Sri I. Karuna Kumar

1 Fair Judgment in OS No. 68/2016

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHITTOOR.

PRESENT:: Dr.Sri I. Karuna Kumar,

Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, (FAC) Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

Thursday, this the 07 th (Seventh) day of July, 2022

OS No.68 OF 2016

BETWEEN:

P.Parandama Reddy, S/o late P.Muni Reddy, aged about 45 years, r/at S.Ramapuram Village, Kalavakunta ost, Penumur mandal, Chittoor District. … Plaintiff.

AND:

1.B.Amarnadha Reddy, S/o B.Narasimha Reddy, aged about 30 years, Hindu, residing at Thokkalachenu village, Sathambakam post, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District.

2.G. Purushotham Reddy, S/o G.Narasimha Reddy, aged about 31 years, Hindu, r/at Thokalachenu village, Sathambakam Post, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District. …Defendants .

This suit is coming before me on 17-06-2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.Lokanadha Reddy, the learned counsel for the plaintiff and Defendants Nos.1 and 2 remained exparte and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

The suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for damages directing the defendants to pay an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- from the date of suit till the date of realization and for costs.

02.The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows;

That the plaintiff doing by cultivation and respectable person in his village circle, and he contested as a Sarpanch of his Grama Panchayat during the year, 2013.

2 Fair Judgment in OS No. 68/2016

Further, on behalf of YSR Party and who defeated in the elections The 2nd defendant and others are persons belongs to his Grama

Panchayat and belongs to rival group of plaintiff. There are serious disputes in between defendants and plaintiff, and the defendants and others having joined hands with the rival group of plaintiff harassing the plaintiff by proclaiming that as though the plaintiff has been running Registered Chits and obtained the signatures of defendants on blank promissory notes.

That the blank Non-Judicial Stamp Papers and did not return the same to the defendants even after completion of chit groups and actually the plaintiff not at all running any chits as alleged by the defendants and he is an agriculturist and about two months back keeping in view of disputes between defendants and plaintiff, the defendants joined hands with others trying to defame the plaintiff and also given a false complaint against the plaintiff before the Superintendent of Police, District Collector, S.I. Of

Penumur P.S.

In the connection, the S.I. of Penumur PS enquired into the matter and submitted a report to the Higher officials. Later D1 and D2 along with others have issued press statement on 26.12.2015 which is published in

Andhra Jyothi Daily News Papers, District Edition at page No.5 with a caption “ Maa chekkula Baandlu Ippichandi” though the plaintiff has been running

Un-registered Chits in that area and used to obtain blank promissory notes and the documents relating to the defendants and the members of chit groups and the Chit Group closed and in the month of November, 2014 and as the District Collector S.P. Chittoor, Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Chittoor and the Local Circle Inspector did not help the defendants.

Further, afterwards everybody who knows the plaintiff have been enquiring with the plaintiff about the news published in the news paper and 3 Fair Judgment in OS No. 68/2016 thereby reputation of plaintiff has been badly affected in the society and also in his relatives and friends circle.

Subsequently, the plaintiff got issued statutory legal notice dt.

31.12.2015 to the defendants calling upon them to pay damages of Rs.

5,00,000/- each to the plaintiff. Further, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendants before the III Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class Court,

Chittoor for the offence U/s 511 IPC. Hence, the defendants are liable to pay the damages for defaming the plaintiff by publishing a false and defamatory news against the plaintiff. Hence the suit.

03. The defendant No.2 is called absent. No representation for defendant No.2. Hence the evidence of PW-2 is treated as Nil. since there is no representation for Defendant No.2 and defendant No.1. The Defendant

No.1 is set exparte. The defendant No.1 filed his written statement.

04.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled on 31-08-2018 for trial;

1. “Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree of damages against the defendants as

prayed for”? 

2. “To what relief ?” 05.On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself is examined as

PW1. Ex.A.1 is office copy of legal notice with postal receipt dt. 31.12.2015.

On behalf of plaintiff one more witness examined as PW.2. On behalf of the defendants, no one examined and no documents marked.

06.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

07. Let this court is proceed to answer issue No.1:

“Whether plaintiff is entitle for decree of damages against the 

defendants as prayed for”? 

