Currently Serving

Sri G. Yagna Narayana

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADONI

II Addl District Court Adoni · Kurnool · Andhra Pradesh

Sri G. Yagna Narayana, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADONI, is posted at II Addl District Court Adoni, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh, India. 596 court orders on record since 2024. 6 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles H, OS, SC cases.

596

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

SC/39/2018 Acquitted

Sub Inspector of police, Tuggali police station vs Mala Raju

23 Apr 2026

S.C.No.39 OF 20181A.S.J. Court, Adoni.

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, ADONI.

Present: Sri G.YAGNA NARAYANA,

ASSISTANT SESSIONS, ADONI.

Thursday the 23 rd day of April, 2026

SESSIONS CASE No.39 OF 2018

(Cr.No.85/2017 of TUGGALI P.S.,)

State: Represented by Inspector of Police, Tuggali P.S.… COMPLAINANT.

- Versus -

1. Mala Raju, S/o Mala Sunkanna, age 33 years.

2. Mala Krishnamurthy, S/o Venkatesh, age 30 years. Both are Yedduladoddi village, Tuggali mandal.… Accused * * * * * * This Case coming before me for final hearing on 20.04.2026 in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for complainant and of Sri M.Sreedhar

Reddy, counsel for the accused A1 and A2. Having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The charge stands against the accused A1 and A2 for the offence

U/sec.324, 307 r/w 34 IPC.

2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Tuggali P.S., filed charge sheet against the accused A1 and A2 for the offence U/sec.324, 307 r/w 34 IPC in

Cr.No.85/2017.

3 . The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is as follows:

The accused A1 Mala Raju, A2 Mala Krishnamurthy are residents of

Yedduladoddi village, Tuggali Mandal this office took place at Yedduladoddi village, Tuggali Mandal which comes under the jurisdiction of this Court.

S.C.No.39 OF 20182A.S.J. Court, Adoni.

4.The Defacto complainant/Lw.1 M.D.Sreenivasulu is having adjacent house to the house of accused at Yedduladoddi village. On 27.11.2017 while the

Grampanchayath forming cement roads adjacent to the house of accused and

Lw.1, there were some disputes arose between Lw.1/M.D.Sreenivasulu and accused A1 and A2 with regard to formation of canal adjacent to the road the said quarrel took place at about 9.00 AM. Then the elders pacified the same, sent them away. Later within 30 minutes A1 and A2 came to the house of Lw.1 armed with sickle and stick in order to kill Lws.1 to 3/Mala Dasari Srinivasulu, Mala

Dasari Madhusudhan and Mala Dasari Sunkanna( who are family members) picked up quarrel with Lws.1 to 3, in the said quarrel A1 hacked on the head of

Lw.2 Madhusudhan caused bleeding injury, A1 beat with stick on the right ear of

Lw.1 caused swelling injury, the accused also beat Lw.2 when he came to rescue of Lws.1 and 3 caused swelling injury. On hearing the cries of Lws.1 to 3, Lw.4 to 6 C.H.Venkatesh, M.Harichandrudu and M.Bhaskar came to the place of offence, rescued them from the hands of accused. Then accused A1 and A2 left the place of offence.

5.After the incident on the same day Lws.1 to 3 went to the police station, Lw.1 gave report to the SHO of Tuggali P.S., the said report was registered by S.H.O. as case in Cr.No.85/2017 for the offence U/sec.324, 307 r/w 34 IPC took up investigation, examined the witnesses Lws.1 to 6 Mala Dasari

Srinivasulu, Mala Dasari Madhusudhan and Mala Dasari Sunkanna,

H.Venkatesh, M.Harichandrudu and M.Bhaskar, recorded their statements.

During the course of investigation on 13.12.2017 arrested both the accused in the presence of Lw.7 and 8 S.Vasudevaiah and N.Ravikumar, seized the sickle and

S.C.No.39 OF 20183A.S.J. Court, Adoni.

stick under cover of panchanama, sent the accused for judicial remand. After receipt of medical reports and after completion of investigation, the SHO., Tuggali

P.S. filed charge sheet against the accused A1 and A2.

6.After filing of charge sheet, the learned Magistrate, Pattikonda taken cognizance of the offence U/sec.324, 307 r/w 34 IPC against the accused gave

PRC.No.02/2018 and committed the case to the Hon’ble Principal Sessions

Court, Kurnool U/Sec.209 Cr.P.C. Subsequently, the Hon’ble Principal District

Court, Kurnool gave sessions case No.39/2018 and the said case made over to this Court for an adjudication.

7.Basing on the contents of charge sheet and considering the order in

PRC.No.02/2018 this Court framed charges U/sec.228(1)(b) Cr.P.C. for the offence U/sec.324, 307 r/w 34 IPC against the accused the said charges read over and explained to the accused A1 and A2 in Telugu, they denied the same and claimed to be tried.

8.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined Pws.1 to Pw.7 got marked Exs.P1 to P14 and M.O.1 and 2.

