Dr. G.v. Mahesh Naath

IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-cum-IV ADDL

DISTRICT JUDGE AT KHAMMAM

Friday, the 15th day of May, 2026

Present: Dr. G. V. Mahesh Naath

Judge,Family Court-cum-

IV Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Khammam.

G.W.O.P.No. 4/2026

Between:

1.Kamjula Swapna, W/o Late Srinivas Reddy, Age:43 years, Occu:Household, is the petitioner No.1. 2.Kamjula Pradeep Reddy, S/o Late Srinivas Reddy, Age: 17 years, Occu: Student (12th Class, Indus International School, Hyderabad). 3.Kamjula Kartheek Reddy, S/o Late Srinivas Reddy, Age: 15 years, Occu: Student (10th Class, Indus International School, Hyderabad). 44.Kamjula Annapurnamma, W/o Maheswar Reddy, Age: 69 years, Occu:Household. 5.Kamjula Maheswar Reddy, S/o Late Narsi Reddy, Age: 78 years, Occu: Nil.

All are H.No.10-1-43, Flat No.G-3, Brundavanam Apartments, Sai Baba Temple Road, Mamillagudem, Khammam City & District.

(Petitioner No.2 and 3 being minors, rep. By their mother as natural guardian ie., petitioner No.1)

......Petitioners

And

TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN ...Respondent

This petition coming before me today i.e., 15.05.2026 for hearing in the presence of Sri M.Niranjan Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioners; respondents (To whom it may concerned); upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court passed the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed under Sections 8(2) and 8(4) read with Section 29 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 seeking appointment/declaration of

Page 2 of 6 Order in GWOP 4 of 2026 dated 15.05.2026 petitioner No.1 as guardian of the minor petitioners No.2 and 3 and also seeking permission of the Court to alienate the schedule property belonging to the minors’ share for their welfare, maintenance and educational needs.

2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that petitioner No.1 is the wife of late Kamjula Srinivas Reddy, petitioners No.2 and 3 are the minor sons and petitioners No.4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased Srinivas Reddy. It is stated that late Srinivas Reddy died intestate on 01.05.2025 leaving behind the petitioners as his legal heirs.

3.It is further pleaded that during his lifetime, late Srinivas Reddy acquired the petition schedule property out of his self earnings and the same is his exclusive self-acquired property. The deceased was working as an Architect under the name and style of “Shilpi Architect” and was also carrying on real estate business.

4.According to the petitioners, the minors are studying in reputed educational institutions at Hyderabad and substantial expenditure is required towards their education, maintenance and future welfare. Petitioner No.1, being a housewife, has no independent source of income and there is no income from the schedule property. It is further pleaded that petitioners No.4 and 5 are aged persons suffering from chronic ailments. Hence, petitioner No.1 intends to alienate the schedule property for the welfare, education and maintenance of the minors and family necessities.

Page 3 of 6 Order in GWOP 4 of 2026 dated 15.05.2026

5.The petition schedule property is described as vacant site admeasuring

Ac.280.50 square yards situated in Sy.No.248/AA of V.Venkatayapalem,

Raghunadhapalem Mandal, Khammam District, valued at Rs.47,09,000/-.

6. Notice was published in the newspaper and none came objecting the claim of petitioners.

7. In support of their case, petitioner No.1 examined herself as PW.1 and filed proof affidavit reiterating the petition averments. She relied upon the following documents:

1. Ex.P1 – Death Certificate of late Srinivas Reddy;

2. Ex.P2 – Family Member Certificate;

3. Ex.P3 – Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 29.07.1997;

4. Ex.P4 – Agreement of sale dated 18.08.2025;

5. Ex.P5 – Aadhaar cards of petitioners.

8. Further, PW.2/Gayam Jayaram Subba Reddy, a family relative acquainted with the affairs of the family, was examined. He supported the version of petitioner No.1 and deposed that the proposed alienation is intended only for the welfare, education and benefit of the minors and family. He also deposed that the schedule property is the self-acquired property of late Srinivas Reddy.

9.The evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 remained unchallenged as there is no cross-examination.

Heard and perused the record. Now the points for consideration are:

1. Whether petitioner No.1 is fit and proper person to be appointed/declared as guardian of the person and property of minor petitioners No.2 and 3?

Page 4 of 6 Order in GWOP 4 of 2026 dated 15.05.2026

2. Whether the petitioners established that the proposed alienation of the petition schedule property is necessary and beneficial for the welfare of the minors?

