Sri. J. Jeevan Kumar

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT ADILABAD.

Present : Sri J.Jeevan Kumar, Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Adilabad, FAC:Assistant Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Thursday, this the 14th day of March, 2019

S.C.No.287 of 2017

(On committal by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Utnoor by order, dt.05.12.2017 in P.R.C.15/2017 in Cr.No.21/2017 of P.S., Sirpur- U).

Name of ComplainantThe State of Telangana through Police, Utnoor.

Name of accusedJatte Meerabai, w/o.Baba Rao, age 40 years, occ:Agriculture, r/o.Pawarguda, h/o.Pangidi village of Sirpur-U Mandal.

Nature of OffencesU/sec.306 of I.P.C.

Plea of accusedNot guilty

Finding of the CourtFound not guilty

Sentence /OrderAccused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.306 of I.P.C. and he is acquitted for the same under Sec.235(1)Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over. The un-marked case property if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Counsel for the prosecutionSri J.Mallikarjun Addl. P.P.

Counsel for defenceSri P.Mohan Singh, Advocate for defence.

This case is coming on before me for final hearing on 13.03.2019 in the presence of Sri J.Mallikarjun, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri P.Mohan Singh, Advocate for accused, having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Sirpur-U filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.306 of I.P.C. in Cr.No.21 of 2017.

2.The brief facts of the case are that on 28.06.2017 at 0930 hrs., the defacto-complainant Mahore Ashok (PW1) lodged a report stating that his younger daughter, namely, Mahore Nirmala had ‘Upadi Hami

Pathkam’ card as “Nirmala Santosh”, due to which, the accused herein 2 started blaming the said Nirmala that she was having illegal contacts with the son-in-law of accused, namely, Santhosh. The same was learnt by the deceased and informed the same to her family members stating that she will commit suicide as her aunt (accused) is defaming her in the village. On 27.06.2017 at 11.00 a.m., accused went to the house of PW1 and abused the deceased in filthy language in the presence of neighbours alleging that the deceased was having illegal contacts with her son-in-law Santosh. Due to which, the deceased disgusted over hr life, consumed pesticide poison and fell down.

Immediately, the deceased was shifted to Primary Health Center, Jainoor in an auto, where the duty doctors declared her dead.

3.On the basis of the above report of PW1, a case is registered in

Cr.No.21 of 2017, under Sec.306 of I.P.C. During the course of investigation, LW16-P.Rama Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police examined and recorded the statement of PW1, visited the Government of Hospital,

Utnoor, examined and recorded the statements of other witnesses, got photographed the dead body of deceased, conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of deceased in the presence of LW10-

Sedke Shobabai, LW11-Dukre Vittal and LW12-Athram Jalimshaw. LW15-

Dr.J.Mahender, Medical Officer conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased and preserved viscera for chemical analysis. Further, the

Investigating Officer visited scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of panchas, namely, LW13-Belle Athmaram and LW14-Chidmare Bhav Rao and drawn rough sketch map. On 30.06.2017 at 0900 a.m., the accused was apprehended and she voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence. On that the accused was arrested and produced before the Court for judicial custody.

After receipt of final report and collecting all the documents, charge- 3 sheet was filed against the accused for the offence punishable under

Sec.306 of I.P.C.

4. On filing the charge sheet, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Utnoor took the cognizance of the offence on file under Sec.306 of

I.P.C. against the accused and furnished the copies of case documents to her under Sec.207 Cr.P.C and committed the case to the Hon’ble court of sessions, Adilabad vide P.R.C. No.15 of 2017. The Hon’ble Court of

Sessions, Adilabad made over the case to this court to dispose of

according to law vide SC No.287 of 2017.

5.On appearance of the accused before this Court, charge for the offence punishable under Sec.306 of I.P.C. was framed against her, the contents of the same were read over and explained to her in her vernacular language. Accused denied the accusations levelled against her, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial on behalf of prosecution, PW1 to PW8 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P9.

7.After closing the prosecution evidence, since there is nothing incriminating in the evidence of PW1 to PW8, the examination of accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. is dispensedwith.

8.Heard arguments from both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for offence punishable under Sec.306 and of I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt?

4

POINT:

10.In this case the prosecution examined PW1 to PW8, out of which,

PW1-Mahore Ashok is the defacto-complainant and father of the deceased. PW2-Mahore Chandrakala is the mother of deceased, PW3-

Mahore Gajanand is the son of PW1 and PW2, PW4-Mahore Vilas is younger brother of PW1, PW5-Karade Anitha is sister of PW1, PW6-Sedke

Saheb Rao is brother-in-law of PW1, PW7-Sedke Santhosh is relative of deceased and PW8-Sedke Sakunthalabai is the alleged eye witness to the incident.

11.PW1-Mahore Ashok, who is the defacto-complainant and father of the deceased and crucial witness in this case, turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution by stating that he does not know the reason as to why his daughter committed suicide. He further deposed that he was not examined by the Police and that he did not give any report to the Police. Thus, PW1 except identifying his signature on the report, he did not state anything against the accused.

12.PW2-M.Chandrakala, PW3-Gajanan, PW4-M.Vilas, PW5-Anitha and

PW6-Saheb Rao, who are the close relatives of the deceased also turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution by stating that they do not know how and why the deceased died and that they do not know anything about this case.

13.PW7-Sedke Santhosh, who is also a relative of the deceased, turned hostile and did not state anything against the accused by stating that he does not know anything about this case and that he was not examined by the Police. PW8-Shakunthala Bai is the alleged eye witness to the incident. She also deposed in similar to that of PW1 to 5

PW7 that she does not know how and why the deceased Nirmala died and that she did not see anything in this case.

14.Since all the material witnesses, PW1 to PW8, did not support the case of the prosecution, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor had given-up the evidence of remaining witnesses. Therefore, the evidence of these witnesses is not helpful to the prosecution case. As such, from the evidence of PW1 to PW8, it appears that prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused.

15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt, as such, she is entitled for the benefit of doubt. The point is answered accordingly.

15.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Sec.306 of I.P.C. as such, the accused is acquitted for the same under Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The un-marked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 14 th day of March 2019.

Secretary, DLSA, Adilabad, FAC:Asst.Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:-For Defence:- Nil

PW1: M.Ashok PW2: M.Chandrakala PW3: Gajanan PW4: M.Vilas PW5: Anitha PW6: Saheb Rao 6

PW7: Santhosh PW8:Shakunthala Bai

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:-

Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on the report Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2 Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3 Ex.P5: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4 Ex.P6: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW5 Ex.P7: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW6 Ex.P8: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW7 Ex.P9: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW8

For Defence:-

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL

Secretary, DLSA, Adilabad, FAC:Asst.Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

7

1 O.S.No.5/2016

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ADILABAD. 

Present: Sri J. Jeevan Kumar, 

Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad. 

 Thursday, this the 2nd day of November, 2017. 

O.S.No.05/2016

Between:

1. Bejjanki Krishna Rao S/o Bejjanki Anand Rao, Age: 33 yrs., Occ:business, R/o H.No.7­7­17/2. Bhuktapur, Adilabad. 

2. Gujrathi Chandra Shekar S/o Shivaram, Age: 54 yrs., Occ:business, R/o H.No.6­5­75, Bhuktapur, Adilabad. 

3. Bathula Adellu S/o Bhumanna, Age: 34 yrs., Occ:Agriculture, R/o H.No.4­89, Tamsi Ghotkuri village, Dist: Adilabad. 

4. Adsumalli Lakshmi Narayan S/o Adsumalli Kondaiah Chowdhari, Age: 40 yrs., Occ:business, R/o H.No.4­4­5/12/58, Filterbed, Adilabad. 

5. Kodimela Venugopal S/o Ashanna, Age: 40 yrs., Occ:business R/o H.No.4­7­276/1, Vidyanagar, Adilabad. 

6. Tirumala Goutham s/o Tirumala Pratap, Age:34 yrs., Occ:business R/o H.No.3­5­6/1,Kolipura, Adilabad. 

7. Gadichanda Nageshwar Rao S/o Gadichanda Someshwar Rao, Age: 49 yrs., Occ:business R/o H.No.6­7­21/2, Bhuktapur, Adilabad. 