Pw.1/defacto complainant/injured and Pws.2 to 5/injured persons as well as eye witness, Pw.6 mediator and Pw.7 Investigation Officer of this case. Ex.P1

Signature of Pw.1 on report, Ex.P2 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.1, Ex.P3 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.2, Ex.P4 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.3,

Ex.P5 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.4, Ex.P6 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of

Pw.5, Ex.P7 Signature of Pw.7 in arrest-cum-seizure report, Ex.P8 report given by Pw.1, Ex.P9 F.I.R., Ex.P10 sketch, Ex.P11 Arrest and seizure report

S.C.No.39 OF 20184A.S.J. Court, Adoni.

Dt:13.12.2017, Ex.P12 to Ex.P14 Wound certificates of Pw.1 to 3. M.O.1 Sickle

and M.O.2 stick.

9.Pws.1 to 5/injured as well as eye witness did not depose anything against the accused, they have not supported the case of prosecution, turned hostile. In the same way Pw.6 mediator for the arrest of accused also turned hostile. Pw.7 Investigation Officer deposed before the Court on 27.11.2017 on the report of Pw.1 he registered this case in Cr.No.85/2017 for the offence

U/sec.324, 307 r/w 34 IPC investigated into, during the course of investigation, examined the witnesses Pws.1 to 5 and others recorded their statements. While so, on 13.12.2017 he arrested both the accused A1 and A2 in the presence of

Pw.6, Lw.8 recorded their confessional statements, seized M.O.1 and 2, sent them for judicial remand. After receipt of medical report and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused A1 and A2.

10.After closure of the case of prosecution, the accused A1 and A2 were examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied the evidence of Pws.1 to 7 as false, reported no defence evidence.

11.Heard arguments from both sides.

12.Now the point for determination is: Whether the prosecution bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence U/sec.324,307 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt or not ?

P O I N T:

13.The learned counsel for the complainant Additional Public prosecutor contended that the prosecution could prove this case against the accused from the evidence of Pws.7/Investigation Officer and from the material

S.C.No.39 OF 20185A.S.J. Court, Adoni.

on record. Though the other witness Pws.1 to 6 did not depose anything against the accused, but the mere evidence of Pw.7 and material on record is quite sufficient to prove this case against the accused for the offence U/sec.324, 307 r/w 34 IPC. The case against the accused has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. He pray the Court to convict the accused according to law.

14.Whereas, the counsel for the accused contended that, the prosecution failed to prove this case against the accused for the offence

U/sec.324, 307 r/w 34 IPC either from the evidence of Pws.1 to 7 and from the material on record. He nextly contended that, no material witness deposed anything against the accused, they have not supported the case of prosecution.

Further, though Pw.7 deposed evidence by supporting the case of prosecution who is no other than the Investigation Officer, his evidence is not sufficient to prove this case against the accused. Pw.1 filed false case due to political rivalry,

Pw.7 registered the same and filed false case against the accused at the instance of Pw.1. The evidence and admissions of Pws.1 to 7 reveals the same, the case against the accused has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt, hence, the accused A1 and A2 are entitled for an acquittal, pray the Court to acquit them in the interest of justice.

15.In view of above said contentions of both counsels and in view of alleged said offences U/sec.324, 307 r/w IPC, the prosecution has to prove the following ingredients of offence U/sec.324 r/w IPC.

“that the accused by his act caused

bodily pain, decease or infirmity to the

complainant and that he did such an act

S.C.No.39 OF 20186A.S.J. Court, Adoni.

intentionally or with knowledge it would

cause to hurt to the complainant”.

Further in order to prove the offence U/sec.307 r/w 34 IPC the prosecution has to prove that...

“that the act of the accused was done

with dangerous weapon which likely to

cause death”.

“that the accused made an attempt to

cause death of person with an attempt that

such death was attempted to be caused by

or in consequence of the act of the

accused that such act was done with

intention of causing death or that it was

done with the intention of causing such

bodily injury as the accused know that the

said injury likely to cause death of the

person which is sufficient in the ordinary

course of nature to cause death of the said

person. Further, the said attempt cause

such death by doing an act known to him

to be so imminently dangerous that it must

in all probability cause death, or such

bodily injury as likely to cause death and

further the accused having know excuse

for incurring the risk of causing death or

injury.”

Further the said act of the accused was

done with common intention in order to kill

the person.

S.C.No.39 OF 20187A.S.J. Court, Adoni.

16.In view of above said point for determination and arguments of both counsels and keeping in mind the ingredients of the offence U/sec.324, 307 r/w 34 IPC, on careful perusal the material on record and evidence of Pws.1 to 7 this

Court found the following:

(a)As rightly contended by the counsel for the accused, though prosecution alleged the offences U/sec.324, 307 r/w 34 IPC against the accused

A1 and A2 and examined Pws.1 to 7 to prove the ingredients of the above said offence, but no material witness deposed anything against the accused, they have not supported the case of prosecution. It is also further found by this Court, though the learned Additional Public Prosecutor treated them as hostile, cross examined them at length nothing was elicited to prove the ingredients of the offence U/Sec.324, 307 r/w 34 IPC against the accused. Hence, it became fatal to the case of prosecution.

