Sri.J.Jeevan Kumar

II Addl.District and Sessions Judge-cum-I Addl.Family CourtMedchal

Medchal, ADJ Court Complex · Medchal Malkajgiri · Telangana

Sri.J.Jeevan Kumar, II Addl.District and Sessions Judge-cum-I Addl.Family CourtMedchal, is posted at Medchal, ADJ Court Complex, Medchal Malkajgiri, Telangana, India. 1,517 court orders on record since 2024. 10 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles EP, F, OS cases.

1,517

Total Orders

Judgments

172

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

F.C.O.P/77/2024 Compromised

Koutiki Sudha vs Kotiki Jayaraju

23 Jan 2025

1 of 3 FCOP No. 77 of 2024

BEFORE THE ADDL FAMILY COURT – CUM-II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

COURT AT MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI AT MEDCHAL

Present: Janga Jeevan Kumar,

Judge, Family Court-cum-ADJ Court,

Medchal.

F.C.O.P. No. 77 of 2024

Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2025

Between:-

Smt. Koutiki Sudha, W/o. K. Jayaraju, age 33 years, occ: Homemaker, R/o. 2-089/5/1, Plot No.342, Sundernagar, Suraram Colony, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

... Petitioner No.1

AND

Sri. Koutiki Jayaraju, S/o. K. Allappa, Age: 37 Years, Occ: Welder, R/o. 5-172-1, Kilchinpeta, Adoni, Kurnool District – 518 301 Andhra Pradesh.

... Petitioner No.2

This petition is coming on before me for final hearing on 23-01-2025 in presence of Sri. Y. Jacob, Advocate for the petitioner No.1 and Sri K. Mahender Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner No.2 and having heard and stood over for consideration this Court made the following:- `

O R D E R

1. This is a petition filed by the Petitioners/Spouses under Sec.10-A of the Indian Divorce Act requesting and seeking for divorce by mutual consent.

2. It is the case of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 that they are wife and husband and their arranged marriage was performed on 05-09-2010 at Aadhoni Church, Jasuthiru Hrudaya Devalayam, Shukravarapeta, Adhoni, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh. After their marriage they shifted to their residence at Suraram, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. Out of their wed lock they were not blessed with children. Thereafter disputes aroused between them and because of which and due to misunderstanding and unable to adjust themselves, they started living separately since January, 2022. The parents and elders of both parties tried for reconciliation but in vain.

3. The marriage between both parties was irretrievably broken down and further cohabitation of them is not at all possible and they are not able to live together. As such, both parties have amicably and mutually agreed that their marraige should be dissolved. The petitioners agreed not to file any cases in future against each other for any reliefs and they have no right or interest against each other and agreed to obtain a decree of divorce by mutual consent.

4. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 together filed the present petition by stating that there are no chances of living together and intends to obtain divorce by mutual consent.

2 of 3 FCOP No. 77 of 2024

5. Initially Petitioner No.1 filed the petition seeking divorce u/s 10 of Indian Divorce Act. During the pendency both parties compromised the matter and filed an application u/s VI Rule 17 of CPC.As per the orders of amendment, the petition was converted to Sec 10(A) of Indian Divorce Act.

6. The Petitioners No. 1 and 2 appeared before this court. Their identity is proved by duly furnishing the identity proof furnished by them.

7. Both parties were counselled and Efforts are made by this court for reconciliation, but in vain.

8. On being questioned by the court, both the parties stated that they have mutually consented to obtain divorce as they are not able to live together and their consent is voluntary.

9. Both parties filed their chief examination affidavits as Pws 1 and 2. Both the petitioners are examined as Pws 1 and 2 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 are marked.

10. After completion of enquiry arguments were heard. Perused the record.

11. Now the points that arises for consideration is:

1. Whether the petitioners have been living separately for a period of one year or more, prior to the presentation of petition?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for divorce by mutual consent?

12. Point Nos. 1 and 2:

Pws 1 and 2 reiterated their stand during the course of evidence. They also filed the documents vide Ex.P1 is original wedding card (Marriage dated 05-09-2010). Ex.P2 Original Wedding photos. Ex.P3 True copy of Aadhar card of PW1 (verified and compared with the original) and Ex.P4 True copy of Aadhar card of PW2 (verified and compared with the original), in support of their case.

12. It is the case of the petitioners and as per their oral testimony, their marriage was solemnized on 05-09-2010 at Aadhoni Church, Jasuthiru Hrudaya Devalayam, Shukravarapeta, Adhoni, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh. The testimony of PWs 1 and 2 further reveals that after their marriage, some differences arose in between them and they could not able to live together and therefore they started living separately since January, 2022. The efforts for their reunion by the elders could not yeild result and both parties mutually consented to obtain divorce.

13. The evidence of Pws 1 and 2 further shows that, they have mutually decided to part away and have no other claims against one and another.

14. As could be seen from the record, Petitioner No.1/Wife filed the present application u/s 10 of Indian Divorce Act on 18-03-2024 against the Petitioner No.2. However, during the pendency of the application, both parties entered into compromise. They jointly moved an application u/o VI Rule 17 of CPC requesting to amend the petition by permitting to convert the petition from Sec 10 of ID Act to Sec 10(A) of ID Act and the same was allowed. Since the marraige was performed in 05-09- 2010, the present petition seeking for divorce is presented by them after one year of their marriage as mandated under Indian Divorce Act. After filing the petition, they have been reconciled but in vain. Since the period of six months has been elapsed as mandated u/s 10-A of ID act is complete, the parties did not choose to take back the petition and on the other hand reported to have settled the 3 of 3 FCOP No. 77 of 2024 scores. Thus the parties herein have complied with the legal requirements in presentation of the petition seeking for the relief herein.