4 Fair Judgment in OS No. 68/2016

This is the suit filed seeking the damages from the defendants

Nos. 1 and 2, who are to jointly and severally pay the amount of

Rs.10,00,000/- ( Rupees Ten Lakh only) for publishing false and defamatory news against the plaintiff herein.

08.Hence, it is the necessity at the outset to understand preliminarily as to when damages arise in different circumstances. Here, the damages that the plaintiff claims is on defamatory grounds. So, defamation is injury to the reputation of a person. If a person injuries, the reputation of another he does so at his own risk as in the case of interference with the property. A man’s reputation his property, and if, possible, more valuable than other property as held in Dixon Vs. Holden ( 1869) 7 Eq. 488.

09.It is therefore, defamation of two kinds- 1. slander 2. Libel; slander is the publication of a defamatory statement in a transient form i.e., by spoken words or gestures; while, libel is representation made in some permanent form i.e., writing, printing, picture, effigy or statue as held in

Manson Vs. Tussands Limited ( 1894) 1 Q.B 671.

10.Thus, the foregoing discussion indicates in a clear and categorical manner that the plaintiff herein now seeking damages on the libel allegedly committed by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 as they have published an Article in the news paper. Further, there are some certain elements required to constitute defamation- the words must be defamatory; the said words must refer to the plaintiff; they must be published.

11.Viewing the afore said facts through Kaleidoscope of the evidence brought by the plaintiff herein; would maketh whether the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have committed the act of defamation in respect of the plaintiff herein entitling him to have damages to them to a tune of

Rs.10,00,000/- ( Rupees ten lakh only).

5 Fair Judgment in OS No. 68/2016

12.Hence, it is very pertinent to comprehend as per the section 101 of Indian Evidence Act that “ whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of the facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exists.

When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person”

13.Here, the plaintiff is to prove that the news item defaming the plaintiff was published in newspaper, as such, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to prove the same.

14. Here, the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 remained non-contesting party as they were set-exparte. Nevertheless, mere non-contesting the suit does not ipso-facto entitle the party pleading the suit for decree, because the party who pleads, have to establish the facts to the consonance of the evidence and to the core required standard of proof.

15.Hence, it is now time apropos to give rendering as to what plaintiff deposed in connection to the suit facts; at the very brim of the evidence, the plaintiff spoken about political rivalry existing between the plaintiff and the defendants, as they were contesting candidates as

Surpaches in the Grampanchyath in the year 2013, during which the plaintiff defeated in the election.

16.In continuation PW-1 deposed that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 along with others had issued press statement on 26.12.2015 published in

Andhra Jyothi Telugu Daily News paper, District Edition at page No.5 with a caption “ Ma Cheekkula Baandlu Ippichandi”. Stating that as though PW-1 running unregistered chits in that area and used to obtain blank promissory notes and documents relating to the members of the chit groups and had harassed the members during the running the chits and likewise obtained 6 Fair Judgment in OS No. 68/2016 signatures of defendants on blank promissory notes and obtained property documents from the defendants and harassed them.

17. Thus, PW-1 evidenced that due to the false press statement given by the defendants, every body came to the knowledge and was causing enquiry with PW-1 about the news published in the news paper and thereby the reputation of PW-1 badly effected in the society in the eye of relatives and friend circle.

18.So, it is evidently clear that PW-1 is canvassing, his defamation based on news item published in “Andhra Jyothi Daily News paper” on 26.12.2015 District Edition at Page No.5. Hence, the evidence of PW-1 is that the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 caused his defamation by written form of publication in Andhra Jyothi Daily News paper.

19.Hence, the very foundation for defamation caused to debase image of PW-1 is Andhra Jyothi Daily News paper dt. 26.12.2015. In such case, the very basis of causing defamation to the image of PW-1 would be the said paper. However, no newspaper item dt. 26.12.2015 is forthcoming on the record as nothing is exhibited. So, plaintiff relies on only Ex.A-1- legal notice with postal receipt dt. 31.12.2015 to prove his case.