3. To what relief?

Point Nos.1 and 2:

10.Under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the mother is a natural guardian of the minor children after the father. Further, Section 8 of the said Act mandates that any transfer of immovable property belonging to minors by the natural guardian requires prior permission of the competent Court and such permission can be granted only when the transaction is necessary or evidently advantageous to the minor.

11.The paramount consideration in matters relating to guardianship and alienation of minor’s property is the welfare of the minor. The Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India (1999) 2 SCC 228 held that welfare of the child is the supreme consideration while dealing with guardianship matters.

12. In the present case, the oral and documentary evidence clearly establish that late Srinivas Reddy died intestate leaving behind petitioner No.1, the minors and aged parents as legal heirs. Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 corroborate the said fact.

13.Ex.P3 shows that the schedule property was acquired by late Srinivas

Reddy jointly with Y. Savithri and there is no evidence to show that the property is ancestral or joint family property. The unrebutted testimony of PW.1 and PW.2 establishes that the property is self-acquired property of the deceased.

Page 5 of 6 Order in GWOP 4 of 2026 dated 15.05.2026

14.The evidence further discloses that the minors are pursuing education in reputed educational institutions and considerable expenditure is required towards their education and maintenance. Petitioner No.1 is a housewife having no independent income. There is no material to show that petitioner No.1 has any interest adverse to that of the minors. On the contrary, the evidence reflects that the proposed sale is intended for meeting educational and maintenance expenses of the minors and for safeguarding their welfare.

15. It is observed that welfare of the minor includes moral, ethical, educational and physical well-being. The proposed alienation in the present case appears to be for such welfare and necessity.

16.As the testimony of PW.1 and PW.2 remained unchallenged and there is no contra evidence, this Court finds that petitioner No.1 is a fit and proper person to act as guardian of the minors and that the proposed alienation is necessary and beneficial for the welfare of the minors. Accordingly, Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the petitioners.

5. Relief:

In the result, the petition is allowed with the following directions:

1. Petitioner No.1 namely Kamjula Swapna is appointed/declared as guardian of the person and property of minor petitioners No.2 and 3 namely:

2. (1)KamjulaPradeepReddy,and (2) Kamjula Kartheek Reddy.

3. Petitioner No.1 is permitted to alienate/sell the minors’ share in the petition schedule property, namely:

Page 6 of 6 Order in GWOP 4 of 2026 dated 15.05.2026

Vacant site admeasuring 280.50 square yards out of Sy.No.248/AA of V.

Venkatayapalem, Raghunadhapalem Mandal, Khammam District along with

joint owner Smt Yatham Savithri w/o. Srinivas Reddy R/o Khammam.

4. The sale proceeds pertaining to the share of the minors shall be utilized only for their education, maintenance, welfare and other genuine necessities.

5. Petitioner No.1 shall safeguard the interest of the minors and shall not misuse the sale proceeds.

6. No order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, Grade-I, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 15th day of May, 2026.

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-

IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KHAMMAM

-APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE-

PW1: Kamjula Swapna

PW2: Gayam Jayaram Subba Reddy.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PETITIONER

1. Ex.P1 – Death Certificate of late Srinivas Reddy;

2. Ex.P2 – Family Member Certificate;

3. Ex.P3 – Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 29.07.1997;

4. Ex.P4 – Agreement of sale dated 18.08.2025;

5. Ex.P5 – Aadhaar cards of petitioners.

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-

IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KHAMMAM

FCOP.206-21 Order U/s 13 (B) of HM Act

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-

IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT KHAMMAM.

Wednesday, the 13th day of May, 2026.

Present: Dr.G.V.Mahesh Naath,

Judge, Family Court-cum-

IV Additional District Judge, Khammam.

F.C.O.P. No. 206 of 2021

Between:

1.XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 2.XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ……. Petitioners.

This petition coming before me for hearing on 06.05.2026 in the presence of Sri Beesha Ramesh and Sri A.Rama Rao, Advocates for Petitioner Nos.1 and 2; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments of both the counsel

for petitioner No.1 and 2 respectively and having stood over for

consideration till this day, the Court passed the following:

O R D E R

This petition was originally filed by the petitioner-wife under

Sections 13 (1) (ia) and 13 (1) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion against the respondent-husband.

2.During pendency of the proceedings, both parties filed I.A.No.6 of 2026 seeking amendment/conversion of the original petition into a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. This Court, by orders in I.A.No.6 of 2026, permitted

IV Addl.DJ 1/6 May 13, 2026

FCOP.206-21 Order U/s 13 (B) of HM Act

amendment of the petition and consequently both parties prosecuted the matter as a petition for divorce by mutual consent.