(c)It is also nextly found by this Court as rightly contended by the counsel for accused, though Pw.7 deposed evidence by supporting the case of prosecution, he is found no other than the Investigation Officer of this case, but his mere evidence is found insufficient to prove this case against the accused in the absence of evidence of material witness Pws.1 to 6. Therefore, the prosecution is found failed to prove this case against the accused for the offence

U/sec.324, 307 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused A1 and A2 are found entitled for benefit of doubt.

17.In the result, Accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.324, 307 r/w 34 IPC hence they are acquitted U/Sec.235(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of six months

S.C.No.39 OF 20188A.S.J. Court, Adoni.

from the date of this judgment U/S.437-A Cr.P.C. M.O.1 and 2 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected,

signed and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 23 rd day of April, 2026.

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

ADONI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:FOR THE DEFENCE: P.W.1: Mala Dasari SrinivasuluNone. P.W.2: Mala Dasari Madhusudhan P.W.3: Mala Dasari Sunkanna P.W.4: Harichandrudu P.W.5: Mala Bhaskar P.W.6: Saiga Vasudevaiah P.W.7: M.Kesava, S.I. of Police.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Signature of Pw.1 on report. Ex.P2: 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.1. Ex.P3: 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.2. Ex.P4: 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.3. Ex.P5: 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.4. Ex.P6: 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.5. Ex.P7: Signature of Pw.7 in arrest-cum-seizure report. Ex.P8: Report given by Pw.1. Ex.P9: F.I.R. Ex.P10: Sketch. Ex.P11: Arrest and seizure report Dt:13.12.2017. Ex.P12 to Ex.P14: Wound certificates of Pw.1 to 3. FOR THE DEFENCE: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1: Sickle. M.O.2: Stick.

ASJ, ADN.

H.M.O.P/137/2024

G. Jyothi vs K. Nagendra

23 Apr 2026

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) AT ADONI

Present: Sri G.YAGNA NARAYANA,

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Adoni.

Thursday, the 23 rd day of April, 2026

H.M.O.P.No.137 of 2024

1. Kuruva Jyothi

2. Kuruva Narendra... Petitioners

AND

NIL…Respondent

This petition coming before me for final hearing on 06.04.2026 in the pres- ence of Sri K.Abdul Rahim Ansari, Counsel for the Petitioners. The respondent NIL.

Having stood over till this day for consideration this Court delivered the following or- der:

O R D E R

1. At first this petition filed by the 1st petitioner U/sec.9 of Restitution of

Conjugal Rights. While this petition is coming for conciliation, both parties filed

I.A.62/2026, I.A.63/2026 both are allowed. The main petition U/Sec.9 of Restitution of conjugal Rights was converted as U/sec.13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act and posted for enquiry.

2.The brief facts of the case of the petitioners is as follows:

The marriage between both petitioners was taken place on 10.05.2019 at Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy at Hanuval village, Adoni mandal as per Hindu Rites and Customs. After marriage they led marital life for a period of one year, subsequently some disputes arose between them which led them to live separately for the last 5 years. During the said period elders made mediations be- 2 tween them so many times, but in vain, as the nature of disputes between them as such. While so in the year 2024 the 1st petitioner filed for Restitution of Conjugal

Rights, the said petition is coming for enquiry, meanwhile the elders made media- tions in the month of March, 2026 advised them to go for decree of mutual divorce rather than for Restitution of Conjugal Rights. Hence, filed I.A.62/2026, I.A.63/2026 both are allowed, the petitioner was got converted into Sec.13(B) of Hindu Mar- riage Act. The petitioners further submit that, their marital relationship irretriev- ably broken down, there are no chances of their reunion, hence on the advise of el- ders they filed this petition U/sec.13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act, hence the petitioners pray the Court seeking decree of divorce by dissolving their marriage Dt:10.05.2019 and for other relief.

3.In order to prove the case of the petitioners, the petitioners No.1 and 2 themselves examined as Pws.1 and 2, filed their chief affidavits, wherein they reit- erated the entire contents of petition averments, in support of their oral evidence, they got marked Ex.P1 Original Wedding card, Ex.P2 Spouse certificate, Ex.P3

Aadhar card of 1st petitioner and Ex.P4 Aadhar card of 2nd petitioner. Both the peti- tioners prays the Court to grant decree of mutual divorce by dissolving their mar- riage Dt:10.05.2019 in the interest of justice.

4.Heard the counsel for the petitioners perused the case record.

5.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the petitioners are entitled for decree of mutual

divorce by dissolving their marriage Dt:10.05.2019 under

sec.13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act as prayed for ?

6.POINT:

In view of above said point for consideration on careful perusal the material on record and the evidence of petitioners/Pws.1 and 2, this Court found the following:

As per the evidence of petitioners/Pws.1 and 2 and the material on record it is proved the marriage between the petitioners was taken place on 10.05.2019 at Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy at Hanuval village, Adoni mandal,

Kurnool District as per Hindu Rites and Customs. It is also further proved from their evidence, after marriage they led marital life for about one year, during the said pe- riod some disputes were taken place between them, which led them to live sepa- rately for the last 5 years at their respective parents house. The evidence of Pws.1 and 2 also further proving that the said disputes were placed before elders, but they were not settled in spite of their best efforts, as the nature of disputes between them as such. It is also further found by this Court from the evidence of petitioners the marital relationship between both parties irretrievably broken down there is no possibility of their reunion in future.