20. So, mere issuance of legal notice Ex.A.1 does not suffice to establish that the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 defamed the image of plaintiff herein in the eye of society, friends and others. In a suit like this, where the plaintiff is seeking compensation from the defendants, the onus is on the plaintiff to cause produce the defamatory remarks against him caused by defendants Nos. 1 and 2. Here, mere filing of the "piece of publication” in no way holds good, because the plaintiff is to file the entire paper along with

District Edition where these defamatory remarks were passed against the plaintiff by defendants Nos. 1 and 2. So, the libelous matter published in the 7 Fair Judgment in OS No. 68/2016 paper is a necessary foundation to the entire case of the plaintiff, which is not forth coming.

21.Therefore, the plaintiff besides examining himself as PW-1 also examined PW-2 whose evidence also on the exact lines as deposed by PW- 1, as such, the plaintiff by the evidence so far being deposed by himself and

PW.2 could not make out the libelous material that the defendants allegedly published in Andhra Jyothi News Paper dt. 26.12.2015, as the copy of the news paper not laid before this court and just because that the defendants remained non-contesting party, it would not by itself do not pay way to decree the suit as the Yoke is on the plaintiff to establish the required elements; necessary to consider that there is libelous defamation made by the defendant against the plaintiff herein.

Viewing in any angle, and for the afore light of circumstances; this suit is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.

22.Issue No.2:

“To what relief?”

In the result, the suit is dismissed, each party do bear their respective costs.

Directly typed to my dictation by my Stenographer, in Laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 07 th day of July, 2022.

- Sd/- I.Karuna Kumar

Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, (FAC) Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS

PW 1:P.Parandama Reddy; - Exparte- PW 2:B.Venkatesulu Reddy.

8 Fair Judgment in OS No. 68/2016

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

PLAINTIFF: Ex.A.1 : Office copy of legal notice with postal receipt dt. 31.12.2015. DEFENDANTS: -Nil-

Sd/- I.Karuna Kumar

Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, (FAC) Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

1Fair Order in HMOP No.122/2021

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHITTOOR.

PRESENT:: Dr.Sri I. Karuna Kumar,

Secretary, District Legal Service Authority, (FAC) Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

Monday, this the 18 th (Eighteenth) day of July, 2022

H.M.O.P. No.122 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

A.Rajendra @ A.Rajendran, S/o A.Govinda Shetty,Hindu, aged about 35 years, Coolie, residing at Padmapuram Village, Pulluru Post, S.R. Puram Mandal, Chittoor District.

..Petitioner

AND:

1.K.Vijayasanthi @ A.Shanthi, W/o A.Rajendra @ A.Rajendran, D/o K.Ramachandra Shetty, Hindu, aged about 25 years, now R/at Papireddipalli Village and Post, S.R. Puram Mandal, Chittoor District, native of Paipalli Village, Kalavakunta Post, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District.

2.Bharath, S/o Gundaiah, aged about 27 years, Hindu, working as Electricity bill worker in Electricity Department, residing at Papireddipalli Village, S.R.Puram Mandal, Chittoor District.

..Respondents

This petition coming on 30.06.2022 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri. C.Venkataramana Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Respondents are remained exparte, on perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:-

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed by the petitioner under section 13-(1)(ia) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking the Court to dissolve the marriage between the petitioner and respondent held on 13.11.2011 by granting the decree of divorce.

2Fair Order in HMOP No.122/2021

2.The case of the petitioner in brief is that :-

That the 1st respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. Their marriage was performed on 13.11.2011 at Paipalli Village,

Kalavagunta Post, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District.

After the marriage, the 1st respondent joined with the petitioner at her matrimonial home and lived happily. Out of their wedlock, she gave birth to a male child.

Thereafter, the 1st respondent started demanding the petitioner for leading luxurious life and as the petitioner failed to heed the ill-advises of the 1st respondent and she started showing hostile attitude on the petitioner.

Further, surprisingly came to know that the 1st respondent developed illicit intimacy with the 2nd respondent and that the petitioner requested 1st respondent to change her attitude, but without considering the requests, she was continuously harassed, the petitioner in both mentally and physically and that panchayat was held, but the 1st respondent given evasive reply and left the place.

Finally on 01.06.2021, the petitioner approached the 1st respondent and requested her to come and join with the petitioner, but she bluntly refused for it and that there are no hope for reunion. Hence, the petition.

3.Publication filed and service held sufficient. No vakalath filed.

No representation. Hence, respondents set exparte on 25.04.2022.

4.During the enquiry, the petitioner is examined as PW1 and

Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are marked . Petitioner stated that no further evidence on his behalf.