Facts of the Case:

3.The marriage between petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 was solemnized on 05.12.2008 as per Hindu rites and customs. Out of the wedlock, they were blessed with three female children namely Tripura

XXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXXXXXX.

4.The original petition disclosed several matrimonial disputes and allegations of cruelty, harassment, incompatibility and desertion. The parties have admittedly been living separately since 08.04.2017 and all efforts made by elders and well-wishers for reconciliation failed.

5.Subsequently, both parties amicably settled their disputes and jointly filed the amended petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu

Marriage Act seeking dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. The terms and conditions agreed between the parties were also placed before the Court. The petitioners stated that there is no collusion, force, fraud or undue influence in filing the petition. They categorically expressed that they are unable to live together and there is no possibility of reunion.

Terms of Settlement:

6.As per the compromise terms entered between the parties:

IV Addl.DJ 2/6 May 13, 2026

FCOP.206-21 Order U/s 13 (B) of HM Act

a) Both parties agreed not to interfere in each other’s personal lives in future and to live independently.

b) Petitioner No.2/father agreed to bear the responsibility of maintenance, education, marriage expenses and welfare of the three children.

c) Petitioner No.1/mother was granted visitation rights to meet the children outside the residence of petitioner No.2 with prior intimation preferably during weekends and holidays.

d) During vacations and festivals, if the children are willing to visit maternal grandparents, the same shall be facilitated peacefully.

e) Both parties agreed not to claim restitution of conjugal rights or reunion in future.

Evidence:

7.Petitioner No.1 examined herself as PW.1 and petitioner No.2 examined himself as PW.2. Ex.P1 to P4 documents are marked. Both reiterated the contents of the amended petition and affirmed that they voluntarily entered into settlement without coercion.

8.Heard and perused the record. Now the Point for

Consideration are:

1) Whether the petitioners are entitled for a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act?

2) To what result?

Point No.1:

9.Under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, a decree of

IV Addl.DJ 3/6 May 13, 2026

FCOP.206-21 Order U/s 13 (B) of HM Act

divorce by mutual consent can be granted when the parties have been living separately for a period of more than one year, they have not been able to live together and they mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved.

10.In the present case, the material on record clearly establishes that the parties have been living separately since 08.04.2017, i.e., for more than the statutory period. The evidence of both parties further demonstrates that all attempts for reconciliation failed and there is no possibility of reunion.

11.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen

Kaur (2017) 8 SCC 746, observed that the period mentioned in Section 13B(2) is not mandatory but directory, and the court has the discretion to waive it based on the facts and circumstances of each case. Conditions to invoke discretion of court include parties living separately beyond statutory period, failed mediation, genuine settlement, and agony prolongation.

12.Further, in Sureshta Devi v. Om Prakash(1991) 2 SCC 25, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that mutual consent must continue till passing of decree and the Court must be satisfied about the free consent of parties.

IV Addl.DJ 4/6 May 13, 2026

FCOP.206-21 Order U/s 13 (B) of HM Act

13.In the present case, both parties personally appeared before the Court and affirmed their consent voluntarily. The settlement terms relating to welfare of the minor children and visitation rights appear fair, reasonable and in the best interest of the children.

14.This Court is therefore satisfied that the requirements contemplated under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act are fully complied with and the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, point no.1 is answered in favour of petitioners.

Point No.2:

In the result, the petition is allowed.

The marriage solemnized between petitioner No.1

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX and petitioner No.2 XXXXXXXXXXX on 05.12.2008 is hereby dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent under

Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The terms and conditions agreed between the parties shall form part and parcel of this decree.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, Grade-I, transcribed by him,

corrected in soft copy and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 13th day of May, 2026.

IV Addl.DJ 5/6 May 13, 2026

FCOP.206-21 Order U/s 13 (B) of HM Act

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-

IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

-APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE-

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Petitioners:

P.W.1: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX-Petitioner No.1 P.W.2: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX-Petitioner No.2

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Petitioner No.1:

Ex.P1: Wedding card Ex.P2: Marriage photographs (2 Nos), reception photograph (No.1) and joint photograph along with elder daughter (No.1). Ex.P3: Xerox copy of Aadhar card of Petitioner No.1 (verified with original)

Petitioner No.2: Ex.P4:Xerox copy of Aadhar card of Petitioner No.2 (verified with original)

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-

IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

IV Addl.DJ 6/6 May 13, 2026

Page No. 1 of total 4 pages Order in Crl.M.P.No.512-26 in Cr.No.117-26, Dt.13.05.2026.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-

IV ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, KHAMMAM

Wednesday, this the 13th day of May, 2026.