….. Plaintiff.

//AND//

1. Are Prabhakar S/o Ramulu, Age:58 yrs., Occ: Teacher R/o Chanda T village, Mandal& District: Adilabad. 

2. Gutta Suman S/o Gutta Hanmandlu, Age: 24 yrs., Occ:business R/o LIGH 33, APHB colony, Adilabad. 

….. Defendant.

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Narendra R Choudari and Smt.C.Rajitha Reddy, Advocates for the plaintiffs and defendant absent, set exparte, the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The suit is filed by plaintiffs against the defendants for declaration of title, declaration of sale deeds as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. 

2 O.S.No.5/2016

2.Brief averments in the plaint, in a nut shell are that: 

Pragathi Hire Purchase and Finance Limited Adilabad is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act and was the absolute owner and exclusive possessor of three adjacent plots bearing No.64, 65, 66 & 75 made out of the lands bearing Sy.No.162/2,

Sy.No.163/1 situated at Mavala village. The said company sold afore said plots to the plaintiffs under registered sale deed bearing

No.1412/2014, dt.13.03.2014 under registered document and plaintiffs were inducted into possession in the said plots before execution of sale deeds. Since the date of purchase, plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the afore said plots as owners. The Grampanchayath,

Mavala transferred the ownership in the name of the plaintiffs vide proceeding No.230/GPM/2014, dt.20.03.2014 and it was also got sanctioned construction of compound wall over the aforesaid plots, dt.05.06.2014. The plaintiffs constructed a room in plot bg.No.64, 65 &

66. The plaintiffs inorder to avail loan facility from the Bank on 30.06.2014 obtained encumbrance certificate relating to the above plots and came to know that the above said plots have been sold by Gutta

Hanmandlu son of Venkatram, Ex­Manager cum Director of above company to defendant No.1 under registered sale deed bearing

Doc.No.640/2006, 641/2006, 642/2006 and 643/2006, dt.06.03.2006 in pursuance of the order, dt.08.06.2005 passed by District Forum,

Adilabad in E.P.No.1/2005 in O.P.No.237/1996 and inturn defendant

No.1 sold the aforesaid plots to defendant No.2 under registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.221/2007, 220/2007, 219/2007 and 218/2007, dt.18.01.2007. Gutta Hanmandlu was the manager of the said company but he ceased to be Manager­cum­Director of the said company from 09.05.1998 and he has no authority or power to alienate, transfer and 3 O.S.No.5/2016 convey any property of the company to any person including the defendant No.1. Therefore, the above sale deeds are null and void.

Defendant No.1 is yes man of Gutta Hanmandlu and defendant No.2 is his son and the documents are false and collusive in nature. Defendants were never in possession and enjoyment of the above plots. The plaintiffs have reasonable apprehension that the said sale deeds if left outstanding may cause them serious injury.

3.Defendants No.1 and 2 were set exparte on 08.08.2016.

4.On behalf of plaintiff, PW1/Kodimela Venugopal ie., plaintiff No.5 was examined and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A17.

5.Heard the counsel for plaintiff.

6.Now point for consideration is:

whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for? 

7.POINT: 

Ex.A1 is CC of sale deed, dt.13.03.2014 executed by Pragathi Hire

Purchase and Finance Limited, Adilabad infavour of plaintiffs No.1 to 7 in respect of plots bg.No.64, 65, 66 admeasuring 2000 sq.feets with specific boundaries. Ex.A2 is deed of rectification,dt.20.08.2015. Ex.A3 is sale deed, dt.06.03.2006 executed by Pragathi Hire Purchase and

Finance Limited infavour of Are Prabhakar ie., defendant No.1 inrespect of plot No.64. Ex.A4 is sale deed between the same vendor and vendee for plot No.65. Ex.A5 is another sale deed, dt.06.03.2006 inrespect of plot No.75 between the same vendor and vendee. Ex.A6 is pertaining to 4 O.S.No.5/2016 plot No.66 between the same vendor and vendee. Ex.A7 is sale deed, dt.18.01.2007 executed by D1 infavour of D2 inrespect of plot No.75.

