orders in IA.No.105/2018. Plaintiff counsel and defendant counsel filed memo stating parties compromised the case and prays to refer the case to Lok Adalath.

Hence considering the same, this case is referred to Lok Adalath.

Both parties Plaintiff No.1 to 3, D1, D2 and D4 to D9 present.

Both counsel present, filed terms of compromise. Plaintiff No.1 to 3, D1, D2 and D4 to D9 agreed as per the terms of compromise, both counsels reported the same, hence the suit is decreed in terms of compromise.

Written and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 9th day of April, 2021.

Sd/-

FAC: Senior Civil Judge,

Nirmal.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NIRMAL.

Present: Sri. G. Uday Bhaskar Rao,

Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad,

FAC: Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal.

Friday, the 16th day of July, 2021.

H.M.O.P.No.17/2019

Between: Shinde Manohar S/o. Shinde Pandari, Age: 24 years, Caste and Religion: Maratha – Hindu, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No.1-99/1, Venkur Village, R/M. Kuntala, District: Nirmal.

....Petitioner

// And // Shinde Ujvala @ Durga Samiksha W/o. Shinde Manohar, Age: 23 years, Caste and Religion: Maratha – Hindu, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Venkur Village. Now residing at C/o. Savanth Subhash Patil, adjacent to Sai Supriya Hospital, Narsimha Nagar, Bhainsa, Mandal: Bhainsa.

.... Respondent

CLAIM FOR: Petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights.

O R D E R

HMOP is advanced to today as per order in IA.No.46/2021 filed by the Petitioner.

Petitioner present. Sri. P. Anil Kumar, Advocate filed vakalath

for Petitioner as earlier counsel gave no objection. Petitioner

counsel reported that petitioner not pressing the

HMOP.No.17/2019. Petitioner and his counsel Sri. P. Anil Kumar,

Advocate endorsed on petition that they not pressing the petition.

Hence, this petition is dismissed as not pressed.

Written and pronounced by me in the Court on this the 16th day of July, 2021.

FAC: Senior Civil Judge,

Nirmal.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NIRMAL.

Present: Sri. G. Uday Bhaskar Rao,

Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad,

FAC: Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal.

Friday, the 9th day of April, 2021.

H.M.O.P.No.9/2016

Between: Vukanti Laxmi @ Sravani W/o. V. Raja Venkata Narayan Rao, Aged about 23 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Mahaboobnagar and Adarshanagar, Nirmal, now residing at her parents house near Saraswathi Temple, Basar, District. Adilabad.

....Petitioner

// And // Vukanti Raja Venkata Narayan Rao S/o. Bhojan Rao, Aged about 38 years, Occ: Asst. Professor in Mahaboobnagar University, R/o. Ramnagar colony, Old city, Mahaboobnagar, Native place is H.No.1-4-125, Adarshnagar, Nirmal, District: Adilabad.

.... Respondent

CLAIM FOR: Petition filed under Section 13 (1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for Decree of divorce.

O R D E R

Both absent. No representation. Petitioner not ready even posted on condition as last chance, hence petition is dismissed for default.

Written and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 9th day of April, 2021.

FAC: Senior Civil Judge,

Nirmal.