3Fair Order in HMOP No.122/2021

5. Heard the argument of learned counsel for petitioner.

6. Now, the point for consideration is :

1.“Whether, the marriage existing in between the petitioner and the respondent can be dissolved”?

2. If so, to what relief?

7.The petitioner herein is the husband to respondent No.1, whose evidence is that the 1st respondent is his legally wedded wife, as their marriage got solemnized on 13.11.2011 at Paipalli Village, Kalavakunta Post,

Penumur Mandal, as per Hindu rites and customs prevailing in their community. Soon after the marriage, it was the evidence of PW-1 that 1st respondent joined him, the matrimonial home and lived happily and out of their wedlock, the 1st respondent given birth to a male child on 17.12.2013 who is now in the custody of the 1st respondent.

8.It is the grievance of PW-1 that the 1st respondent used to degrade him in the presence of others as, she was not in amicable terms with his family members.

9. It is the grievance of PW-1, that she is used to demand PW-1 to bring huge amount to lead the luxurious life and, when he failed to do so, she developed hostile attitude. Further, it is the evidence of PW-1 that she developed illicit intimacy with 2nd respondent and that she harassed him both physically and mentally, by raising frequent quarrel with him.

10.Therefore, it is the evidence of PW-1 that 1st respondent neither provided happiness nor conjugal life. Several mediations were being held as per evidence of PW-1 to reunion PW.1 and the 1st respondent, but of no use.

4Fair Order in HMOP No.122/2021

11. It is also clear case that the respondent herein set exparte, which gives a patent presumption that she has no interest to contest this

HMOP. Hence, contradiction in so far as evidence deposed by PW-1.

12.Therefore, it is evident that 1st respondent has no interest to lead the conjugal life with PW-1 as she continuously deserted PW-1 for no reason.

Hence, the marriage between PW-1 and the respondent is liable to be dissolved by granting the decree of divorce.

13. In the result, this petition is allowed without costs and the marriage of the petitioner and respondent solemnized on 13.11.2011 at

Paipalli Village, Kalavakunta Post, Penumur Mandal, is hereby dissolved by granting the decree of divorce from the date of this order.

Dictated to the personal Assistant, transcribed by him corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 18 th day of July, 2022.

Sd/- I.Karuna Kumar

Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, (FAC) Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PETITIONER: RESPONDENT:

PW1:A.Rajendra @ Rajendran -Exparte-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

PETITIONER: Ex.P.1 : Marriage wedding card of the petitioner and respondent; Ex.P.2 : Marriage photo of the petitioner and respondent.

5Fair Order in HMOP No.122/2021

RESPONDENT: -Nil-

Sd/- I.Karuna Kumar

Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, (FAC) Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

1 Fair Order HMOP No.88/2022

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHITTOOR.

PRESENT: Dr. Sri I. Karuna Kumar,

Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, (FAC)/ Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

Monday, this the 18 th (Eighteenth) day of July, 2022

H.M.O.P. No.88 OF 2022

Between:

1. Adareddy Sujatha, W/o Adareddy Yagama Reddy, D/o Anna Purushotham Reddy, Hindu, aged about 41 years, Coolie, now residing at Kurmaipalli Village, Budithireddipalli Post (Via), Yadamari, Bangarupalyam Mandal, Chittoor District.

2. Adareddy Yagama Reddy, S/o A.Jayarami Reddy, aged about 51 years, Hindu, Auto Driver-cum-owner, residing at D.No.4-9, M.Balijapalli Village, M.Paipalli Post, Irala Mandal, Chittoor District.

… Petitioners .

And:

Nil

…Respondent

This petition coming on 30.06.2022 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri A.Jyothi Ram, the learned counsel for petitioners and after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioners, and on perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following :

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed by the petitioners 1 and 2 under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking the Court to dissolve the marriage between them solemnized on 10-03-2008 by way of granting decree of divorce.

2. The case of the petitioners in brief;

That the 1st petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the 2nd petitioner. The marriage between the petitioners is an arranged one by the 2 Fair Order HMOP No.88/2022 elders and their marriage was solemnized on 10.03.2008 in Swayambu

Mogileeswara Swamy Temple, Mogili Village, Bangarupalyam Mandal.

