J Jeevan Kumar

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NIRMAL

Present: Sri J.Jeevan Kumar, Secretary, DLSA, Adilabad. FAC: Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal.

Friday, this the 07th day of April, 2017.

O.P.No.24/2016

Between:

Ramagiri Shailesh S/o Narsaiah, Age: 29 yrs., Occ: Police constable R/o Dharmora village R/m Lokeshwaram, Dist: Adilabad.

…Petitioner No.1 . // AND //

Ramagiri Archana @ Vennu Bhavya W/o Shailesh, Age: 20 yrs., Occ: Student R/o Manjulapur R/m Nirmal.

…Petitioner No.2.

This petition is coming before me in the presence of Sri. C.Vidya Sagar Reddy, Advocate for the petitioners No.1 and 2, having heard and stood over for consideration this Court delivered the following:

ORDER

This is a petition filed Under Sec.13 (B) of Hindu Marriage Act, praying this court to grant a decree of divorce between both the petitioners on mutual consent by dissolving their marriage.

2.The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No.1 is the husband of petitioner No.2 and petitioner No.2 is wife of petitioner

No.1. Both the petitioners were married on 27.05.2015 at

Manjulapur village Nirmal as per caste and customs prevailing in their community. After their marriage both parties lead happy marital life for a period of fifteen days only. Due to several disputes parties residing separately and that there is no cohabitation between petitioners No.1 and 2.

2

3.During course of enquiry both the petitioners were present.

Petitioners No.1 and 2 have filed their chief affidavits stating that since 20.06.2016 they are living separately. Inspite of mediation both the parties are living separately.

4.Heard the arguments of counsel for petitioners.

5.In view of the contents of the petition and also the chief affidavits the ingredients required U/sec.13(B) of Hindu Marriage

Act are complied, both the petitioners willing to take divorce on mutual consent by dissolving their marriage. The statutory waiting period of six months as required U/sec.13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act also elapsed.

6.In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, this

Court feels that it is just and proper to grant divorce on mutual consent by dissolving the marriage of both the petitioners.

7.In the result, petition is allowed by granting a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage, dt.27.05.2015 between petitioners No.1 and 2. No costs.

Typed to my dictation and after corrections pronounced by me in open Court this the 7th day of April, 2017.

Senior Civil Judge,

Nirmal 3

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, NIRMAL

A6 is produced from District jail Adilabad. Judgment pronounced in open court vide separate one. In the result the accused No.6 is found not guilty of the offence punishable U/s 235 1 cr.P.C whereas accused No.6 is found guilty of the offence punishable U/s 411 IPC and accordingly he is convicted of the said offence U/s 235(2) Cr.P.C. A6 is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence A6 submitted that he is suffering from ole age ailment and prayed to take lenient view. In view of the above submissions made by A6 this court is of opinion that benefits of provisions of probation of offending act and sec 360 Cr..PC. cannot be extended to A6 as he is not entitled for the same considering the severally of the offence. How ever same lenient view is to be taken with regard to age of A6. A6 is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year. The period of detention of A6 i.e.,from 8.1.2028 to till date shall be given set off as providing U/s 428 of Cr.P.C so the jail authorities are directed to release A6, forthwith if he is not required in any ther case. MO1 to MO6 and MO11 which are given towards safe custody to PW5 shall be mode absolute after appeal time is over. MO7 to MO10 shall be returned to PW5, MOs 12 to 27 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. MOs 1 to 27 are marked in Main SC No. 233 of 2015.

Sd/-

Prl. District Judge, Nirmal.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, NIRMAL

A6 is produced from District jail Adilabad. Judgment pronounced in open court vide separate one. In the result the accused No.6 is found not guilty of the offence punishable U/s 235 1 cr.P.C whereas accused No.6 is found guilty of the offence punishable U/s 411 IPC and accordingly he is convicted of the said offence U/s 235(2) Cr.P.C. A6 is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence A6 submitted that he is suffering from ole age ailment and prayed to take lenient view. In view of the above submissions made by A6 this court is of opinion that benefits of provisions of probation of offending act and sec 360 Cr..PC. cannot be extended to A6 as he is not entitled for the same considering the severally of the offence. How ever same lenient view is to be taken with regard to age of A6. A6 is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year. The period of detention of A6 i.e.,from 8.1.2028 to till date shall be given set off as providing U/s 428 of Cr.P.C so the jail authorities are directed to release A6, forthwith if he is not required in any ther case. MO1 to MO6 and MO11 which are given towards safe custody to PW5 shall be mode absolute after appeal time is over. MO7 to MO10 shall be returned to PW5, MOs 12 to 27 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. MOs 1 to 27 are marked in Main SC No. 233 of 2015.

Sd/-

Prl. District Judge, Nirmal.

H.M.O.P/17/20151 / 1Dt: 28-04-2017

TSNR010000482015

IN THE COURT OF THE Senior Civil Judge:

Present: K. Ajesh Kumar,

Senior Civil Judge,

28 April 2017

H.M.O.P/17/2015

Between:

Malankala Ramakrishna Address: Ro Vidya nagar locality , Khanapur … Plaintiff/Petitioner AND malankala Sravanti Address: Ro Gandhi chowk , Mamada … Defendent/Respondent

Counsel for : K.VINOD RAO,Advocate

Counsel for : Shyamsunder reddy,Advocate

This (case type) having come before me for hearing today, having heard and considered the record, this court delivered the following :

ORDER

both parties called absent. the counsel for petitioner represented that both the petitioner and res. compromised the matter and not pressed the petition. Hence the OP is dismissed as not pressed for.

H.M.O.P/17/20151 / 1Dt: 28-04-2017

This Order Generated in Case Information System (CIS) on 28-04-2017

Senior Civil Judge

Nirmal (Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services” from Android or iOS)

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, NIRMAL

In the result the petition is allowed in part with proportionate cost by granting fallowing reliefs 1.The petitioner is entitled to total compensation of rupees 251300 2.the petitioner is entitled to interest 7.5per annum from the date of filling of the petition till the date of deposite or realization 3.The respondent No1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation 4.On deposit the petitioner is permitted to with draw entire compensation amount with accrued interest and probation ate costs 5. The advocate fee is fixed at Rs.10000 6.Time granted for deposit of the amount is (30)days from the date of this order 4

Sd/-

Prl. District Judge, Nirmal.