Present: Dr.G.V.Mahesh Naath,

Judge, Family Court-cum-

IV Addl.Sessions Judge, Khammam.

Crl.M.P.No. 512 of 2026

in

Crime No. 117 of 2026

(P.S.Tirumalayapalem)

Between:

Guguloth Ravi, S/o.Sathyam, Age:31 years, Occu:Maruthi Dzire Car bearing No.TS.04-UD-9767, R/o.Bachodu Thanda village, Tirumalayapalem Mandal, Khammam District.

….....Petitioner/Accused.

And

The State P.S.Tirumalayapalem, through Additional Public Prosecutor, Khammam.

…....Respondent/Complainant

This petition coming before me on 11.05.2026 for hearing in the presence of Sri K.Kranthi Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioner/Accused and that of Smt.P.Swapna, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State; upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of both sides, this Court passed the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail by the petitioner/accused in Crime

No.117 of 2026 of Thirumalayapalem Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 118(1), 109 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya

Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Page No. 2 of total 4 pages Order in Crl.M.P.No.512-26 in Cr.No.117-26, Dt.13.05.2026.

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 27.04.2026 the informant/victim lodged a report alleging that on 23.04.2026 at about 9:00 PM, while he was at a Kirana shop, the accused approached him, abused him in filthy language, caught hold of him, threw him on the ground and threatened to kill him with his car. Thereafter, when the relatives of the informant came to the spot, the accused allegedly went to his Maruti Dzire car bearing No.TS-04-UD- 9767 and intentionally drove the vehicle in a rash manner towards the informant and his family members with an intention to kill them. It is alleged that LW-2 sustained bleeding injuries on her leg and another injured also sustained injuries in the incident.

3.During investigation, the Investigating Officer examined the witnesses, recorded their statements, conducted scene of offence panchanama, seized the vehicle involved in the offence and arrested the accused on 04.05.2026.

4.Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated due to family and civil disputes existing between the parties. It is submitted that the allegations are exaggerated and baseless. It is further contended that the petitioner is a car driver and sole breadwinner of his family and his continued detention would cause hardship to his family members. It is also argued that investigation is substantially completed and only filing of charge sheet remains. The petitioner expressed readiness to cooperate with investigation and abide by any conditions imposed by the Court.

5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail petition contending that the petitioner intentionally attempted to run over the informant and his family members using a car and thereby attempted to commit murder.

It is further submitted that the injured witness is still undergoing treatment and the accused, if released on bail, may threaten the witnesses, tamper with

Page No. 3 of total 4 pages Order in Crl.M.P.No.512-26 in Cr.No.117-26, Dt.13.05.2026.

evidence and repeat similar offences. The prosecution also pointed out that the accused and witnesses are residents of the same village and there exists every possibility of intimidation of witnesses. The prosecution therefore sought dismissal of the petition.

6.Heard and perused the record. Now the points for consideration are:

1.Whether the petitioner/accused is entitled to bail in the facts and circumstances of the case?

2.To what result?

Point No.1:

7.The "triple test" for granting bail is discussed by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2020) 13

SCC 791. It requires courts to assess if the accused is a flight risk, likely to tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses, alongside considering the offense's gravity.

8.In the present case, the allegations against the petitioner are grave in nature. The material available on record prima facie discloses that the petitioner, after threatening the informant, allegedly drove his vehicle towards the informant and his family members with intention to cause their death, resulting in injuries to one of the victims. The statements of injured witnesses and eyewitnesses collected during investigation prima facie support the prosecution case.

9.This Court also finds substance in the apprehension expressed by the prosecution that the accused and material witnesses belong to the same village and there exists a reasonable possibility of the petitioner influencing or threatening the witnesses if released on bail. The investigation papers further indicate prior disputes between the parties and continuing hostility.

Page No. 4 of total 4 pages Order in Crl.M.P.No.512-26 in Cr.No.117-26, Dt.13.05.2026.

10.Applying the triple test to the present facts, this Court is of the opinion that there exists likelihood of tampering with prosecution witnesses, there is possibility of threatening the injured witnesses who belong to the same locality and considering the violent nature of allegations, the possibility of repetition of similar acts cannot be ruled out at this stage.