Further, out of their wedlock there are no issues to the 1st petitioner. After the marriage the 1st petitioner joined with the 2nd petitioner at his native village and lived happily for a period two years and later they both are put up separate family in Bangarupalem and lived for a period of two years and then the family was shifted to the native place of 2nd petitioner and lived for a period of one year.

Thereafter, the petitioners are unable to live under one roof; hence, the 1st petitioner left the company of the 2nd petitioner on 11.12.2013 and joined with her parents house and since then, the 1st petitioner is living with her parents. Inspite of several mediations held, no fruitful results. Hence, the petition.

3.After registering the case, the reconciliation efforts were made and they went in vain and there are no possibilities for their reunion. The 1st petitioner is examined as PW1 and the 2nd petitioner is examined as PW2 and on her behalf Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 marked.

4.On careful perusal of material and the evidence thereof, the point that would arise for consideration is :

1.“Whether the marriage solemnized between the petitioners is to be dissolved”?

2.“ To what result”?

5.This is a mutual O.P filed by PW.1 and PW.2, here PW.1 is the wife; PW.2 is the husband, and their marriage got solemnized on 3 Fair Order HMOP No.88/2022 10.03.2008 in Swayambu Mogileeswara Swamy Temple, Mogili Village,

Bangarupalyam Mandal as per the Hindu rites and customs prevailing in their community.

6.It is clear evidence oif PW.1 and PW.2 that due to their wedlock no issues were born. It is the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 that they joined their conjugal life with each other, soon after the marriage and lived for a period of two years and thereafter they put separate family in

Bangarupalyam in a rented house and lived for a period of two years and 2nd petitioner herein is an auto driver who purchased an auto-rickshaw and then the family shifted to native place and lived there for one year. So, they lived happily for a period of five years.

7.It is the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 in consonance that certain misunderstandings arose between them; even though, they lived under one roof for some time and thereafter they were not in position to live together, as such, the 2nd petitioner on 11.12.2013 joined his parents native village and since then, PW1 have been living separately with her parents house.

8.It is the clear evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, that several mediations taken place to have their reunion; and such efforts, resulted no fruits. So, now PW.1 and PW.2 have consented for resolving the marital disputes by mutual divorce.

9. When the case of PW.1 and PW.2 is categorical that they have no understanding to lead their marital life. Then no purpose will be served to continue the marital life, as such dissolving the marriage keeps the ends of justice well.

4 Fair Order HMOP No.88/2022

10.In the result, petition is allowed without costs and the marriage between the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 solemnized 10.03.2008 in Swayambu

Mogileeswara Swamy Temple, Mogili Village, Bangarupalyam Mandal is hereby dissolved by granting decree of divorce by mutual consent from the date of this order.

Dictated to the personal Assistant, transcribed by him corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 18 th day of July, 2022.

Sd/- I.Karuna Kumar

Secretary, District Legal Service Authority, (FAC) Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For petitioners:

P.W.1: Adareddy Sujatha; P.W.2: Adareddy Yagama Reddy.

For Respondent: None

Exhibits Marked

For petitioners:

Ex.P.1 : Marriage photo 3 in number with C.D; Ex.P.2 : Attested copy of marriage receipt attested by the E.O of Sri Mogileeswara Swamy Temple, Mogili, Bangarupalyam Mandal, Chittoor District.

For Respondent: Nil

Sd/- I.Karuna Kumar

Secretary, District Legal Service Authority, (FAC) Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

1 Fair Order HMOP No.102/2022

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHITTOOR.

PRESENT: Dr. Sri I. Karuna Kumar,

Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, (FAC)/ Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

Monday, this the 18 th (Eighteenth) day of July, 2022

H.M.O.P. No.102 OF 2022

Between:

1. P.R.Hemanth, S/o P.H. Ramesh Kumar, Hindu,aged about 33 years, private employee, residing at D.No.4-1568/A, Vellore Road, Near Durgama Temple, Greasmpet, Chittoor town and District, A.P.

2.V.Swathi, W/o P.R.Hemanth, D/o L.Vijay Kumar, Hindu, aged about 25 years, Private Employee, residing at House No.20 Y.S.R Colony, Prasanth Nagar, Chittoor Town and District, A.P.

… Petitioners .