In view of the above said facts and circumstances and the evidence of

Pws.1 and 2 and the material on record the petitioners case is proved conclusively, hence, they are found entitled for decree of mutual divorce by dissolving their marriage Dt:10.05.2019. Therefore, the above said point is answered in favour of the petitioners.

7.In the result, this petition is allowed by passing the decree of mutual divorce U/Sec.13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act by dissolving their marriage 4

Dt:10.05.2019 between the petitioners on the ground of their mutual consent. The

petitioners shall bear their own costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed, corrected and pro-

nounced by me in open court this the 23 rd day of April, 2026.

CIVIL JUDGE(Senior Division),

ADONI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the Petitioners: For the Respondent:

P.W.1: Kuruva Jyothi--none--

P.W.2: Kuruva Narendra

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For the Petitioners:

Ex.P1: Wedding card Dt:10.05.2019.

Ex.P2: Spouse certificate.

Ex.P3: Aadhar card of first petitioner.

Ex.P4: Aadhar card of second petitioner.

For the Respondent: -Nil-

CIVIL JUDGE,(Sr.Division),

ADONI.

H.M.O.P/109/2021

V. Suresh vs K. Uma Maheswari

20 Apr 2026

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) AT ADONI

Present: Sri G.YAGNA NARAYANA,

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Adoni.

Monday, the 20 th day of April, 2026

H.M.O.P.No.109 of 2021

1. V.Suresh

2. K.Uma Maheswari... Petitioners

AND

NIL…Respondent

This petition coming before me for final hearing on 15.04.2026 in the pres- ence of Sri L.K.Jeevan Singh, Counsel for the 1st Petitioner and of Sri G.V.Desai, counsel for 2nd petitioner. The respondent NIL. Having stood over till this day for consideration this Court delivered the following order:

O R D E R

1. At first this petition filed by the 1st petitioner U/sec.13(1)(ia) of Hindu

Marriage Act. While this petition is coming for enquiry on 31.03.2026 I.A.10/2026 and I.A.11/2026 filed, they were allowed, permitted to convert the petition from

U/Sec.13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act to Sec.13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act.

2.The brief facts of the case of the petitioners is as follows:

The marriage between both petitioners was taken place on 26.12.2012 at Chirmandoddi village of Aspari Mandal, Kurnool District as per Hindu

Rites and Customs. After marriage they led marital life for about 2 years, blessed with female child. Subsequently some disputes arose between them which led them to live separately for the last 5 years at their respective parents house. During the above said five years of period elders made mediations between them so many 2 times, but in vain, as the nature of disputes between them as such. While so the 1st petitioner filed this divorce petition U/sec.13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act. While this petition is coming for enquiry the elders made mediations in the month of

March, 2026 on their advise converted the petition U/Sec.13(1)(ia) of Hindu Mar- riage Act to Sec.13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act. The petitioners further submit that, their marital relationship irretrievably broken down, there are no chances of their re- union, hence on the advise of elders they filed this petition U/sec.13(B) of Hindu

Marriage Act, pray the Court seeking decree of divorce by dissolving their marriage

Dt:26.12.2012 and for other relief.

Aadhar card of 1st petitioner and Ex.P4 Aadhar card of 2nd petitioner. Both the peti- tioners prays the Court to grant decree of mutual divorce by dissolving their mar- riage Dt:26.12.2012 in the interest of justice.

4.Heard the counsel for the petitioners perused the case record.

5.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the petitioners are entitled for decree of mutual

divorce by dissolving their marriage Dt:26.12.2012 under

sec.13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act as prayed for ?

6.POINT:

In view of above said point for consideration on careful perusal the material on record and the evidence of petitioners/Pws.1 and 2, this Court found the following:

As per the evidence of petitioners/Pws.1 and 2 and the material on record it is proved that the marriage between the petitioners was taken place on 26.12.2012 at Chirmandoddi village of Aspari Mandal, Kurnool District as per Hindu

Rites and Customs. It is also further proved from their evidence, after marriage they led marital life for about 2 years, blessed with one female child, during the said period some disputes were taken place between them, which led them to live sepa- rately for the last 5 years at their respective parents house. The evidence of Pws.1 and 2 also further proving that the said disputes were placed before elders, but they were not settled in spite of their best efforts, as the nature of disputes between them as such. It is also further found by this Court from the evidence of petitioners the marital relationship between both parties irretrievably broken down there is no possibility of their reunion in future.

In view of the above said facts and circumstances and the evidence of

Pws.1 and 2 and the material on record the petitioners case is found proved conclu- sively, hence, they are found entitled for decree of mutual divorce by dissolving their marriage Dt:26.12.2012. Therefore, the above said point is answered in favour of the petitioners.

7.In the result, this petition is allowed by passing the decree of mutual divorce U/Sec.13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act by dissolving their marriage

Dt:26.12.2012 between the petitioners on the ground of their mutual consent. The

petitioners shall bear their own costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed, corrected and pro-

nounced by me in open court this the 20 th day of April, 2026.