Ex.A8 is sale deed, dt.18.01.2007 executed by D1 infavour of D2 inrespect of plot No.66. Ex.A9 and Ex.A10 are sale deeds, dt.18.01.2007 executed by D1 infavour of D2 inrespect of plot Nos.65 and 64 respectively between the same defendants. Ex.A11 is encumbrance certificate. Ex.A12 is plan showing the construction of residential rooms and compound wall in plot No.75. Ex.A13 is construction permission.

Ex.A14 is report of Pragati Hire Purchase & Finance Ltd., dt.30.09.1997.

8.Ex.A14 contains the list of directors (11) in number in which the name of Gattu Hanmandlu is there as one of the Director. Ex.A14 is pertaining to the year 1997 but Ex.A15 to Ex.A17 show that Gattu

Hanmandlu ceased to be Director of Pragathi Hire Purchase and Finance

Limited. Ex.A17 is certified copy issued by Assistant Registrar of

Companies Adilabad stating that on 09.05.1998 Gattu Hanmandlu ceased to be Director of Pragathi Hire Purchase and Finance Limited.

Therefore, after 09.05.1998 G.Hanmandlu has no right to transact any business on behalf of the company. Hence documents executed by

G.Hanmandlu after the above said date are null and void. Defendants also set exparte as such it appears that the defendants are admitting the case of the plaintiffs. Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are believable. Therefore, I hold this point infavour of plaintiffs. 

9.Issue No.4: to what relief? 

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs declaring the plaintiffs as owners of suit schedule property ie., plots bg.No.64, 65, 66 and 75 in

Sy.No.162/2 and Sy.No.163/1 situated at Mavala village and mandal, 5 O.S.No.5/2016

District: Adilabad and it is further declared that the sale deeds bearing

Document No.640/2006, 641/2006, 642/2006 and 643/2006 are null and void.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him and after corrections

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 2nd day of November, 2017.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

ADILABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For plaintiff For defendants PW1:Kodimela Venugopal ­None­

EXHIBITS MARKED

For plaintiff Ex.A1 CC of sale deed, dt.13.03.2014. Ex.A2CC of deed of recitification,dt.20.08.2015. Ex.A3CC of sale deed, dt.06.03.2006. Ex.A4CC of sale deed, dt.06.03.2006. Ex.A5CC of sale deed, dt.06.03.2006. Ex.A6CC of sale deed, dt.06.03.2006. Ex.A7CC of sale deed, dt.18.01.2007 Ex.A8CC of sale deed, dt.18.01.2007. Ex.A9CC of sale deed, dt.18.01.2007. Ex.A10CC of sale deed, dt.18.01.2007. Ex.A11Encumbrance certificate, dt.30.06.2014. Ex.A12Construction permission, dt.04.06.2015. Ex.A13Construction permission, dt.04.06.2015. Ex.A14CC of annual return of Pragati Hire Purchase & Finance Ltd., dt.30.09.1997. Ex.A15CC of articles of association of Pragati Hire Purchase & Finance Ltd., dt.31.12.1994. Ex.A16CC of memorandum of association of Pragati Hire Purchase & Finance Ltd., dt.31.12.1994. Ex.A17CC of Form No.32 Appointment and changes among Directors of Pragati Hire Purchase & Finance Ltd., dt.09.05.1998. 

For defendants  Nil 

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

ADILABAD. 

1 S.C.No.2/2017

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

AT ADILABAD

Present: J.Jeevan Kumar, Assistant Sessions Judge,

ADILABAD.

Thursday, this the 6th day of April, 2017.

Sessions Case No.02/2017

(P.R.C.No. 28/2016 on the file of Spl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class Mobile [PCR], Adilabad in Cr.No.231/2016 of PS Adilabad II Town)

Complainant :S.H.O. P.S. Adilabad II Town

Accused : Syed Osman @ Asshu S/o Nasrath Ali, Age: 29 yrs., Caste: Muslim, Occ: Coolie R/o Gandhinagar, Adilabad.

Prosecution conducted by :Sri. J. Mallikarjun, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

Accused defended by :Sri Abdul Kaleem, Advocate for the accused

Nature of Offence :Under Sections 448, 506, 307 of IPC

Plea of accused :Not guilty

Finding of the Court :Not guilty

Sentence or order : IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offences Under Sections 448, 506, 307 of IPC. Hence he is acquitted U/sec.232 Cr.P.C. The jail authorities are directed to release the accused, forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.

This case coming on this day before me for final disposal in the presence of Sri. J. Mallikarjun, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the prosecution; Sri. K. Ramanaiah, Advocate for the accused; having stood over for consideration, the Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

2 S.C.No.2/2017

The Sub Inspector of Police, Adilabad II town has filed charge sheet against the accused U/sec.448, 506 & 307 IPC in

Cr.No.231/2016.

2. Brief case of the prosecution is that:

On 19.06.2016 at 1930 hrs., the defacto-complainant (Siddam Prabhakar) gave a report to police stating that previously the accused/Syed Osman @ Asshu arrested inconnection with the theft case. In that case he deposed as panch witness, so on 19.06.2016 at about 1400 hrs., the accused came to his house and threatened him with dire consequences as the defacto complainant gave evidence against the accused. At about 1700 hrs., when the defacto complainant was proceeding to the house of his brother-in-law at Indiranagar, Adilabad the accused followed him and beat him with unknown weapon from back side with intention to kill him, as a result the defacto complainant received bleeding injuries on his right side eye brow. Meanwhile brother-in-law of the defacto complainant came to the scene of offence. On seeing him the accused ran away. Immediately he went to RIMS hospital for treatment and thereafter he gave report to police.

3.The learned Spl. Judicial First Class Magistrate Mobile [PCR], Adilabad had taken cognizance of the case in

P.R.C.No.28/2016 for the offences U/sec.448, 506 & 307 IPC against the accused. On appearance, the learned Magistrate had furnished copies of the case documents. On a 3 S.C.No.2/2017 consideration, the said Magistrate had committed the case to the Court of Session for trial. The Hon'ble Principal Sessions

Judge, Adilabad had registered the case in S.C.No.02/2017 for

the said offences against the accused, and made it over to this

Court for disposal according to law.

4.On appearance of the accused, and after hearing the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, and the counsel for the accused, charges for the offence U/sec.448, 506 and 307 IPC has been framed against him, read over and explained, to which he has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, prosecution has examined

PW’s.1 to 4 and got marked Ex’s.P1 to P5. On the closure of prosecution evidence as there is no incriminating substance, the examination of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

6.Heard both sides.

7.The point stood for consideration is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the charges U/sec.448, 506 and 307 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT :

8.PW1/Sidam Prabhakar is the defacto complainant and alleged injured in this case but PW1 turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. PW3 is brother-in-law of PW1 namely Pochade Pochiram. PW3 also turned hostile and did not 4 S.C.No.2/2017 support the case of prosecution. PW2/Sidam Prabhavathi is wife of PW1 but PW2 also turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. PW4/Jaknewar Mukund Rao is the crucial eye witness to the incident but PW4 also turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Since all the material witness turned hostile prosecution has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses. All the crucial witnesses ie.,

PW’s1 to 4 turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution as such there is no material to show that the accused has committed the offences U/sec.448, 506 and 307

IPC. Therefore, prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

9.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences

U/sec.448, 506 and 307 IPC and he is acquitted U/sec.232

Cr.P.C. The jail authorities are directed to release the accused, forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.

Typed to my dictation after corrections pronounced by me in the open court on this the 06 th day of April, 2017.

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

ADILABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For prosecution: For Defence: PW1Sidam Prabhakar/complainant-None- PW2Sidam Prabhavathi/circumstantial witness PW3Pochade Pochiram/circumstantial witness. PW4Jaknewar Mukund Rao/eye witness.

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P1Signature of PW1 on complaint-Nil- 5 S.C.No.2/2017

Ex.P2161 CrPC statement of PW1. Ex.P3161 CrPC statement of PW2 Ex.P4161 CrPC statement of PW3 Ex.P5161 CrPC statement of PW4

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

ADILABAD

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ADILABAD

Present:Sri J.Jeevan Kumar,

Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad

Monday, this the 6th day of November, 2017

O.P.No.14/2017

Between:

Bollu Vandana W/o Bollu Satish, Age: 33 yrs., Occ: housewife, Presently residing at H.No.9-106, Post & village: Bela, Mandal: Bela, Dist: Adilabad.

.. Petitioner

//AND//

Bollu Satish S/o Gangaiah, Age: 40 yrs., Occ: Private employee, R/o H.No.2-24/3, Village: Belluri, Post: Chanda-T, Mandal & Dist: Adilabad.

.. Respondent

This petition coming on before me this day for hearing and disposal in the presence of Smt.C.Rajitha Reddy, Advocate for petitioner and the respondent remained absent and was set exparte, having stood over for consideration, the Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

The petition is filed by the petitioner/wife to pass a decree for dissolution of the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent.

2.The brief averments of the petition are:

The petitioner is legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was performed on 12.04.2006 at B.G.R Gardens,

Adilabad as per the caste customs prevailing in their community. At the time of marriage petitioner’s parents provided Rs.1,50,000/- cash, 5 tulas gold, house hold articles worth Rs.1,50,000/- to the respondent. The petitioner and respondent led happy marital life for about 2 years and on 04.09.2008 petitioner blessed with daughter namely Jahnavi out of their wedlock. Respondent habituated to bad vices ie., drinking alcohol, coming to home in late nights and used to pick up quarrel with petitioner and used to beat her and on 2 22.06.2015 respondent beat the petitioner mercilessly, abused her in filthy language. On hearing the hues and cries of petitioner, neighbours came and rescued the petitioner from the respondent.

Thereafter respondent necked out the petitioner from his house and warned her not to come to his house otherwise he will see her end.

Petitioner along with her daughter went to her parents house.

Respondent used to harass the petitioner stating that petitioner gave birth to daughter but not son. The parents of the petitioner conducted several panchayath and tried to pacify the matter but the respondent did not hear the advise of the elders namely Y.Ganga Reddy and

M.Suresh and respondent bluntly refused to take back the petitioner to his matrimonial life. That the conduct of the respondent towards petitioner was horrible. Hence the petition.

3. The respondent received summons but he did not choose to appear before the Court. Therefore the respondent was set exparte.

4. Now the point for consideration is –

Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for?

POINT:

5.Petitioner got examined herself as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 and Ex.A2.

6.It is the contention of the petitioner that the marriage of the petitioner took place with the respondent on 12.04.2006 at BGR

Gardens, Adilabad. They led happy marital life for 2 years and on 04.09.2008 petitioner blessed with daughter namely Jahnavi during the wedlock with the respondent. Respondent habituated to bad vices like drinking alcohol and used to come to home late nights and used 3 to pick up quarrel with petitioner and beat her mercilessly. On 22.6.2015 respondent came in intoxication state and beat petitioner mercilessly and abused her in filthy language. Neighbours came and rescue the petitioner from the respondent. Thereafter respondent necked out the petitioner from his house and threatened her not to come to his house. Petitioner along with her daughter went to her parents house. Respondent used to harass the petitioner stating that petitioner gave birth to daughter but not son. The parents of the petitioner conducted several panchayaths and tried to pacify the matter but the respondent did not hear the advise of the elders namely Y.Ganga Reddy and M.Suresh. Respondent is coming home late nights and harassing the petitioner on petty issues and made life of the petitioner unbearable. The acts of the petitioner amounts to cruelty.

7.The respondent set exparte as such it appears that he is admitting the case of the petitioner.

8.Perused the entire material on record including the evidence of

PW1. The evidence of PW1 is unchallenged. Therefore, this Court is believing the version of PW1 and the acts of the respondent constitute cruelty. Therefore, on the ground of cruelty petitioner is entitled for divorce. I hold this point infavour of the petitioner.

9. In the result, the petition is allowed dissolving the marriage inbetween the petitioner and respondent from the date of this judgment. Accordingly the petition is decreed.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him and after correction

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 06 th day of November, 2017.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

ADILABAD.

4

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner:For Respondent:

PW1: Bollu Vandana. NONE

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioner:For Respondent:

Ex.A1: Marriage photo. NIL Ex.A2: Wedding card.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

ADILABAD.

5

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: AT ADILABAD

Present: - Sri J.JEEVAN KUMAR, Secretary, D.L.S.A., Adilabad, FAC:Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad

Tuesday, this the 12 th day of March, 2019

H.M.O.P.No.52 of 2018

Between:-

Jadhav Saritha bai, w/o.Jadhav Virender, age 28 years, occ:House-hold, r/o.Yanda village, mandal Utnoor of Adilabad district. …Petitioner // A N D //

Jadhav Beerender, s/o.Devia, age 35 years, occ:Agriculture, r/o.Shivnoor village, mandal Jainoor of Adilabad district. …Respondent

This original petition is coming on before me on 11.03.2019 in the presence of Sri G.Madhusudhan Raju, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri P.Akhilesh, Advocate for respondent and having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

This Petition is filed by the petitioner against respondent for dissolution of marriage between him and respondent.

2. The brief averments of the petition are that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of respondent and their marriage took place about ten years ago as per the caste customs prevailing in their community at Yenda village of Utnoorm andal. At the time of marriage, the parents of petitioner gave rupees one lakh and household articles worth Rs.50,000/- to the respondent as per his demands. The marriage was consummated and the couple resided together by doing coolie work at Hyderabad. For the last four years, the respondent harassing the petitioner physically and mentally by demanding money and also the respondent forced the petitioner to contact with third persons for their sexual desire and get money for the bad habits of the respondent.

2

On such demand of the respondent, the petitioner surrendered to the third persons for their sexual desire and enjoyment due to the heavy force made by the respondent. But due to the continuous harassment of the respondent towards the petitioner, she came to her parents house about few years back and residing there. Though the petitioner and her relatives tried her level best to convince the respondent, but he did not change his attitude towards the petitioner.

On 25.06.2018 the petitioner got issued legal notice to the respondent to take back her to the society of respondent, but he did not respond.

There is no possibility of reunion between the parties. Petitioner is entitled for dissolution of his marriage performed with the respondent on the ground of cruelty of the respondent.

3.Counter not filed by the respondent.

4.In support of petitioner, petitioner herself is examined as PW1 and Ex.P1 is marked.

5.Heard both sides.

6.The point for consideration is, whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

7.As per the averments of the petition, the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage took place about ten years back as per their customs. For the last four years, the respondent is harassing the petitioner physically and mentally by demanding money and forcing her to have sexual intercourse with third persons and collecting money from the third persons for his bad habits. The petitioner also fulfilled the demand of the respondent and 3 surrendered to third persons for sexual intercourse, buts he came to her parents house due to unberable harassment made by the respondent.

8.Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of PW1 by the counsel for respondent. However, in the cross-examination, the counsel for the respondent gave suggestion that the respondent is also ready to give divorce to the petitioner. The respondent reported no evidence. As such, the evidence of PW1 is unchallenged and believable. Therefore, this Court is believing the version of PW1. The acts committed by the respondent amounts to cruelty which is ground for divorce. Hence, I hold this point in favour of the respondent and as against the respondent.

9.IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed, granting decree of divorce, dissolving the marriage of the petitioner performed with the respondent from the date of this order. No cost.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12 hday of March, 2019.

Secretary, DLSA, Adliabad FAC:Senior Civil Judge Adilabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For petitioner: For respondent: Nil

PW1: Jadhav Saritha

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P1: Office copy of legal notice dated 25.06.2018

Secretary, DLSA, Adliabad FAC:Senior Civil Judge Adilabad.