11.Having regard to the seriousness of allegations, manner of commission of offence, stage of investigation, and the likelihood of witness intimidation, this Court is not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, point no.1 is answered against the petitioner.

Point No.2:

In the result, the bail petition is dismissed.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected in the soft

copy and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 13th day of May, 2026.

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-

IV ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

KHAMMAM

In the court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Additional

District Judge) at Khammam.

Friday, the 15th day of May, 2026

Present:Dr.G.V.Mahesh Naath,

Judge, Family Court-cum-

IV Addl.Dsitrict Judge, Khammam.

I.A.No. 02 of 2026

in

M.V.O.P.No. 466 of 2024

Between:

Yadla Mohan Rao, S/o.Late John, Age:40 years, Occu:Sarpanch of Yendapalli village, R/o.Malleswaram village, Chinthalapudi Mandal, Eluru District, presently residing at H.No.6-1- 275/2, VDO’s Colony, Khammam Town and District.

....Petitioner/Claim Petitioner.

And

1.Panem Srinivasa Rao, S/o.late Krishna, Age:53 years, Occu:RTC Bus Driver bearing No.AP.29-Z- 2836, Sathupally Depot, R/o.Kistaram village, Sathupally Mandal, Khammam District. (R1) 2.The Depot Manager, Sathupally Depot, TSRTC, Sathupally, Khammam District. (R2) 3.The Managing Director, TSRTC Bus Bhavan, RTC Cross Roads, Hyderabad (R3)

.....Respondents.

This petition is coming before me today i.e., 15.05.2026 for hearing in the presence of Sri R.Hari Prasad, Advocate for Petitioner/Claim petitioner; Sri V.Ramakrishna, Advocate for Respondent No.1 and that of Sri N.Ramu, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3; upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of both sides, this Court passed the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the petitioner/claim petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 r/w

Section 151 CPC seeking permission to enhance the compensation amount from Rs.3,00,000/- to

Rs.21,00,000/- and to carry out consequential amendments in the claim petition.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he sustained grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 02-04-2024 and initially filed the claim petition seeking compensation of

Rs.3,00,000/-. Subsequently, on 30-12-2024, he appeared before the Medical Board, Area Hospital,

Jangareddygudem, and the Medical Board assessed his permanent disability at 45% and issued disability certificate. According to the petitioner, in view of the permanent disability and continuing physical incapacity, enhancement of compensation has become necessary.

3.Respondents No.2 and 3 filed counter contending that the proposed enhancement is excessive and without basis. It is further contended that the disability certificate does not disclose that the disability arose due to the motor vehicle accident and that the disability mentioned therein relates to disease and infection. It is also contended that the petitioner obtained disability certificate from Andhra Pradesh though he is residing at Khammam. On those grounds, respondents prayed to dismiss the petition.

4.Heard both sides. Perused the material available on record. Now the points for consideration are:

1) “Whether the petitioner is entitled for amendment of the claim petition by enhancing the compensation from Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.21,00,000/-?”

2) to what result?

Point no.1:

5.It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner filed the main M.V.O.P. seeking compensation for injuries allegedly sustained in the accident dated 02-04-2024. The record further discloses that subsequent to filing of the claim petition, the petitioner obtained disability certificate from the Medical Board assessing permanent disability at 45%.

6.The proposed amendment is only with regard to enhancement of compensation and consequential pleadings. The nature and cause of action of the claim petition remain unchanged.

The objections raised by respondents regarding nexus between disability and accident, genuineness of disability certificate and quantum of compensation are matters to be decided during the course of trial upon appreciation of evidence.

7.It is well settled that in motor accident claim cases, the Tribunal is duty bound to award “just compensation” under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In Nagappa v. Gurudayal

Singh AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 674, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there is no restriction that compensation cannot exceed the amount originally claimed and procedural technicalities shall not stand in the way of awarding just compensation.

8.The proposed amendment is necessary for effective adjudication of the dispute and no prejudice would be caused to the respondents, as they are at liberty to contest the disability, nexus and quantum during trial by adducing evidence.Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, point no.1 is answered in favour of petitioner.

Point No.2:

In the result, the petition is allowed permitting the petitioner/claim petitioner to enhance the compensation amount from Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.21,00,000/- and to carry out consequential amendments wherever necessary in the claim petition.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me on this the 15th day of May, 2026.

CHAIRMAN

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-

IV ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE), KHAMMAM

-APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE-

CHAIRMAN

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-

IV ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE), KHAMMAM