CIVIL JUDGE(Senior Division),

ADONI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the Petitioners: For the Respondent:

P.W.1: V.Suresh--none--

P.W.2: K.Uma Maheswari

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For the Petitioners:

Ex.P1: Wedding card Dt:26.12.2012.

Ex.P2: Spouse certificate.

Ex.P3: Aadhar card of first petitioner.

Ex.P4: Aadhar card of second petitioner.

For the Respondent: -Nil-

CIVIL JUDGE,(Sr.Division),

ADONI.

H.M.O.P/160/2023

B. Anjali vs Balagola Rajendra Prasad

17 Apr 2026

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) AT ADONI

Present: Sri G.YAGNA NARAYANA,

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Adoni.

Friday, the 17 th day of April, 2026

H.M.O.P.No.160 of 2023

1. B.Anjali

2. Balagola Rajendra Prasad... Petitioners

AND

NIL…Respondent

This petition coming before me for final hearing on 06.04.2026 in the pres- ence of Sri K.Venugopal and Sri T.Prabhakar, Counsels for the Petitioners. The re- spondent NIL. Having stood over till this day for consideration this Court delivered the following order:

O R D E R

1. This petition filed by the petitioners U/Sec.13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking decree of mutual divorce by dissolving their marriage Dt:26.07.2020 and for other reliefs.

2.The brief facts of the case of the petitioners is as follows:

The marriage between both petitioners was taken place on 26.07.2020 at Anjaneya Swamy Devalayam, Arts College road, Ambedkar Nagar,

Adoni town, Kurnool District as per Hindu Rites and Customs. After marriage they led marital life for about 1 ½ year. Subsequently some disputes arose between them which led them to live separately for the last 3 years. During the said period elders made mediations between them so many times, but they became futile, as the nature of disputes between them as such. Th petitioners further submit that, 2 while this petition is pending before the Court, the elders made final mediations in the month of February, 2026, wherein they were advised instead of decree U/ sec.13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act to 13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act. The petitioners further submit that, their marital relationship irretrievably broken down, there are no chances of their reunion, hence on the advise of elders they filed this petition U/ sec.13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act, hence the petitioners pray the Court seeking de- cree of divorce by dissolving their marriage Dt:26.07.2020 and for other relief.

4.Heard the counsel for the petitioners perused the case record.

5.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the petitioners are entitled for decree of mutual

divorce by dissolving their marriage Dt:26.07.2020 under

sec.13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act as prayed for ?

6.POINT:

In view of above said point for consideration on careful perusal the material on record and the evidence of petitioners/Pws.1 and 2, this Court found the following:

As per the evidence of petitioners/Pws.1 and 2 and the material on record the marriage between the petitioners was taken place on 26.07.2020 at An- janeya Swamy Devalayam, Arts College road, Ambedkar Nagar, Adoni town,

Kurnool District as per Hindu Rites and Customs. It is also further proved from their evidence, after marriage they led marital life for about one and half year, during the said period some disputes were taken place between them, which led them to live separately 3 years at their respective parents house. The evidence of Pws.1 and 2 also further proving that the said disputes were placed before elders, but they were not settled in spite of their best efforts, as the nature of disputes between them as such. It is also further found by this Court from the evidence of petitioners the mari- tal relationship between both parties irretrievably broken down there is no possibility of their reunion in future.

In view of the above said facts and circumstances and the evidence of

Pws.1 and 2 and the material on record the petitioners case is proved conclusively, hence, they are found entitled for decree of mutual divorce by dissolving their marriage Dt:26.07.2020. Therefore, the above said point is answered in favour of the petitioners.

7.In the result, this petition is allowed by passing the decree of mutual divorce U/Sec.13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act by dissolving their marriage

Dt:26.07.2020 between the petitioners on the ground of their mutual consent. The

petitioners shall bear their own costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed, corrected and pronounced by me in

open court this the 17 th day of April, 2026.

CIVIL JUDGE(Senior Division),

ADONI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the Petitioners: For the Respondent:

P.W.1: B.Anjali--none--

P.W.2: Balagola Rajendra Prasad

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For the Petitioners:

Ex.P1: Wedding card Dt:26.07.2020

Ex.P2: Spouse certificate.

Ex.P3: Aadhar card of first petitioner.

Ex.P4: Aadhar card of second petitioner.

For the Respondent: -Nil-

CIVIL JUDGE,(Sr.Division),

ADONI.

H.M.O.P/21/2026

G.SWETHA AND ANOTHER vs NONE

20 Apr 2026

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) AT ADONI

Present: Sri G.YAGNA NARAYANA,

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Adoni.

Monday, the 20 th day of April, 2026

H.M.O.P.No.21 of 2026

1. G.Swetha

2. C.Vishwanath... Petitioners

AND

NIL…Respondent

This petition coming before me for final hearing on 15.04.2026 in the pres- ence of Sri T.Prabhakar, Counsel for the Petitioners. The respondent NIL. Having stood over till this day for consideration this Court delivered the following order:

O R D E R

1. This petition filed by the petitioners U/Sec.13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking decree of mutual divorce by dissolving their marriage Dt:22.12.2024 and for other reliefs.

2.The brief facts of the case of the petitioners is as follows:

The marriage between both petitioners was taken place on 22.12.2024 at Sri Markandeya Swamy Kalyana Mantapam at Guntakal town, Anan- tapur District as per Hindu Rites and Customs. After marriage they lived together for a period of 10 days, subsequently some disputes arose between them which led them to live separately for the last 02 years. During the said period of 2 years el- ders made mediations between them so many times, but in vain, as the nature of disputes between them as such. While so, in the month of January, 2026 the el- 2 ders made final mediations, wherein they were advised to go for decree of mutual divorce. The petitioners further submit that, their marital relationship irretrievably broken down, there are no chances of their reunion, hence on the advise of elders they filed this petition U/sec.13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act, pray the Court seeking decree of divorce by dissolving their marriage Dt:22.12.2024 and for other relief.

Aadhar card of 1st petitioner and Ex.P4 Aadhar card of 2nd petitioner. Both the peti- tioners prays the Court to grant decree of mutual divorce by dissolving their mar- riage Dt:22.12.2024 in the interest of justice.

4.Heard the counsel for the petitioners perused the case record.

5.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the petitioners are entitled for decree of mutual

divorce by dissolving their marriage Dt:22.12.2024 under

sec.13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act as prayed for ?

6.POINT:

In view of above said point for consideration on careful perusal the material on record and the evidence of petitioners/Pws.1 and 2, this Court found the following:

As per the evidence of petitioners/Pws.1 and 2 and the material on record on 22.12.2024 the marriage was taken place between both parties at Sri

Markandeya Swamy Kalyana Mantapam at Guntakal town, Anantapur District as per Hindu Rites and Customs. It is also further proved from their evidence, after 3 marriage they led marital life for a period of 10 days, during the said period some disputes were taken place between them, which led them to live separately for the last 02 years. The evidence of Pws.1 and 2 also further proving that the said dis- putes were placed before elders, but they were not settled in spite of their best ef- forts, as the nature of disputes between them as such. It is also further found by this Court from the evidence of petitioners the marital relationship between both parties irretrievably broken down there is no possibility of their reunion in future.

In view of the above said facts and circumstances and the evidence of

Pws.1 and 2 and the material on record the petitioners case is proved conclusively, hence, they are found entitled for decree of mutual divorce by dissolving their marriage Dt:22.12.2024. Therefore, the above said point is answered in favour of the petitioners.

7.In the result, this petition is allowed by passing the decree of mutual divorce U/Sec.13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act by dissolving their marriage

Dt:22.12.2024 between the petitioners on the ground of their mutual consent. The

petitioners shall bear their own costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed, corrected and pro-

nounced by me in open court on this the 20 th day of April, 2026.

CIVIL JUDGE(Senior Division),

ADONI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the Petitioners: For the Respondent:

P.W.1: G.Swetha--none--

P.W.2: C.Vishwanath 4

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For the Petitioners:

Ex.P1: Wedding card Dt:22.12.2024.

Ex.P2: Spouse certificate.

Ex.P3: Aadhar card of first petitioner.

Ex.P4: Aadhar card of second petitioner.

For the Respondent: -Nil-

CIVIL JUDGE,(Sr.Division),

ADONI.

Order Record 591 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
SC/39/2018	Sub Inspector of police, Tuggali police station vs Mala Raju	23 Apr 2026	Judgement	Acquitted
H.M.O.P/137/2024	G. Jyothi vs K. Nagendra	23 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/21/2026	G.SWETHA AND ANOTHER vs NONE	20 Apr 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/109/2021	V. Suresh vs K. Uma Maheswari	20 Apr 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/160/2023	B. Anjali vs Balagola Rajendra Prasad	17 Apr 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/33/2026	M.RANGASWAMY vs NONE	16 Apr 2026	Order	—
SC/25/2022	State Represented by Inspector of Police Pattikonda Urban Police Station vs N. Dileep	10 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
SC/311/2018	Sub Inspector of police, Gonegandla PS vs Boya Minnella	10 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/137/2025	GOLLA PADMA ALIAS PADMAVATHI AND ANOTHER vs NIL	10 Apr 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/146/2025	EDIGA ERANNA AND ANOTHER vs NIL	10 Apr 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/101/2025	Sunkara Kali Charan vs Golla Pavani	06 Apr 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/154/2025	JUJARE VAISHNAVI vs NIL	06 Apr 2026	Order	—
SC/52/2017	Sub Inspector of Police vs Bhutham Jangala Sammaiah	04 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
SC/300/2018	Sub Inspector of police, Devanakonda PS vs Golla Takku Rangaswamy	02 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/155/2025	U. AMARESHWAR BABU AND ANOTHER vs NIL	02 Apr 2026	Order	—
SC/139/2017	Inspector of Police vs Sunkaiahgari Chinna Sunkaiah alias Sottaiah	31 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
SC/223/2019	SHO OF KOSIGI P.S vs Maladasari Anjinaiah	31 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/161/2025	E.KARIBASAPPA AND ANOTHER vs NIL	31 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/134/2025	RUDRAMMA W/O.KURI RAMESH vs NIL	30 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/151/2025	SMT.KALLUBAVI JYOTHI AND ANOTHER vs NIL	30 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/168/2025	SINGAPURAM DEVENDRA AND ANOTHER vs NONE	30 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/102/2025	Harijana Nagaraju Alias Muthyala Nagaraju vs Nil	23 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/120/2025	Chakali Lalitha vs Nil	23 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/133/2025	KURUVA SAILAJAA ALIAS MANASA AND ANOTHER vs NIL	23 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/152/2025	BOYA RAJASEKHAR AND ANOTHER vs NIL	23 Mar 2026	Order	—
SC/2/2024	State Rep. By Circle Inspector of Police, vs Bailuppala Veeranjineyulu @ Veeranjineyulu	13 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
SC/69/2022	Sub Inspector of Police yemmiganur Rural P.S. vs Boya Madhava Swamy @ Gundodu	12 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
SC/224/2019	SHO OF ASPARI PS vs Madhapuram Somesh	09 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
SC/51/2018	SHO ALUR PS vs MASALA HANUMAPPA AND ANOTHER	06 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/130/2025	Boya Devendrappa vs To whom so it even may	06 Mar 2026	Order	—
SC/362/2019	SHO of Alur PS vs Boya uchirappa and 2 others	05 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/89/2021	T. Anil Kumar Reddy vs M. Sunandini	05 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/82/2025	Brahmaiah Achari alias Kamsali Brahamya vs Nil	03 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/136/2025	BESTHA VIJAYALAKSHMI AND ANOTHER vs NIL	03 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/1/2024	M.K. Srivani vs M. Shivalingaiah	02 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/52/2025	V.Vedavathi vs Nil	27 Feb 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/84/2025	Rudraganti Sunkanna vs K.Lakshmidevi alias Annapurna	27 Feb 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/100/2023	Jalla Lakshmi vs Jalla Venkatesulu	27 Feb 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/167/2025	KONDRA DASTHAGIRI AND ANOTHER vs NONE	27 Feb 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/157/2025	C.RAM MOHAN vs NONE	26 Feb 2026	Order	—
SC/388/2023	State Represented by Inspector of Police, vs Banavath Devendra Naik	25 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
OS/28/2023	M. Jubeer Ahammad vs M. Dada Saheb	24 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
SC/93/2019	S.I. of Police, Kosigi P.S. vs Mulla Jakeer Hussain	24 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
SC/226/2018	The Sub Inspector of police, Nandavaram PS vs Kyatam Nagappa and 4 others	23 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/21/2023	G. Anandan vs K. Mamta Devi	23 Feb 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/123/2024	Mulugunda Harish Kumar vs Mulugundam Sivalakshmi @ Sivalakshmi	23 Feb 2026	Order	—
SC/143/2022	Sub-Inspector of Police, vs Vadla Rama Swamy	20 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
IP/9/2023	R. Lakshmi Bai vs R. Pooja Rani and 87 others	19 Feb 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/165/2024	Alaradinna Ashok vs Nil	19 Feb 2026	Order	—
OS/145/2014	Ediga Sambasivudu vs Vasala Pedda Ranganna and two others	18 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/78/2025	B.Bhuvaneshwari vs Nil	17 Feb 2026	Order	—
SC/37/2017	Sub Inspector of Police vs Appa Satyanarayana	16 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
SC/106/2017	Sub Inspector of Police vs Ediga Srinivasulu alias Seenappa	16 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/90/2025	Kuruva Sunnam Veeresh vs Nil	11 Feb 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/139/2022	Uddara Ramakrishna vs Boya Bhuvaneswari@ Bhoomika @ Saraswathi	11 Feb 2026	Order	—
SC/302/2018	Sub Insepctor of police, Aspari PS vs Madiga Lakshminarayana	10 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/117/2025	Mekala Sivaraju vs Nil	09 Feb 2026	Order	—
S.O.P/13/2024	N. Kishore Kumar vs Nil.	09 Feb 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/33/2024	Kunda Ramanath vs Chimmani Jyothi	06 Feb 2026	Order	—
IP/13/2020	Kandarirajanna Alias K.Rajanna Shetty vs V.Venkateswarlu and 19 others	05 Feb 2026	Order	—
SC/100/2017	Sub Insepctor of police, Kosigi OPS vs Boya Ramalakshmi and 3 others	04 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
SC/207/2018	Sub Inspector of police, Yemmiganur town PS vs Boya Anand	03 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
SC/325/2017	Sub Inspector of police, Aspari P.S. vs Kuruva Mudda Rangaiah @ Rangadu	02 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/100/2025	A.Kaveri Alias Aadimi Kaveri vs Nil	02 Feb 2026	Order	—
EP/1/2025	Srividya vs Ramaprakash Reddy	30 Jan 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/108/2025	Mala Eranna vs Nil	30 Jan 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/115/2025	Vadde Vijaya Lakshmi vs Nil	30 Jan 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/127/2025	Boda Sharada vs Nil	30 Jan 2026	Order	—
SC/72/2018	Sub Inspector of police, Yemmiganur Town Police Station vs Boya Raju	29 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/115/2023	P. Lavanya vs K. Mallikarjuna	29 Jan 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/127/2025	Boda Sharada vs Nil	29 Jan 2026	Order	—
SC/78/2019	Sub Insepctor of police, Kosigi PS vs Gaddam raghavendra	28 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
SC/258/2018	Sub Inspector of police, Yemmiganur P.S. vs E.Amaranath Goud	28 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/39/2022	H.Shantha Kumar vs D. Bade Sab @ Suvartharaj	28 Jan 2026	Order	—
SC/62/2022	Sub Inspector of Police, yemmiganur Rural P.S. vs Boya Sreeramulu	27 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
SC/204/2022	State Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police vs Boya Govindu	27 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
SC/347/2019	SHO of Nandavaram PS vs Bisinigi Solman	24 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
IP/20/2018	M.Sarana Basappa vs H.Ravi Kumar and 14 others	23 Jan 2026	Order	—
SC/115/2019	SHO of Banaganapalli PS vs Yerukali Koneti sunkanna	23 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/12/2022	Uppara Susmitha vs Yerukala Sudhakar	23 Jan 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/38/2023	Boya Balanjaneyulu vs Gujula Naliani Kumari @ Umadevi	23 Jan 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/65/2025	Thimmapuram Veerendra vs Nil	23 Jan 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/171/2023	Sunigeri Surendra Babu vs Barki Geetha	23 Jan 2026	Order	—
EP/47/2016	C.Narasimhulu vs V.Prasanna Kumar	22 Jan 2026	Order	—
SC/114/2019	SHO of Aspari PS vs Boya Siddapa	22 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
SC/208/2017	Sub Inspector of police, Nandavaram PS vs Boya Urukundu	22 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
SC/218/2019	SHO OF ADONI III TOWN PS vs Pinjari Mahaboob Basha (A1)	21 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
OS/104/2018	Smt.Padmavathi vs Mahadevappa	19 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
SC/6/2016	Ediga Lakhsmi Devi vs Ediga Kiran and 3 others	19 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
SC/22/2017	Sub Inspector of Police vs Kuruva Mallikarjuna alias Bendakayappa	19 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/106/2022	N. Balakrishna vs K. Sri Vidya	19 Jan 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/79/2025	S.Lakshmi alias Savithri vs Nil	09 Jan 2026	Order	—
OS/175/2017	M.Fayaz Ahmed vs M.Chand Basha and 2 others	08 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/119/2025	A.Viswanath vs Nil	08 Jan 2026	Order	—
IP/4/2016	K.Srinivasa Rao vs D.Ramudu and five others	07 Jan 2026	Order	—
OS/70/2024	Kamma Dhanalakshmi vs K. Pavan Kumar	07 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/158/2023	B. Nagaraju vs Nil	07 Jan 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/78/2024	Kuruva Jagadesh vs Buduru Vijayalakshmi	06 Jan 2026	Order	—
SC/256/2017	Inspector of police, Mantralayam Circle vs P.S.Raja Sekhar	05 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/13/2023	K. Subramanyam Achari vs K. Veereshamma	05 Jan 2026	Order	—

Showing 100 of 591 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2026		17
Mar 2026		20
Feb 2026		29
Jan 2026		40
Dec 2025		24
Nov 2025		26
Oct 2025		19
Sep 2025		42
Aug 2025		49
Jul 2025		54
Jun 2025		17
May 2025		8

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri G. Yagna Narayana handled?

Sri G. Yagna Narayana has handled 596 court orders since 2024 at II Addl District Court Adoni. The average disposal rate is 24 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri G. Yagna Narayana hear?

Based on available records, Sri G. Yagna Narayana primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Sessions Cases, Criminal Cases) at II Addl District Court Adoni.

Where is Sri G. Yagna Narayana currently posted?

Sri G. Yagna Narayana is posted as SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADONI at II Addl District Court Adoni, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Sri G. Yagna Narayana available online?

Yes. 6 judgments by Sri G. Yagna Narayana are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri G. Yagna Narayana dispose cases?

Sri G. Yagna Narayana disposes approximately 24 cases per month, based on 596 orders handled over their tenure at II Addl District Court Adoni.

Since when is Sri G. Yagna Narayana serving?

Sri G. Yagna Narayana has been serving at II Addl District Court Adoni since 2024. and is currently posted there.

Case Types

H 42%

OS 19%

SC 17%

IP 12%

EP 8%

S 1%

CC 0%

Posting History

Apr 2024 — Present

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADONI · 594 orders
Apr 2024 — Apr 2024

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADONI · 2 orders
Apr 2024 — Apr 2024

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADONI

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 1

Other Judges at this Court

D Lakshmi

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

1 orders

Sri M.Leela Sai Subhash

Additional Junior Civil Judge

1,920 orders

Smt.g.archana

Principal Junior Civil Judge

534 orders

← View all judges at II Addl District Court Adoni