And:

Nil

…Respondent

This petition coming on 07.07.2022 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri V.Govindarajulu, the learned counsel for petitioners and after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioners, and on perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following :

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed by the petitioners 1 and 2 under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking the Court to dissolve the marriage between them solemnized on 29-01-2017 by way of granting decree of divorce.

2. The case of the petitioners in brief;

That the 2nd petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the 1st petitioner. The marriage between them was solemnized on 29.01.2017 as 2 Fair Order HMOP No.102/2022 per Hindu rites and customs prevailing in their community at D.No.4- 1568/A, Vellore Road, Near Durgamma Temple, Greamspet, Chittoor.

Immediately, after he marriage, the 2nd petitioner joined with the 1st petitioner at Chittoor and the marriage was consummated on the same day. But, there are no issues born out of the wedlock.

Further, they lead happy marital upto June, 2020. Thereafter, disputes arose between them due to which, they are unable to adjust with each other and, now it was not possible to lead happy marital life and since

June, 2020 the petitioners have been living separately; and since there are no chances, for reunion even in future. Hence, the petition.

3.After registering the case, the reconciliation efforts were made but went in vain. So, there are no possibilities for their reunion. The 1st petitioner is examined as PW1 where, the 2nd petitioner is examined as PW2 and on her behalf Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 were marked.

4.On careful perusal of material and the evidence thereof, the point that would arise for consideration is :

1.“Whether, the marriage solemnized between the petitioners is to be dissolved”?

2.“ To what result”?

5.This is a petition being filed by PW.1 and PW.2, here PW-1 is he husband, while PW-2 is the wife. As per their evidence, their marriage got solemnized on 29.01.2017 as per Hindu rites, customs prevailing in their community and, after the marriage the 2nd petitioner herein joined with the 3 Fair Order HMOP No.102/2022 1st petitioner to lead ‘conjugal life’ As such their marriage, consummated.

However, no issues were born to PW.1 and PW.2, out of their wedlock.

6.It is their evidence, that they lived jointly in happy way for some time and thereafter certain disputes arose between them due to which, they would not able to adjust with each other which resulted in severe misunderstandings. So, there is insulted condition to lead conjugal life as the husband and the wife by virtue of incompatibility of temperament. It is their evidence that PW-2 have been residing in her matrimonial home since

June, 2020, as such they have been living separately and thereafter they never resided together. So, there was no co-habitation between PW1 and

PW.2.

7.It is their evidence that several mediations were held by the elders to see their reunion which resulted no fruitful ends. Therefore, they arrived at some terms of compromise as per para No.6 of the evidence of

PW-1. It is very clear that as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P.3 there is confirmation of their marriage as well PW-2 is also not contradicting the same.

In the light of afore said circumstances, the marriage existing in between PW.1 and PW.2 is liable to be dissolved by granting the decree of divorce.

08.In the result, petition is allowed without costs and the marriage between the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 solemnized on 29.01.2017 at D.No.4- 1568/A, Vellore Road, Near Durgamma Temple, Greamspet, Chittoor is 4 Fair Order HMOP No.102/2022 hereby dissolved by granting decree of divorce by mutual consent from the date of this order.

Dictated to the personal Assistant, transcribed by him corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 18 th day of July, 2022.

Sd/- I.Karuna Kumar

Secretary, District Legal Service Authority, (FAC) Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For petitioners:

P.W.1: P.R.Hemanth; P.W.2: V.Swathi.

For Respondent: None

Exhibits Marked

For petitioners:

Ex.P.1 : Wedding Card of the petitioners 1 and 2; Ex.P.2 : Marriage registration certificate the petitioners 1 and 2; Ex.P.3 : Marriage photographs of the petitioners 1 and 2.

For Respondent: Nil

Sd/- I.Karuna Kumar

Secretary, District Legal Service Authority, (FAC) Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

1 Fair Order HMOP No.92/2021

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHITTOOR.

PRESENT: Dr. Sri I. Karuna Kumar,

Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, (FAC)/ Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

Monday, this the 18 th (Eighteenth) day of July, 2022

H.M.O.P. No.92 OF 2021

Between:

1.B.V.Venkatesh Babu, S/o B.C.Venkatachalapathy, Hindu, aged about 35 years, Un-employee, r/at D.NO.2-17, Pallikuppam Village and post, Ramakuppam Mandal, Chittoor District.