15. From the above evidence on record, it is proved that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 05-09-2010 and thereafter their marital relationship is totally strained and they are living separately from January, 2022. There are no chances of parties living together and both the parties mutually consented to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent. All the claims are settled and they have no other claims against one and another. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and by considering the oral and documentary evidence brought on record, this court is of the opinion that parties have settled the terms and conditinos and as such the contention of petitioners can be accepted. Thus it is just and proper to dissolve the marriage between the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 by mutual consent. Accordingly the points are answered in favour of the petitioners.

16. In the result, the petition is allowed. The marriage dated 05-09-2010 between the petitioners stands dissolved by mutual consent by way of decree of divorce, from this date of order.

Typed to my dictation to the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 23 rd of January, 2025.

Judge,

Family Court-cum-ADJ Court, Medchal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioners:-

PW-1: Smt. Koutiki Sudha PW-2: Sri. Koutiki Jayaraju

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioners: -

Ex.P1 is original wedding card (Marriage dated 05-09-2010). Ex.P2 Original Wedding photos. Ex.P3 True copy of Aadhar card of PW1 (verified and compared with the original) and Ex.P4 True copy of Aadhar card of PW2 (verified and compared with the original)

Judge,

Family Court-cum-ADJ Court, Medchal.

F.C.O.P/27/2022

M. Sunitha vs Melarkodu Anantha Shanmuka Sarma

23 Jan 2025

1 to 6 FCOP No. 27 of 2022

BEFORE THE ADDL FAMILY COURT – CUM-II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

COURT AT MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI AT MEDCHAL

Present: Sri Janga Jeevan Kumar,

Judge, Family Court-cum-ADJ Court,

Medchal.

F.C.O.P. No. 27 of 2022

Dated this the 23 th day of January, 2025

Between:-

M. Sunitha, W/o. M.Shanmukha Sarma, Aged about 36 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.Flat No.103, Sumanth Sai Nivas Bandari Layout, Nizampet, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana State.

...Petitioner

AND

Melarkodu Anantha Shanmukha Sarma, S/o. Anantha Rama Sarma, Aged about: 50 years, Occ: Private Service, R/o. H.No. 3-52, Sathram Veedhi, Palivela Mandal, East Godavari District.

...Respondent

This petition is coming on before me for final hearing in presence of Sri.V.Nageswar Rao, Advocate for the petitioner and the Respondent was set exparte having heard and stood over for consideration, this court made the following:-

O R D E R

1. This is a petition filed by the Petitioner/ Wife under Sec.13 1 (ia) (ib) of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 requesting and seeking for divorce from the respondent.

2 to 6 FCOP No. 27 of 2022

2. The brief averments of the petition filed by the petitioner:-

The petitioner is the wife, and respondent is her husband. The marriage between Petitioner and Respondent was performed on 02-08-2012 at Gandhi vari

Kalyana Mandapam, at Pushkaraghat in Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, A.P., as per Hindu rights and customs. Their marriage is an arranged marriage, performed and attended by both side relatives, friends well-wishers. The petitioner’s family gave dowry, including Rs. 3,00,000/-, gold items, and Rs.

1,50,000/- for marriage expenses. Despite this, the respondent and his family demanded additional dowry and began harassing the petitioner from the beginning. The respondent, employed at Konaseema Power Project, earned Rs.

25,000/- per month but mistreated the petitioner, failing to meet her basic needs.

Over time, the harassment increased, with the respondent neglecting the petitioner and their son, refusing to allow them to live together.

(c)During the wedlock, the petitioner gave birth to a male child on 18-07-2014 at life spring Hospital at Kukatpally, Hyderabad. The entire delivery expenses of about Rs.50,000/- paid by the petitioner's family and the respondent not paid any single pie to the petitioner. After the birth, the respondent showed no interest in the child, ignored customary ceremonies, and continued his demand for

additional dowry. Despite multiple efforts by the petitioner’s family to resolve

the issue, the respondent repeatedly rejected the petitioner’s requests to live together, even threatening her with harm.

3 to 6 FCOP No. 27 of 2022

(c)The petitioner, unable to support herself or her son, approached the court for maintenance, which the respondent failed to pay. The petitioner is living with her widowed mother, unable to maintain her son’s education, and seeking relief from the court as there is no hope for reconciliation. The parties have been living separately since year.

03.The respondent was set exparte.

04. During the course of her enquiry, petitioner got examined himself as PW1 and got marked documents vide Ex. P1 to P3.

05.Heard the petitioner and perused the record.

06. Now the point that arises for consideration is :

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

POINT:

7. Ex.P1 and P2 shows that petitioner married the respondent and there is wife and husband relationship between them. Petitioner filed the petition for dissolution under Section Sec.Sec.13 1 (ia) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

As such for giving divorce, the petitioner has to prove .Sec.13 1 (ia) (ib) of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section Sec.13 1 (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 reads as follows :

(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party-- 4 to 6 FCOP No. 27 of 2022 [(i) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse; or (ia) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty; or (ib) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or]

(ii) has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion; or

(iii) has been incurably of unsound mind, or has been suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent.

Explanation.-- In this clause, –

(a) the expression mental disorder means mental illness, arrested or incomplete development of mind, psychopathic disorder or any other disorder or disability of mind and includes schizophrenia;

(b) the expression psychopathic disorder means a persistent disorder or disability of mind (whether or not including sub normality of intelligence) which results in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the other party, and whether or not it requires or is susceptible to medical treatment; or]

8. In the light of the above provision of law, if the case on hand is considered, it is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent and his family demanded additional dowry and began harassing the petitioner from the beginning. The respondent, neglecting the petitioner and their son, refusing to allow them to live together and showed no interest in the child, ignored 5 to 6 FCOP No. 27 of 2022 customary ceremonies, and continued his demand for additional dowry. Despite multiple efforts by the petitioner’s family to resolve the issue, the respondent repeatedly rejected the petitioner’s requests to live together, even threatening her with harm.

9.On the other hand, the respondent was set exparte and did not choose to contest the case by challenging the evidence of PW1. The evidence of PW1 coupled with Exs. P1 to P3 are believable. So, all these facts show the cruelty of the respondent towards the petitioner. In view of the above circumstances, the petitioner is entitled for dissolution of marriage. This court holds this point accordingly.

10. In the result, the petition is allowed. The marriage between petitioner and respondent dated 02-08-2012 is dissolved from this day of order by way of this decree of divorce without costs.

Typed to my dictation to the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 23rd of January, 2025.

Judge,

Family Court-cum-ADJ Court, Medchal

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner

PW-1: Smt. M.Sunitha 6 to 6 FCOP No. 27 of 2022

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioner: -

Ex.P1 is Marriage Card Ex.P2 is Marriage Photographs Ex.P3 is Aadhar Cards of petitioner and respondent.

Judge,

Family Court-cum-ADJ Court, Medchal

F.C.O.P/19/2024

Manchala @ Bandi Maheswari vs Manchala Srinivas

23 Jan 2025

1 of 3 FCOP.No. 19 of 2024

BEFORE THE ADDL FAMILY COURT – CUM-II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

COURT AT MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI AT MEDCHAL

Present: Janga Jeevan Kumar,

Judge, Family Court-cum-ADJ Court,

Medchal.

F.C.O.P. No. 19 of 2024

Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2025

Between:-

Smt. Manchala @ Bandi Maheswari, W/o. Manchala Srinivas, D/o. Bandi Rajaiah, age 30 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o.H.No. 7-168, Ambedkar Nagar, Chinthal, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal District – 500 054.

... Petitioner No.1

AND

Sri. Manchala Srinivas, S/o. Manchala Rajamallu, age: 36 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. Plot.No. 78, Cherukupally Colony, Chinthal, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal District – 500 054.

... Petitioner No.2

This petition is coming on before me for final hearing on 23-01-2025 in presence of Sri. P. Subba Rao, Advocate for the petitioners and having heard and stood over for consideration this Court made the following:-

O R D E R

1. This is a petition filed by the Petitioners/Spouse under Sec.13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act requesting and seeking for dissolution of Marriage by mutual consent.

2. The brief averments of the petition filed by both the petitioners:- It is the case of the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 that they are Wife and Husband and their arranged marriage was performed on 25-11-2020 at Manikya Nagar Community Hall, Near Shivalayam Temple, Chinthal, Quthubullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, as per Hindu rites and customs. After their marriage, they lived together happily for about 18 months. Out of their wedlock they were not blessed with children. Due to misunderstanding and unable to adjust themselves, they started living separately since 08-06-2022. The parents and elders of both parties tried for reconciliation but in vain.

2 of 3 FCOP.No. 19 of 2024

4. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 together filed the present petition by stating that there are no chances of living together and intends to obtain divorce by mutual consent.

5. Both parties together filed the present application U/sec.13-B Hindu Marriage Act.

6. The Petitioners No. 1 and 2 appeared before this court. Their identity is proved by duly furnishing the identity proof furnished by them.

7. Both parties were counselled and Efforts are made by this court for reconciliation, but in vain.

8. On being questioned by the court, both the parties stated that they have mutually consented to obtain divorce as they are not able to live together and their consent is voluntary.

9. Both parties filed their chief examination affidavits as Pws 1 and 2. Both the petitioners are examined as Pws 1 and 2 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 are marked.

10. After completion of enquiry arguments were heard. Perused the record.

11. Now the points that arises for consideration is:

1. Whether the petitioners have been living separately for a period of one year or more, prior to the presentation of petition?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for divorce by mutual consent?

12. Point Nos. 1 and 2:

Pws 1 and 2 reiterated their stand during the course of evidence. They also filed the documents vide Ex.P1 is Marriage Card (Marriage dated 25-11-2020). Ex.P2 is Marriage Photographs. Ex.P3 is True copy of Aadhar card of PW1 (verified and compared with the original) and Ex.P4 is True copy of Aadhar card of PW2 (verified and compared with the original), in support of their case.

13. It is the case of the petitioners and as per their oral testimony, their marriage was solemnized on on 25-11-2020 at Manikya Nagar Community Hall, Near Shivalayam Temple, Chinthal, Quthubullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. The testimony of PWs 1 and 2 further reveals that after their marriage, some differences arose in between them and they could not able to live together and therefore they started living separately since 08-06-2022. The efforts for their reunion by the elders could not yeild result and both parties mutually consented to obtain divorce.

14. The evidence of Pws 1 and 2 further shows that, they have mutually decided to part away and have no other claims against one and another.

15. As could be seen from the record, it is presented by them on 20-01-2024 before this Court. Since the marraige was performed on 25-11-2020, the present petition seeking for divorce is presented by them after one year of their marriage as mandated U/s.13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. After filing the petition, they have been reconciled but in vain. They 3 of 3 FCOP.No. 19 of 2024 have been given the period of six months time. Thus the parties herein have complied with the legal requirements in presentation of the petition seeking for the relief herein.

16. From the above evidence on record, it is proved that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 25-11-2020 and thereafter their marital relationship is totally strained and they are living separately since 08-06-2022. There are no chances of parties living together and both the parties mutually consented to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent. All the claims are settled and they have no other claims against one and another. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and by considering the oral and documentary evidence brought on record, this court is of the opinion that the contention of petitioners can be accepted. Thus it is just and proper to dissolve the marriage between the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 by mutual consent. Accordingly the points are answered in favour of the petitioners.

17. In the result, the petition is allowed. The marriage dated 25-11-2020 between the petitioners stands dissolved by mutual consent by way of decree of divorce, from this day onwards.

Typed to my dictation to the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 23 rd of January, 2025.

Judge,

Family Court-cum-ADJ Court, Medchal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioners:-

PW-1: Smt. Manchala @ Bandi Maheswari PW-2: Sri. Manchala Srinivas

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioners: -

Ex.P1 is Marriage Card (Marriage dated 25-11-2020). Ex.P2 is Marriage Photographs. Ex.P3 is True copy of Aadhar card of PW1 (verified and compared with the original) and Ex.P4 is True copy of Aadhar card of PW2 (verified and compared with the original),

Judge,

Family Court-cum-ADJ Court,` Medchal.

F.C.O.P/67/2024

Bhashtpaka Pawan Kalyan vs Sirigiri Charanaya

23 Jan 2025

1 of 3 FCOP.No. 67 of 2024

BEFORE THE ADDL FAMILY COURT – CUM-II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

COURT AT MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI AT MEDCHAL

Present: Janga Jeevan Kumar,

Judge, Family Court-cum-ADJ Court,

Medchal.

F.C.O.P. No. 67 of 2024

Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2025

Between:- Sri. Bhashtpaka Pawan Kalyan, S/o. Bhashtpaka Bikshapathi, age: 22 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o.H.No. 11-4-144, Bazar Ghat, VTC, Hyderabad – 500 001.

... Petitioner No.1

AND

Smt. Sirigiri Charanaya, D/o. Sirigiri Venkatesh, age 22 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o.H.No. 1-67, Bhadurpally Village, Dundigal-Gandimaisamma Mandal, Medchal District – 500 043.

... Petitioner No.2

This petition is coming on before me for final hearing on 23-01-2025 in presence of Sri Mohd. Afsar, Advocate for the petitioners and having heard and stood over for consideration this Court made the following:-

O R D E R

1. This is a petition filed by the Petitioners/Spouse under Sec.13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act requesting and seeking for dissolution of Marriage by mutual consent.

2. The brief averments of the petition filed by both the petitioners:- It is the case of the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 that they are Wife and Husband and their love- cum-arranged marriage was performed on 28-05-2022 at ARYA SAMAJ, Mangalhat, Dhruvpet, Hyderabad, as per Hindu rites and customs. After their marriage, they lived together happily for about 06 Months. Due to misunderstanding, temperaments and unable to adjust themselves, they started living separately since 21-12-2022. The parents and elders of both parties tried for reconciliation but in vain.

2 of 3 FCOP.No. 67 of 2024

4. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 together filed the present petition by stating that there are no chances of living together and intends to obtain divorce by mutual consent.

5. Both parties together filed the present application U/sec.13-B Hindu Marriage Act.

6. The Petitioners No. 1 and 2 appeared before this court. Their identity is proved by duly furnishing the identity proof furnished by them.

7. Both parties were counselled and Efforts are made by this court for reconciliation, but in vain.

8. On being questioned by the court, both the parties stated that they have mutually consented to obtain divorce as they are not able to live together and their consent is voluntary.

9. Both parties filed their chief examination affidavits as Pws 1 and 2. Both the petitioners are examined as Pws 1 and 2 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 are marked.

10. After completion of enquiry arguments were heard. Perused the record.

11. Now the points that arises for consideration is:

1. Whether the petitioners have been living separately for a period of one year or more, prior to the presentation of petition?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for divorce by mutual consent?

12. Point Nos. 1 and 2:

Pws 1 and 2 reiterated their stand during the course of evidence. They also filed the documents vide Ex.P1 is Original Marriage Certificate vide No.110/2022 (Marriage dated 28- 05-2022). Ex.P2 is Marriage Photographs. Ex.P3 is True copy of Aadhar card of PW1 (verified and compared with the original) and Ex.P4 is True copy of Aadhar card of PW2 (verified and compared with the original), in support of their case.

13. It is the case of the petitioners and as per their oral testimony, their marriage was solemnized on on 28-05-2022 at ARYA SAMAJ, Mangalhat, Dhruvpet, Hyderabad. The testimony of PWs 1 and 2 further reveals that after their marriage, some differences arose in between them and they could not able to live together and therefore they started living separately since 21-12-2022. The efforts for their reunion by the elders could not yeild result and both parties mutually consented to obtain divorce.

14. The evidence of Pws 1 and 2 further shows that, they have mutually decided to part away and have no other claims against one and another.

15. As could be seen from the record, it is presented by them on 20-09-2023 before this Court. Since the marraige was performed on 28-05-2022, the present petition seeking for divorce is presented by them after one year of their marriage as mandated U/s.13-B of the 3 of 3 FCOP.No. 67 of 2024

Hindu Marriage Act. After filing the petition, they have been reconciled but in vain. They have been given the period of six months time. Thus the parties herein have complied with the legal requirements in presentation of the petition seeking for the relief herein.

16. From the above evidence on record, it is proved that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 28-05-2022 and thereafter their marital relationship is totally strained and they are living separately since 21-12-2022. There are no chances of parties living together and both the parties mutually consented to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent. All the claims are settled and they have no other claims against one and another. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and by considering the oral and documentary evidence brought on record, this court is of the opinion that the contention of petitioners can be accepted. Thus it is just and proper to dissolve the marriage between the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 by mutual consent. Accordingly the points are answered in favour of the petitioners.

17. In the result, the petition is allowed. The marriage dated 28-05-2022 between the petitioners stands dissolved by mutual consent by way of decree of divorce, from this day onwards.

Typed to my dictation to the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 23 rd of January, 2025.

Judge,

Family Court-cum-ADJ Court, Medchal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioners:-

PW-1: Sri. Bhashtpaka Pawan Kalyan PW-2: Smt. Sirigiri Charanaya

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioners: -

Ex.P1 is Original Marriage Certificate vide No.110/2022 (Marriage dated 28-05-2022). Ex.P2 is Marriage Photographs. Ex.P3 is True copy of Aadhar card of PW1 (verified and compared with the original) and Ex.P4 is True copy of Aadhar card of PW2 (verified and compared with the original)

Judge,

Family Court-cum-ADJ Court,` Medchal.

MC/25/2024

Potnuru Meenakshi and Others vs P.Hari Krishna

23 Jan 2025

1 of 8 MC No. 25 of 2024

THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL FAMILY COURT-CUM-II ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT JUDGE AT MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT

AT MEDCHAL

Present:

SRI. JANGA JEEVAN KUMAR

II Addl. District and Sessions Judge Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal.

Dated this the 23 rd day of January, 2025

MC No. 25 of 2024

Between: -

1) Smt. Potnuru Meenakshi W/o Potnuru Harikrishna, D/o Someshwar Rao Aged 31 years, Occ: House wife,

2) Baby Harshitha D/o. Potnuru Harikrishna Aged 9 years, Occ Student,

3) Baby Rahitya D/o. Potnuru Harikrishna Aged 7 years, Occ. Student (Petitioner No. 2 and 3 are being minors, rep by her natural mother and guardian i.e., Petitioner No. 1 herein)

All are R/o. Plot No 396, Vishwakarma Colony, Suraram Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District …. Petitioners

AND

Potnuru Hariskrishna, S/o. Rama Rao Aged 43 years, Occ: Private Employee R/o. H No. 4-15, Rajapur Khurigom, Goribandha, Kashinagar Gajapathi District, Odisha 751208

...Respondent

This petition is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. D.Elisha Rao, Advocate for petitioners and respondent was set exparte and having heard and stood for consideration, till this day the court delivered the following: -

2 of 8 MC No. 25 of 2024

:: O R D E R ::

01.This is a petition filed under Section 125 (2) of Cr.P.C by the petitioners against the respondent for grant of maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month to the petitioner No.1 and Rs.10,000 /- each per month to petitioners No. 2 and 3.

02.Brief and concise averments of the petition are that

(a)The Petitioner No. 1 is the legally weeded wife of the Respondent and their marriage was performed on 08-04-2010 at Kothuru Village, Srikakulam District which is an arranged marriage. At that time of marriage, the Petitioner No. 1 was a student and on the demand of parents of Respondent, her parents gave 15 tulas of gold ornaments and net cash of Rs 5,00,000/- in cash as dowry, apart from other house hold articles worth an Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Respondent and performed the marriage by spending about Rs. 2,00,000/-.

(b)Initially, they both lived together peacefully, and the respondent assured support for her education. However, soon after, he and his mother started harassing her for additional dowry, restricting her contact with her family, and treating her as a servant. She was subjected to physical abuse and was prevented from continuing her studies. Despite several, interventions by elders, the harassment continued.

3 of 8 MC No. 25 of 2024

(c)During her first pregnancy, the Respondent and his mother used to harass the Petitioner No 1 without providing proper food and medication and the

Petitioner No. 1 tolerated all the said harassment with hope that the Respondent may change his attitude in future. Petitioner No. 1 blessed with female child i.e.,

Petitioner No.2 on 18-06-2015 and thereafter also, the Respondent did not change his attitude and started neglecting the Petitioner No. 1 and minor child. In this regard, several meetings held before the elders, but in vain. When she became pregnant again, she faced further harassment and lack of support. She gave birth to another daughter i.e., Petitioner No. 3 on 23-09-2017 and continued to suffer neglect, even being forced to visit hospitals alone.

(d)During corona pandemic, due to unbearable harassment, the Petitioner No.

1 and her children i.e., Petitioner No. 2 and 3 were thrown out of the house.

Despite attempts at reconciliation through elders, the respondent refused to take responsibility. Since then, Petitioners are living on the mercy of her parents who are struggling to support her. The respondent earning Rs.60,000/- per month and owning significant assets. In fact, the respondent willfully deserted the Petitioners though he is having sufficient income. The Respondent is bound to maintain the Petitioners as he is the legally wedded husband of Petitioner No.

1 and natural father of the Petitioners No. 2 and 3.

03.Respondent set exparte.

4 of 8 MC No. 25 of 2024

04.During the course of trial, petitioner got examined herself as PW1 and got marked Exs. P1 to P5.

05. Heard the petitioner. Perused the record.

06.Now the point that arise for consideration is:

"Whether the petitioners are entitled for the relief as prayed for?. .

POINT:

07.It is the case of the petitioner that respondent is her husband and she gave dowry at the time of marriage. After the marriage, respondent started suspecting the character of the petitioner. Anyhow, the petitioner No.1 bear all the harassment made by the respondent. During the said wedlock, petitioners No.2 and 3 were born, but the respondent did not change his behavior and he necked out the petitioners from his house.

08.On perusal of the chief examination affidavit and Ex.P1 to Ex.P5, it appears that respondent is having agricultural land in his village and he is getting

Rs.60,000/- per month and also doing private job. So, it appears that respondent is having sufficient means to give maintenance to the petitioners. Since the respondent is set exparte, it appears that he is admitting the case of the petitioners. Therefore, this court is of the view that this petition is to be allowed.

This point is answered accordingly.

5 of 8 MC No. 25 of 2024

08.In the result, the petition is allowed, granting maintenance of Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner No.1 and Rs.10,000/- each to the petitioner No.2 and petitioner

No.3. Total maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month. The respondent is directed to pay the monthly maintenance on or before 10th of every month from the date of this order.

Transcribed to my dictation by the Stenographer , typed by her, corrected and pronounce by me in the open court on this the 23 rd day January, 2025 .

II Addl.Family Court-cum-II ADJ Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal

6 of 8 MC No. 25 of 2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioners For Respondent

PW1: Smt. Potnuru Meenakshi- None -

EXHIBITS MARKED

For petitioners : For respondent:

Ex.P1 is Original Marriage Card (Marriage Dt.08-04-2010) - Nil-

Ex.P2 is Marriage photographs

Ex.P3 is Copy of Aadhar card of Petitioner No.1 (Verified with original)

Ex.P4 is Copy of Aadhar card of Petitioner No.2 (Verified with original)

Ex.P5 is Copy of Aadhar card of Petitioner No.3 (Verified with original)

II Addl.Family Court-cum-II ADJ Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal

Order Record 1,508 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
MC/25/2024	Potnuru Meenakshi and Others vs P.Hari Krishna	23 Jan 2025	Order	—
F.C.O.P/19/2024	Manchala @ Bandi Maheswari vs Manchala Srinivas	23 Jan 2025	Order	—
F.C.O.P/27/2022	M. Sunitha vs Melarkodu Anantha Shanmuka Sarma	23 Jan 2025	Order	—
F.C.O.P/67/2024	Bhashtpaka Pawan Kalyan vs Sirigiri Charanaya	23 Jan 2025	Order	—
F.C.O.P/77/2024	Koutiki Sudha vs Kotiki Jayaraju	23 Jan 2025	Order	Compromised
F.C.O.P/81/2022	Ainala Veerabhadra Rao vs Busireddy Sridevi	23 Jan 2025	Other	—
F.C.O.P/200/2024	Cherukuri Veera Venkata Prasad vs Kommi Laxmi	23 Jan 2025	Order	—
F.C.O.P/205/2024	T.Rajnandini vs J.V.Chaitanya	23 Jan 2025	Order	—
F.C.O.P/285/2024	A.Achyuth Sharma @ Ayachitam Achyuth vs A.Manisha @ Tekmala Manisha	23 Jan 2025	Order	—
F.C.O.P/314/2022	Rohit Kumar Cherukuri vs Monisha Tripuraneni	23 Jan 2025	Order	—
F.C.O.P/432/2023	Krishna Chaitanya Danboyina vs Dondapati Naga Mounika	23 Jan 2025	Other	—
F.C.O.P/471/2022	Smt K.Madhuri vs Sri .Kandi Siddharth	23 Jan 2025	Order	—
F.C.O.P/684/2022	SRI KATTA PRAVEEN KUMAR vs KATTA HYMAVATHI	23 Jan 2025	Order	—
F.C.O.P/687/2022	GORTHUI VEERA VENKATA SATYA SRIRAMA RAVI DURGA SUBRAHMANYAM @GORTHI SRIRAM vs SISTLA SAI BINDU MADHAVI	23 Jan 2025	Order	—
EP/204/2023	Gowra Leasing and Finance Limited vs NJL Plastic Industries and Others	22 Jan 2025	Other	—
EP/205/2023	R.Seshadri vs Qulitek Pharma and Others	22 Jan 2025	Other	—
OS/210/2023	Thumati Venkata Subbaiah vs Mir Zulfequar Ali Khan	22 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
OS/106/2024	Sushila Choudhary and Others vs All Concerned	21 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
F.C.O.P/65/2024	Naguvarapu Rajasekhar vs Kavirayuni Sneha Noopur	16 Jan 2025	Order	—
F.C.O.P/194/2024	N.Samkishan vs Nethala @ Eluri Neelima	16 Jan 2025	Order	—
F.C.O.P/63/2024	Bulasala Soujanya @ Lella Soujanya vs Lella Nagaraju	09 Jan 2025	Order	—
F.C.O.P/127/2023	Kandala Saiswar vs Devalla Venkata Rathnam	09 Jan 2025	Order	—
F.C.O.P/183/2024	Y.Lakshmi Priyanka vs B.Sai Virat Goud	09 Jan 2025	Order	—
F.C.O.P/208/2024	Shaik Amer Patel vs Muskan Shaik	09 Jan 2025	Other	—
F.C.O.P/239/2024	Manda Sudeep vs V.Esther Rani	09 Jan 2025	Order	—
F.C.O.P/284/2024	Rozina Ashwin Rajvani vs Ashwin Kasambhai Rajvani	09 Jan 2025	Other	—
F.C.O.P/306/2022	Afroz Fatima vs Hafiz Abdul Sameer	09 Jan 2025	Other	—
F.C.O.P/335/2023	B.Naresh vs B.Chandani @ Nakkalan Chandani	09 Jan 2025	Other	—
F.C.O.P/355/2024	Aluri alias Hanumadri Aparna vs Aluri Shiva Shanker Goud	09 Jan 2025	Order	—
EP/161/2024	V.Prabhavathi vs Pujari Nirmala and Others	08 Jan 2025	Other	—
OS/6/2024	Yalamanchili Sujani and Another vs The Tahsildar and All Concerned	07 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
AS/16/2019	P BALAVVA @ BALAMMA vs P RAJ KUMAR	06 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
EP/4/2023	Vaddineni Venkateswara Rao vs Vishwa Projects	06 Jan 2025	Other	—
EP/388/2022	Balguri Sudhakar Rao vs Y Ravi Kumar	06 Jan 2025	Other	—
CRLA/45/2024	LAXMAN B BINNY vs STATE OF TELANAGANA	03 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
MC/86/2022	Kshatriya Deepa Kumari vs Kshatriaya Vinay Kumar singh	02 Jan 2025	Order	—
F.C.O.P/182/2024	Kowdi Mounika vs Guduru Kranthi	02 Jan 2025	Order	—
F.C.O.P/266/2024	Police Mangeshwar Reddy vs Vanga Rohini	02 Jan 2025	Other	—
F.C.O.P/333/2023	S.Chandra Mouli vs Namratha N	02 Jan 2025	Other	—
F.C.O.P/390/2023	Vattikuti Yeswanth Kumar vs Vattikutti Dedeepya	02 Jan 2025	Other	—
F.C.O.P/404/2022	Gouru Krishna Prasad vs Mrs. Gouru Rudvi	02 Jan 2025	Other	—
F.C.O.P/419/2023	Kondareddy Jayasimha Reddy vs Payyala Aishwarya Rajya Lakshmi	02 Jan 2025	Other	—
F.C.O.P/480/2022	Smt.Kshatriya Deepa Kumari vs Kshatriya Viny Kumar Singh	02 Jan 2025	Order	—
EP/1147/2022	Shriram Transport Finance Co. Limited vs Gattu Ramulu and Other	31 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/1148/2022	IDFC First Bank Ltd vs Smitha Shende	31 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/1149/2022	IDFC First Bank Ltd vs Ch Arun	31 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/1154/2022	Axis Bank Ltd vs Gajam Chandram and Another	31 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/1155/2022	Shriram Transport Finance Co Ltd vs Manik G and Another	31 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/1158/2022	IDFC First Bank Limited vs Gugulothu Raju	31 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/1160/2022	Indus Ind Bank Ltd vs K Navaneetha and Another	31 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/1161/2022	Shriram Transport Finance Co Ltd vs Vijaya Bhaskar and Another	31 Dec 2024	Other	—
F.C.O.P/69/2023	R Bhagyalaxmi vs Ravulapally Rajashekar	30 Dec 2024	Order	—
SC.SPL/774/2020	PS JAWAHR NAGAR. vs AFZAL HUSSAIN KAHAN S/O ABDUL KHUDOOS	30 Dec 2024	Judgement	Acquitted
EP/15/2023	Kotal Mahindra Bank vs Nadagouni Padma Reddy	27 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/18/2023	Kotak Mahindra Bank vs Ande Sampath Kumar	27 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/18/2024	Kotak Mahindra Bank vs S.Vinay Kumar	27 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/19/2024	Kotak Mahindra Bank vs Sagar Raju	27 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/20/2024	HDFC Bank Limited vs Lakavath Shamkar and Another	27 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/21/2024	HDFC Bank Limited vs D.Chand Basha and Others	27 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/22/2024	HDFC Bank Limited vs Santhula Philips and Another	27 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/23/2024	HDFC Bank Limited vs CH Bablu and Another	27 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/24/2024	Bajaj Finance Limited vs Bolleboina Sreehari Yadav	27 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/25/2024	Bajaj Finance Limited vs Syed Matheen	27 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/26/2024	IDFC First Bank Limited vs Yangandula Krishna	27 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/27/2024	IDFC First Bank Limited vs Penugondla Veerabrahmaiah	27 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/29/2024	Fortune Integrated Assets Finance Limited vs Chatlapally Mahesh and Another	27 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/30/2024	Fortune Integrated Assets Finance Limited vs Katta peter and another	27 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/31/2023	Kotak Mahindra Bank vs Pamula Shiva Kumar Reddy	27 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/31/2024	Fortune Integrated Assets Finance Limited vs Sandinapoina Srikanth and Another	27 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/34/2023	Kotak Mahindra Bank vs Boya Murari Sudhakar	27 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/68/2023	HDFC Bank Limited vs Indla Ramulu	27 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/101/2023	Shiram Transport Finance Co. Ltd vs Md. Nijamuddin and Another	27 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/124/2023	Shiram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. vs Alluri Arun Kumar and Another	27 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/125/2023	Shiram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. vs Veeresh Parakala and Another	27 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/126/2023	Shiram Transport Finance Co. Ltd vs E. Ravi Kumar and Another	27 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/127/2023	Shiram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. vs Vijaya Kumari Addumukkala and Another	27 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/160/2023	Shiram Transport Finance Co. Ltd vs National Roadlines and Another	27 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/163/2023	Bajaj Housing Finance Limited vs Rekha Bhaskaran	27 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/165/2023	Bajaj Housing Finance Limited vs Nampelli Rajesh	27 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/166/2023	Bajaj Housing Finance Limited vs SK Mastan Shareef	27 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/167/2023	Bajaj Housing Finance Limited vs G.K.Rao	27 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/200/2022	M/S.MANAPPURAM FINANCE LIMITED vs DOMALA MADHU KUMAR AND ANOTHER	27 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/201/2022	M/S.MANAPPURAM FINANCE LIMITED vs PONNABOINA SWAMY AND ANOTHER	27 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/415/2022	Shiram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. vs Yaradati Narsinga Rao and Another	27 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/591/2022	M/S.SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD REOP BY MR.JADAV VISHMU VARDHAN vs SHADULLA HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER	27 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/866/2022	M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. Rep by M.Srinivas Rao vs G.UMA MAHESHWARI AND ANOTHER	27 Dec 2024	Other	—
F.C.O.P/160/2024	L.Priyanka vs Ch. Sasi Bhushan	27 Dec 2024	Order	—
F.C.O.P/163/2024	Gunde Padma vs Gunde Venkatesh	27 Dec 2024	Order	—
EP/737/2022	Sriram Transport Finance Co Ltd rep. by B anand Rao vs Poushetty Raj Kumar and another	26 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/747/2022	M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd rep. by Darshanala raghunand vs Ramesh Rao Nimana	26 Dec 2024	Other	—
MC/41/2024	B.Lakshmi Bhavani and Another vs B.Ganesh Venkata Phanikumar	26 Dec 2024	Order	—
F.C.O.P/48/2024	Nadimpalli Revanth Kumar Raju vs Nadimpalli Jyothisri	26 Dec 2024	Other	—
F.C.O.P/376/2023	Gadiraju Jyothi Sree vs Nadimpalli Revanth Kumar Raju	26 Dec 2024	Other	—
F.C.O.P/556/2022	Md. Zhakeer vs Anjum Ruksana	26 Dec 2024	Other	—
CMA/22/2023	Vivala Cartons Pvt Ltd vs M Narsimha Reddy and Others	23 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
EP/151/2022	HDB Financial Services Limited vs Maloth Devsingh and Another	23 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/210/2022	M/s Manappuram Finance Ltd, rep by T Thakur Vishal Singh vs Kammari Srinivasulu and anaother	23 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/232/2022	HDFC BANK LTD vs OMPRAKASH SEERVI	23 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/592/2022	M/S.SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD REP BY MR.JADAV VISHNU VARDHAN vs CHITTIBABAU CHANNALLA AND ANOTHER	23 Dec 2024	Other	—
EP/593/2022	M/S.SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD. REP BY MR.JAVDAV VUISHNU VARDHAN vs DIWAN SAHID KHAN AND ANOTHER	23 Dec 2024	Other	—

Showing 100 of 1,508 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Jan 2025		44
Dec 2024		297
Nov 2024		612
Oct 2024		59
Sep 2024		96
Aug 2024		108
Jul 2024		99
Jun 2024		183
May 2024		18
Apr 2024		1

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri.J.Jeevan Kumar handled?

Sri.J.Jeevan Kumar has handled 1517 court orders since 2024 at Medchal, ADJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 172 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri.J.Jeevan Kumar hear?

Based on available records, Sri.J.Jeevan Kumar primarily handles Civil matters (Execution Petitions, Original Suits) and Criminal matters (Sessions Cases, Criminal Cases) at Medchal, ADJ Court Complex.

Where is Sri.J.Jeevan Kumar currently posted?

Sri.J.Jeevan Kumar is posted as II Addl.District and Sessions Judge-cum-I Addl.Family CourtMedchal at Medchal, ADJ Court Complex, Medchal Malkajgiri, Telangana.

Are judgments by Sri.J.Jeevan Kumar available online?

Yes. 10 judgments by Sri.J.Jeevan Kumar are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri.J.Jeevan Kumar dispose cases?

Sri.J.Jeevan Kumar disposes approximately 172 cases per month, based on 1517 orders handled over their tenure at Medchal, ADJ Court Complex.

Since when is Sri.J.Jeevan Kumar serving?

Sri.J.Jeevan Kumar has been serving at Medchal, ADJ Court Complex since 2024.

Case Types

EP 67%

F 28%

OS 1%

SC 1%

MC 1%

G 1%

AS 0%

L 0%

Posting History

Apr 2024 — Jan 2025

II Addl.District and Sessions Judge-cum-I Addl.Family CourtMedchal · 1,503 orders
Apr 2024 — Jan 2025

Fast Track Special Court for expeditious Trial and Disposal of RAPE and POCSO Act Cases at Medchal · 14 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 5

Compromised 1

Other Judges at this Court

Smt. G. Bhanumati

II Addl.District and Sessions Judge-cum-I Addl.Fam...

180 orders

Ms. V. Sravani Yadav

Prl Junior Civil Judge-cum-VII Addl Judicial Magis...

110 orders

Sri. U. Thirupathi

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-IX Addl. Judicial...

169 orders

K. Yuvaraja

Addl.Senior Civil Judge-cum-Addl Chief Judicial Ma...

0 orders

Smt. Paladugula Alekhya

I Addl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-VIII Addl. Judicial...

54 orders

Smt. Arella Hemalatha

III Addl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-X Addl.Judicial Ma...

65 orders

Sri K. Venkatesh

Fast Track Special Court for expeditious Trial and...

41 orders

← View all judges at Medchal, ADJ Court Complex