2. Smt. K.A.Deepthi, W/o B.V.Venkatesh Babu, D/o Late K.Amarendra Kumar, Hindu, Aged about 28 years, House wife, r/at D.No.2-17, Pallikuppam Village & Post, Ramakuppam Mandal, Chittoor District, now r/at D.NO.9-14, Nethaji Road, Kuppam Village, Bangarupalyem Mandal, Chittoor District.

This petition coming on 29.06.2022 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K.Sathya Moorthy, the learned counsel for petitioners and after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioners, and on perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following :

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed by the petitioners 1 and 2 under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking the Court to dissolve the marriage between them solemnized on 03-11-2019 by way of granting decree of divorce.

2. The case of the petitioners in brief;

That the 2nd petitioner is the legally wedded wife of 1st petitioner and their marriage was performed on 03.11.2019 at Karnataka Charities

Kalyana Mandapam, Tirumala,Chittoor town as per Hindu rites and customs.

After the marriage, the petitioners lived together for 10 days at the house of 1st petitioner and during those days and there arose some disputes between them. Thereafter, they put up a separate family at 2 Fair Order HMOP No.92/2021

Bangalore and lived upto January, 2020 with great difficulty by quarreling with each other and that the 2nd petitioner left the matrimonial house of the 1st petitioner in the 1st week of February, 2020 and joined with her parents house.

Further, thereafter several mediations were held, but the same failed as the 2nd petitioner bluntly refused to join with the 1st petitioner and finally as per the advise of village elders, they agreed to get divorce by way of mutual consent and there are no chances for reunion. Hence, the petition.

3.After registering the case, the reconciliation efforts were made and they went in vain as there are no possibilities for their reunion. The 1st petitioner is examined as PW1 and the 2nd petitioner is examined as PW2 and on her behalf Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 were marked.

4.On careful perusal of material and the evidence thereof, the point that would arise for consideration is :

1.“Whether, the marriage solemnized between the petitioners is to be dissolved”?

2.“ To what result”?

5.This is a mutual divorce petition filed by PW-1 and PW-2 being the husband and wife respectively and their marriage got solemnized on 03.11.2019 at Karnataka Charities Kalyana Mandapam, Tirumala and thereafter, PW-2 joined with PW-1 to lead marital life and lived with him.

However, out of their wedlock, no children were born to them.

6.It is the evidence of PW-1 that while they lived together for ten days at his residence, some serious disputes arose between them. On the 3 Fair Order HMOP No.92/2021 reason that the family members of the 2nd petitioner used to quarrel with him for each and every aspect and quarrels continued, even after setting up family at Bangalore and thereafter at Chittoor. So, PW-2 left the matrimonial home of PW-1 in the 1st week of February, 2020 and since then they are living separately.

07.After separation,, it is the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 efforts were being made through negotiations to have ‘re-union’ of PW-1 and PW-2, but of no use. So, they have chosen to file marital divorce on the advice of elders.

08. Further, their evidence is in consonance to each other, which marked clear that there is no possibility of ‘re-union’ between them. As such, the marriage in existence in between them is to be dissolved by granting decree of divorce.

09.In the result, petition is allowed without costs and the marriage between the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 solemnized 03.11.2019 at Karnataka

Charities Kalyana Mandapam, Tirumala, is hereby dissolved by granting decree of divorce by mutual consent from the date of this order.

Dictated to the personal Assistant, transcribed by him corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 18 th day of July, 2022.

Sd/- I.Karuna Kumar

Secretary, District Legal Service Authority, (FAC) Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For petitioners:

P.W.1: B.V.Venkatesh Babu; P.W.2: K.A.Deepthi.

4 Fair Order HMOP No.92/2021

For Respondent: None

Exhibits Marked

For petitioners:

Ex.P.1 : Marriage invitation card of the petitioners 1 and 2; Ex.P.2 : Marriage photograph of the petitioners with C.D; Ex.P.3 : Office copy of legal notice issued by the 1st petitioner to the 2nd petitioner with postal receipt and served postal acknowledgment dt. 06.02.2021.

For Respondent: NilSd/- I.Karuna Kumar

Secretary, District Legal Service Authority, (FAC) Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor.