Currently Serving

Dr.K.Deepa Dyva Krupa

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,Peddapuram

Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Peddapuram (Taluka) · East Godavari · Andhra Pradesh

Dr.K.Deepa Dyva Krupa, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,Peddapuram, is posted at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Peddapuram (Taluka), East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh, India. 7,293 court orders on record since 2014. 16 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, H cases.

7,293

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

H.M.O.P/62/2026

Akkireddy Buli Satyanarayana vs Nill

08 May 2026

1 Fair order in H.M.O.P.62/2026

Dated 08.05.2026

APEG1A0000982026

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) ::

PEDDAPURAM

PRESENT : Dr. K. Deepa Dyva Krupa

Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Friday, the 8th day of May, 2026

H.M.O.P.62 OF 2026

Between :

1. Akkireddy Buli Satyanarayana, S/o Nageswararao, 32 years, Private Employee, D.No.4-110A, Kothapeta, J.Thimmapuram Village. Peddapuram Mandal. Kakinada District.

2. Akkireddy @ Kavali Harika, W/o Buli Satyanarayana, D/o Kavali Surya Prakash, 29 years, Housewife, D.No.18-10-58, Gandhinagar, Near Water Tank, Samalkota Town. Samalkota Mandal. … Petitioners.

AND

NIL … Respondent.

This petition came before me on 08.05.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Ch.Siva Kesavarao, Sri K.V.R.K.Durga Prasad, learned Advocates for the petitioners and upon hearing and perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following :

2 Fair order in H.M.O.P.62/2026

Dated 08.05.2026

:: O R D E R ::

1.The petitioners jointly filed this petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955, praying the court to grant a decree of divorce by mutual consent dissolving the marriage solemnized between the petitioners on 17.05.2020 at Ramalayam, J.Thimmapuram Village, Peddapuram Mandal,

Kakinada District and to grant such other reliefs.

2.The averments of the petition are as follows :

The petitioners submitted that they both are husband and wife and their marriage was performed on 17.05.2020 at Ramalayam, J.Thimmapuram Village,

Peddapuram Mandal, Kakinada District as per Hindu rites and customs, immediately after the marriage the 2nd petitioner joined with the 1st petitioner at her in-laws house and the marriage was consummated and one male child viz.,

Diansh Sri Satya Veer was born on 29.07.2022 out of wedlock and both petitioners lived together happily for one and half years and later, some irreconcilable differences and disputes arose between them and the elders of both parties tried to pacify the matter, but the petitioners did not adjust with each other, and since February, 2022 both petitioners are living separately and thereupon, the 2nd petitioner filed a complaint against the 1st petitioner and his parents and the same was numbered as C.C.1071/2024 U/Sec.85 r/w 351(2)

BNS and U/Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act on the file of V AJFCM Court, Kakinada and same is pending and the 2nd petitioner also filed M.C.14/2024 against the 1st petitioner seeking monthly maintenance for herself and minor child on the file of V

AJFCM Court, Kakinada and same is pending and thereafter, the parents of both parties raised dispute before the elders and the elders advised both parties to live together peacefully, but both parties refused for the same, then elders advised them to take divorce on mutual consent and as per the terms of the compromise, the 1st petitioner agreed to give an amount of Rs.3,25,000/- to the 2nd petitioner towards full and final settlement of 2nd petitioner and minor son as permanent alimony viz., Rs.2,00,000/- to the minor son and Rs.1,25,000/- to the 2nd petitioner, for which the 2nd petitioner agreed and out of said amount, the 1st 3 Fair order in H.M.O.P.62/2026

Dated 08.05.2026

petitioner gave an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- to the 2nd petitioner on 07.08.2025 towards part payment and the 2nd petitioner received the same and the 1st petitioner agreed to give remaining balance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the 2nd petitioner at the time of adducing evidence, for which, the 2nd petitioner agreed and further, the 2nd petitioner agreed to withdraw C.C.1071/2024 U/Sec.85 r/w 351(2) BNS and U/Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act which was filed against the 1st petitioner and his parents and also agreed to withdraw M.C.14/2024 on the file of

V AJFCM Court, Kakinada, for which, the 1st petitioner agreed and they further agreed that they will not file any civil and criminal cases against each other and further submitted that there is no collusion between the petitioners in filing the petition and requested the court to grant decree of divorce by mutual consent by dissolving the marriage solemnized between the 1st and 2nd petitioners at

Ramalayam, J.Thimmapuram Village, Peddapuram Mandal, Kakinada District on 17.05.2020.

3.On perusal of the record, it is found that, the conjugal relationship between the parties ceased from February, 2022 and till today they are residing separately. The main H.M.O.P. filed on 23.09.2025 for dissolution of their marriage dated 17.05.2020 by mutual consent. It is further disclosed that the statutory period of six months specified in Section 13 B (2), in addition to the statutory period of one year under section 13 B (1) of separation of parties, is already over before the first motion itself. Further, the petitioners moved waiver application specified in section 13 B (2) of the Act few days after the first motion along with an advance petition. After filing this application, this court also made a sincere effort by conciliation to reunite the parties under section 23 (2) of the Act.

Still, the petitioners stuck to their stand, stating that they could not live together and sought a divorce. Further, the averments of the petition and submission of both petitioners disclose that they have genuinely settled their differences, including alimony etc., pending between them. Hence the waiver petition under sec 13 B (2) of H.M.Act along with advance petition are allowed and proceeded further.

4 Fair order in H.M.O.P.62/2026

Dated 08.05.2026

4. During the enquiry of this petition, both the petitioners themselves examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 by filing their chief examination affidavits, they got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5.

5.Heard the learned counsel for petitioners.

6.The point for determination is:

Whether the petitioners No.1 and 2 are entitled to the

decree of divorce on the ground of mutual consent under

Section 13 B of th e Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?

POINT ANSWERED :

7.The petitioners No.1 and 2 reiterated the contents of the petition in their chief-examination affidavits, it is the version of petitioners No.1 and 2 that their marriage was performed on 17.05.2020 at Ramalayam, J.Thimmapuram Village,

Dated 08.05.2026

towards full and final settlement of 2nd petitioner and minor son as permanent alimony viz., Rs.2,00,000/- to the minor son and Rs.1,25,000/- to the 2nd petitioner, for which the 2nd petitioner agreed and out of said amount, the 1st petitioner gave an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- to the 2nd petitioner on 07.08.2025 towards part payment and the 2nd petitioner received the same and the 1st petitioner also gave remaining balance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the 2nd petitioner and the 2nd petitioner received the same and further, the 2nd petitioner agreed to withdraw C.C.1071/2024 U/Sec.85 r/w 351(2) BNS and U/Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act which was filed against the 1st petitioner and his parents and 2nd petitioner withdraw M.C.14/2024 on the file of V AJFCM Court, Kakinada filed against the 1st petitioner and they further agreed that they will not file any civil and criminal cases against each other and the petitioners No.1 and 2 are stated in one voice that there is no possibility to live together and there is no possibility for reunion and to resume conjugal life between them, in spite of the efforts made by this court after filing of this petition by way reconciliation the petitioners No.1 and 2 did not deviate from their stands. Hence, no other option is left with this court, except accepting the contentions of the petitioners No.1 and 2 in view of their personal life and liberty, if the petitioners are continued in the same status, it is nothing but continuation of mental agony. Hence, in view of the above discussion, this court is inclined to allow this petition.

8. In the result, this petition is allowed and the marriage solemnized on 17.05.2020 between the petitioners 1 and 2 is dissolved by granting a decree of divorce by mutual consent under section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The petitioners shall bear their own costs.

Dictated to the steno directly on Computer, Corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court, this the 8th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Dr. K. Deepa Dyva Krupa,

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Peddapuram.

6 Fair order in H.M.O.P.62/2026

Dated 08.05.2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioners :

P.W.1 : Akkireddy Buli Satyanarayana

P.W.2 : Akkireddy @ Kavali Harika

For Respondent : -- Nil --

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Petitioners :

Ex.P1 : Original muhurtham paper with marriage dt.17.05.2020.

Ex.P2 : Two marriage photographs along with C.D.

Ex.P3:Compared copy of Aadhar card of 1st petitioner.

Ex.P4 : Compared copy of Aadhar card of 2nd petitioner.

Ex.P5: Joint Identification certificate issued by Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Peddapuram, dated 07.04.2026.

For Respondent : -- NIL --

Sd/- Dr. K. Deepa Dyva Krupa,

CJ (SD), PDP.

H.M.O.P/62/2026

Akkireddy Buli Satyanarayana vs Nill

08 May 2026

1 Fair order in H.M.O.P.62/2026

Dated 08.05.2026

APEG1A0000982026

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) ::

PEDDAPURAM

PRESENT : Dr. K. Deepa Dyva Krupa

Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Friday, the 8th day of May, 2026

H.M.O.P.62 OF 2026

Between :

1. Akkireddy Buli Satyanarayana, S/o Nageswararao, 32 years, Private Employee, D.No.4-110A, Kothapeta, J.Thimmapuram Village. Peddapuram Mandal. Kakinada District.

AND

NIL … Respondent.

2 Fair order in H.M.O.P.62/2026

Dated 08.05.2026

:: O R D E R ::

1.The petitioners jointly filed this petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu

Kakinada District and to grant such other reliefs.

2.The averments of the petition are as follows :

The petitioners submitted that they both are husband and wife and their marriage was performed on 17.05.2020 at Ramalayam, J.Thimmapuram Village,

Dated 08.05.2026

Ramalayam, J.Thimmapuram Village, Peddapuram Mandal, Kakinada District on 17.05.2020.

4 Fair order in H.M.O.P.62/2026

Dated 08.05.2026

4. During the enquiry of this petition, both the petitioners themselves examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 by filing their chief examination affidavits, they got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5.

5.Heard the learned counsel for petitioners.

6.The point for determination is:

Whether the petitioners No.1 and 2 are entitled to the

decree of divorce on the ground of mutual consent under

Section 13 B of th e Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?

POINT ANSWERED :

Dated 08.05.2026

The petitioners shall bear their own costs.

Dictated to the steno directly on Computer, Corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court, this the 8th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Dr. K. Deepa Dyva Krupa,

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Peddapuram.

6 Fair order in H.M.O.P.62/2026

Dated 08.05.2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioners :

P.W.1 : Akkireddy Buli Satyanarayana

P.W.2 : Akkireddy @ Kavali Harika

For Respondent : -- Nil --

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Petitioners :

Ex.P1 : Original muhurtham paper with marriage dt.17.05.2020.

Ex.P2 : Two marriage photographs along with C.D.

Ex.P3:Compared copy of Aadhar card of 1st petitioner.

Ex.P4 : Compared copy of Aadhar card of 2nd petitioner.

Ex.P5: Joint Identification certificate issued by Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Peddapuram, dated 07.04.2026.

For Respondent : -- NIL --

Sd/- Dr. K. Deepa Dyva Krupa,

CJ (SD), PDP.

OS/127/2019

Rimmalapudi Veerraju vs Penke Dorababu

21 Nov 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL I CLASS

MAGISTRATE:

Present : - Dr. K. DEEPA DYVA KRUPA Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial

Magistrate Of First Class Alamuru

Tuesday, the 21st day of November, 2023

O.S.No. 1 27/2019

Between: Rimmalapudi Veerraju, S/o.Gopala Rao, age 46 years, Business, R/o.Mandapeta Town, Mandapeta Mandal, Alamuru JCJ Court, E.G.District.

… Plaintiff. AND

Penke Dorababu, S/o.Appa Rao, age 40 years, Teacher, Hindu, R/o.Dr.No.7- 3-4, Nalam vari Veedhi, Mandapeta Town & Mandalam, present working at MPP Primary School, China Dwarapudi village, Alamuru JCJ Court, E.G. Dist.,

... Defendant.

This suit is coming on 21-11-2023 for final hearing before me in the presence Sri J.Satyanarayana, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri K.B.S.R, Advocate for defendant and upon hearing and having stood over the matter for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of an amount of

Rs10,98,660/- with subsequent interest at 12% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from the date of suit till the date of realization and for costs of the suit.

2. The plaint averments are that:-

The defendant is working as Teacher at MPP school, China Dwarapudi of Mandapeta and he borrowed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 24.12.2017 for the purpose of family expenses and discharge of sundry debts and executed a demand promissory note on the even date in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the said amount either to the plaintiff or to his order with interest at the rate of Rs.2.00 per hundred per month in the presence of attestors and scribe.

3.Thereafter the defendant did not repay the amount, in spite of the several demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not repay the 2 amount and that the plaintiff got issued legal notice on 13-06-2019 and the defendant received the said legal notice on 18-06-2019 and he approached the plaintiff on 20-06-2019 and requested one week time for payment of the amount, but the defendant got issued reply notice on 24-06-2019 with false allegations. Thus this suit for recovery of suit promissory note amount along with agreed interest.

4.On receipt of summons, the defendant filed his written statement by denying para wise allegations of the plaint and submitted that he has no facial acquaintance with the plaintiff and he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and he gave one empty promissory note and cheque to one

Shaik Juber Ahmed, S/o.Shaik Ahmed alisha with regard to red fort shoe mart and the cheque and promissory note were given towards security and for the assurance of lease on the shop on the request of Juber Ahmed and he came to know that the plaintiff is in habit of collecting cheques and promissory notes from various persons and he used to file suits and this suit is also filed by the plaintiff for the purpose of wrongful gain and requested the court to dismiss the suit.

5. Having considering the plaint and written statement, the following issues are framed by this court on 20-07-2022.

(i) Whether the suit Promissory note dated 24-12-2017 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit promissory note amount as prayed for?

(iii) To what relief?

6. The plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exhibits A1 to

A.4 and produced the 2nd attestor of Ex.A.1 as P.W.2 and on the other hand, the defendant himself examined as DW1, no documents are got marked on behalf of defendant.

7. Heard the counsel for plaintiff Sri J.Satyanarayana, counsel for defendant Sri K.Bheemashakar Rao.

8.ISSUE No.1:

Whether the suit Promissory note dated 24-12-2017 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

9.The P.W.1 reiterated the contents of plaint in his chief examination affidavit and in the cross examination he stated that he is an income tax assessee and he mentioned the amount in his returns and he filed 15 or 16 cases before the court, he knew one Shaik Juber Ahmed, the Ex.A.1 transaction took place in the shop of Shaik Juber Ahmed, he gave cash of

Rs.8,00,000/- and he denied that Shaik Juber Ahmed borrowed amount from him at that time of said transaction, the defendant gave empty promissory notes containing his signatures towards security purpose and as the defendant is an employee, there is no need to borrow amount.

10.The PW2 who is the 2nd attestor of Ex.A1 deposed about his presence at the time of Ex.A1 transaction and in the cross examination he stated that

Ex.A.1 transaction took place in the shoe mart of one Juber Ahmed, at the time of Ex.A.1 transaction, the plaintiff, Mendi Srinivas and one Raparthi

Ramesh and himself are present.

11.The defendant himself examined as DW1 and he also reiterated the contents of written statement in his chief examination affidavit and in the cross examination he stated that the signature shown to him on Ex.A.1 promissory note belongs to him, the thumb impression on Ex.A.1 promissory note not belongs to him, the shop is situated in Vegulla Veerraju Municipal

Complex, it is under the Municipality of Mandapeta, the Municipality used to obtain DD towards security, the Municipality may not obtain empty promissory notes and cheques towards security and he did not issue reply notice to the plaintiff and he denied that he borrowed amount from the plaintiff and with a view to avoid repayment of the amount, he is deposing false.

12.As seen from the testimonies of P.Ws.1 and 2, it is found that they have deposed a cogent and consistent version about the execution of Ex.A1 and passing of consideration to the defendant, they have deposed that the defendant borrowed the amount for the purpose of family expenses and for the discharge of sundry debts and their testimonies are corroborating with the contents of Ex.A1, the learned counsel for the Defendant though searchingly cross examined PWs1 and 2, no deviation is found in their testimonies about the execution of Ex.A1, presence of Defendant, passing of consideration, presence of attestors and scribe, it is the contention of the defendant that he never executed the promissory note on 24-12-2017 and he never borrowed amount from the plaintiff and he issued empty 4 promissory note and cheque at the time of lease transaction of the Red Fort

Shoe mart of one Juber Ahmed and the plaintiff obtained the said promissory note and filed this false case against him but in the cross examination, he clearly admitted his signature on Ex.A.1 promissory note, when once the signature on a negotiable instrument is admitted, the burden shifts on to the shoulders of the defendant to rebut the evidence produced

before this court, but the defendant though denied that the thumb

impression on Ex.A.1 is not belongs to him, he did not produce any oral or documentary evidence before this court to establish his contention, moreover, in the written statement the defendant clearly mentioned that he gave empty promissory note and cheque towards security for the red Fort

Shoe mart of Juber Ahmed but in the cross examination, he clearly admitted that the shop of Juber Ahmed is situated in Vegulla Veerraju Municipal

Complex and it is under the municipality of Mandapeta and Municipality used to obtain DD towards security and the Municipality may not obtain empty promissory notes and cheques towards security, as seen from the answers given by D.W.1, it is very clear that the Municipality may not obtain cheques and promissory notes while leasing out the shops, so that the contention taken by the defendant in the written statement is doubtful.

13.The plaintiff, to discharge his initial burden, himself examined as P.W.1 and produced Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 and also produced the 2nd attestor as P.W.2, as stated in the earlier paragraphs, the P.WS 1 and 2 are corroborated with each other with regard to the Ex.A.1 transaction and passing of consideration to the defendant, moreover, the defendant clearly admitted his signature on Ex.A.1 and he did not produce any rebuttable evidence to disprove the version of the plaintiff.

14.The plaintiff by examining himself as PW1, producing Ex.A1 to Ex.A.4 and PW.2 successfully established the execution of Ex.A1 by the defendant by borrowing amount from him. Hence, this Court is of opinion that the

Plaintiff successfully established the suit claim. Hence, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff as against the defendant.

15.ISSUES NO.2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit promissory note amount as prayed for?

In view of the above findings given in issue No.1, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff as against the defendant and the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of promissory note amount.

16. ISSUES NO.3:To what relief?

In view of the findings given in issues Nos.1 and 2, this issue is answered accordingly and suit is decreed.

17. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff as against the defendant for an amount of Rs.10,98,660/- (Rupees Ten lakhs ninety eight thousand six sixty only) together with subsequent interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till realization on

principal amount of Rs.8,00,000/-(Rupees Eight Lakhs only).

Type to dictation to the Stenographer, on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 21st day of November, 2023.

Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Alamuru.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:- For defendant:-

P.W.1: Rimmalapudi VeerrajuD.W.1: Penke Dorababu P.W.2: Katta Ramesh

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Original promissory note dated 24-12-2017 for Rs.8,00,000/-

Ex.A2: Office Copy of Legal Notice dt.13-06-2019

Ex.A3: Postal Acknowledgment dt.18-06-2019

Ex.A.4: Reply notice dt.24-06-2019

For Defendant:

-Nil-

Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Alamuru.

6 7

H.M.O.P/70/2026

Ganta Sankara Rao vs Nill

08 May 2026

1 Fair order in H.M.O.P.70/2026

Dated 08.05.2026

APEG1A0001082026

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) ::

PEDDAPURAM

PRESENT : Dr. K. Deepa Dyva Krupa

Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Friday, the 8th day of May, 2026

H.M.O.P.70 OF 2026

Between :

1. Ganta Sankara Rao, S/o Ganta Durgaji, 24 years, D.No.3-11, Yenugu Veedhi, Kirlampudi. Kirlampudi Mandal. Kakinada District.

2. Nakka Anoosha, W/o Ganta Sankararao, D/o Nakka Srinu, 25 years, Housewife, D.No.8-44, Viravada. Pithapuram Mandalam. Kakinada District. … Petitioners.

AND

NIL … Respondent.

This petition came before me on 08.05.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.V.R.K.Durga Prasad, Sri S.Ganesh, Sri B.Prasad, learned Advocates for the petitioners and upon hearing and perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following :

:: O R D E R ::

1.The petitioners jointly filed this petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955, praying the court to grant a decree of divorce by mutual 2 Fair order in H.M.O.P.70/2026

Dated 08.05.2026

consent dissolving the marriage solemnized between the petitioners on 22.06.2021 at Viravada of Pithapuram Mandalam and to grant such other reliefs.

2.The averments of the petition are as follows :

The petitioners submitted that they both are husband and wife and they fell in love with each other and later their parents accepted their love and their marriage was performed on 22.06.2021 at Viravada of Pithapuram Mandalam as per Hindu rites and customs, immediately after the marriage the 2nd petitioner joined with the 1st petitioner at her in-laws house and the marriage was consummated but no children were born out of wedlock and both petitioners lived together happily for six months and later, some incurable differences and disputes arose between them and the elders of both parties tried to pacify the matter, but the petitioners did not adjust with each other, and since February, 2022 both petitioners are living separately and thereupon, the 2nd petitioner filed a complaint against the 1st petitioner in Cr.No.50/2025 of Pithapuram Rural Police

Rural Police Station U/Sec.85 r/w 3(5) BNS and U/Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act, for which, the 1st petitioner agreed and they further agreed that they will not file any civil and criminal cases against each other and further submitted that there is no collusion between the petitioners in filing the petition and requested the court to grant decree of divorce by mutual consent by dissolving the marriage solemnized 3 Fair order in H.M.O.P.70/2026

Dated 08.05.2026

between the 1st and 2nd petitioners at Viravada of Pithapuram Mandalam on 22.06.2021.

3.On perusal of the record, it is found that, the conjugal relationship between the parties ceased from February, 2022 and till today they are residing separately. The main H.M.O.P. filed on 09.03.2026 for dissolution of their marriage dated 22.06.2021 by mutual consent. It is further disclosed that the statutory period of six months specified in Section 13 B (2), in addition to the statutory period of one year under section 13 B (1) of separation of parties, is already over before the first motion itself. Further, the petitioners moved waiver application specified in section 13 B (2) of the Act few days after the first motion along with an advance petition. After filing this application, this court also made a sincere effort by conciliation to reunite the parties under section 23 (2) of the Act.

4. During the enquiry of this petition, both the petitioners themselves examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 by filing their chief examination affidavits, they got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5.

5.Heard the learned counsel for petitioners.

6.The point for determination is:

Whether the petitioners No.1 and 2 are entitled to the

decree of divorce on the ground of mutual consent under

Section 13 B of th e Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?

4 Fair order in H.M.O.P.70/2026

Dated 08.05.2026

POINT ANSWERED :

7.The petitioners No.1 and 2 reiterated the contents of the petition in their chief-examination affidavits, it is the version of petitioners No.1 and 2 that they fell in love with each other and later their parents accepted their love their marriage and their marriage was performed on 22.06.2021 at Viravada of Pithapuram

Mandalam as per Hindu rites and customs, immediately after the marriage the 2nd petitioner joined with the 1st petitioner at her in-laws house and the marriage was consummated but no children were born out of wedlock and both petitioners lived together happily for six months and later, some incurable differences and disputes arose between them and the elders of both parties tried to pacify the matter, but the petitioners did not adjust with each other, and since February, 2022 both petitioners are living separately and thereupon, the 2nd petitioner filed a complaint against the 1st petitioner in Cr.No.50/2025 of Pithapuram Rural Police

Station U/Sec.85 r/w 3(5) BNS and U/Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act and same is pending and thereafter, the parents of both parties raised dispute before the elders and the elders advised both parties to live together peacefully, but both parties refused for the same, then elders advised them to take divorce on mutual consent and as per the terms of the compromise, the 1st petitioner agreed to give an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- to the 2nd petitioner towards her full and final settlement as permanent alimony, for which the 2nd petitioner agreed and out of said amount, the 1st petitioner gave an amount of Rs.2,75,000/- to the 2nd petitioner towards part payment and the 2nd petitioner received the same and the 1st petitioner also gave remaining balance amount of Rs.2,75,000/- to the 2nd petitioner and the 2nd petitioner received the same and further, the 2nd petitioner agreed to withdraw Cr.No.50/2025 of Pithapuram Rural Police Station U/Sec.85 r/w 3(5) BNS and U/Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act, for which, the 1st petitioner agreed and they further agreed that they will not file any civil and criminal cases against each other and the petitioners No.1 and 2 are stated in one voice that there is no possibility to live together and there is no possibility for reunion and to resume conjugal life between them, in spite of the efforts made by this court after filing of this petition by way reconciliation the petitioners No.1 and 2 did not deviate from 5 Fair order in H.M.O.P.70/2026

Dated 08.05.2026

their stands. Hence, no other option is left with this court, except accepting the contentions of the petitioners No.1 and 2 in view of their personal life and liberty, if the petitioners are continued in the same status, it is nothing but continuation of mental agony. Hence, in view of the above discussion, this court is inclined to allow this petition.

8. In the result, this petition is allowed and the marriage solemnized on 22.06.2021 between the petitioners 1 and 2 is dissolved by granting a decree of divorce by mutual consent under section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The petitioners shall bear their own costs.

Dictated to the steno directly on Computer, Corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court, this the 8th day of May, 2026.

Digitally Signed by

DEEPA DYVADEEPA DYVA KRUPA KODALI

KRUPADate: 2026.05.11 13:39:04 +0530 Reason: HMOP.70/2026 KODALI Location: SCJ PDP

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Peddapuram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioners :

P.W.1 : Ganta Sankara Rao

P.W.2 : Nakka Anoosha

For Respondent : -- Nil --

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Petitioners :

Ex.P1 : Original Wedding card with marriage, dt.22.06.2021.

Ex.P2 : Three marriage photographs along with pen drive.

Ex.P3:Compared copy of Aadhar card of 1st petitioner.

Ex.P4 : Compared copy of Aadhar card of 2nd petitioner.

Ex.P5: Joint Identification certificate issued by CTC Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Peddapuram, dated 25.03.2026.

6 Fair order in H.M.O.P.70/2026

Dated 08.05.2026

For Respondent : -- NIL --

Digitally Signed by

DEEPA DYVADEEPA DYVA KRUPA KODALI

KRUPADate: 2026.05.11 13:36:54 +0530 Reason: HMOP.70/2026 KODALI Location: SCJ PDP

CJ (SD), PDP.

H.M.O.P/70/2026

Ganta Sankara Rao vs Nill

08 May 2026

1 Fair order in H.M.O.P.70/2026

Dated 08.05.2026

APEG1A0001082026

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) ::

PEDDAPURAM

PRESENT : Dr. K. Deepa Dyva Krupa

Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Friday, the 8th day of May, 2026

H.M.O.P.70 OF 2026

Between :

1. Ganta Sankara Rao, S/o Ganta Durgaji, 24 years, D.No.3-11, Yenugu Veedhi, Kirlampudi. Kirlampudi Mandal. Kakinada District.

2. Nakka Anoosha, W/o Ganta Sankararao, D/o Nakka Srinu, 25 years, Housewife, D.No.8-44, Viravada. Pithapuram Mandalam. Kakinada District. … Petitioners.

AND

NIL … Respondent.

:: O R D E R ::

1.The petitioners jointly filed this petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955, praying the court to grant a decree of divorce by mutual 2 Fair order in H.M.O.P.70/2026

Dated 08.05.2026

consent dissolving the marriage solemnized between the petitioners on 22.06.2021 at Viravada of Pithapuram Mandalam and to grant such other reliefs.

2.The averments of the petition are as follows :

Dated 08.05.2026

between the 1st and 2nd petitioners at Viravada of Pithapuram Mandalam on 22.06.2021.

3.On perusal of the record, it is found that, the conjugal relationship between the parties ceased from February, 2022 and till today they are residing separately. The main H.M.O.P. filed on 09.03.2026 for dissolution of their marriage dated 22.06.2021 by mutual consent. It is further disclosed that the statutory period of six months specified in Section 13 B (2), in addition to the statutory period of one year under section 13 B (1) of separation of parties, is already over before the first motion itself. Further, the petitioners moved waiver application specified in section 13 B (2) of the Act few days after the first motion along with an advance petition. After filing this application, this court also made a sincere effort by conciliation to reunite the parties under section 23 (2) of the Act.

4. During the enquiry of this petition, both the petitioners themselves examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 by filing their chief examination affidavits, they got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5.

5.Heard the learned counsel for petitioners.

6.The point for determination is:

Whether the petitioners No.1 and 2 are entitled to the

decree of divorce on the ground of mutual consent under

Section 13 B of th e Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?

4 Fair order in H.M.O.P.70/2026

Dated 08.05.2026

POINT ANSWERED :

Dated 08.05.2026

The petitioners shall bear their own costs.

Dictated to the steno directly on Computer, Corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court, this the 8th day of May, 2026.

Digitally Signed by

DEEPA DYVADEEPA DYVA KRUPA KODALI

KRUPADate: 2026.05.11 13:39:04 +0530 Reason: HMOP.70/2026 KODALI Location: SCJ PDP

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Peddapuram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioners :

P.W.1 : Ganta Sankara Rao

P.W.2 : Nakka Anoosha

For Respondent : -- Nil --

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Petitioners :

Ex.P1 : Original Wedding card with marriage, dt.22.06.2021.

Ex.P2 : Three marriage photographs along with pen drive.

Ex.P3:Compared copy of Aadhar card of 1st petitioner.

Ex.P4 : Compared copy of Aadhar card of 2nd petitioner.

Ex.P5: Joint Identification certificate issued by CTC Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Peddapuram, dated 25.03.2026.

6 Fair order in H.M.O.P.70/2026

Dated 08.05.2026

For Respondent : -- NIL --

Digitally Signed by

DEEPA DYVADEEPA DYVA KRUPA KODALI

KRUPADate: 2026.05.11 13:36:54 +0530 Reason: HMOP.70/2026 KODALI Location: SCJ PDP

CJ (SD), PDP.

Order Record 7,116 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
H.M.O.P/31/2025	Thota Ganaparthi vs Thota Gayatri	08 May 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/62/2026	Akkireddy Buli Satyanarayana vs Nill	08 May 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/70/2026	Ganta Sankara Rao vs Nill	08 May 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/72/2026	Dasari Chandu vs Nil	08 May 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/76/2026	Allu Durga Prasad vs Nil	08 May 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/78/2026	Pusarla Satyanarayana vs Nil	08 May 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/82/2026	Kantipalli Yesubabu vs Nil	08 May 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/152/2024	Gopu Sudhakar vs Gopu Thita Revula alias Nithya	08 May 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/186/2025	Kasa Srinu vs Nil	08 May 2026	Order	—
OS/20/2019	Manda Nageswara Rao vs Arumilli Veerabhadra rao and another	07 May 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/19/2026	Bhusari Praveena vs Nil	07 May 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/79/2026	Immandi Satya Vara Prasad vs Nil	07 May 2026	Order	—
EP/7/2026	Mangina Uma Devi vs Surapureddy Venkata Lakshmi	06 May 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/59/2026	Duvvu Prudhvi Raj Yadav vs Nil	06 May 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/67/2026	Kona Durga Prasad vs Nil	06 May 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/66/2026	Gunnam Venkata Sai Vamsi vs Nil	05 May 2026	Order	—
OS/4/2025	Repaka Satyanarayana Murthy vs Vijjapu Veera Subrahmanya Krishna	04 May 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/61/2026	Vattikuti Sridhar vs Nil	04 May 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/10/2026	Sri. Vattikuti Vishal Choudhary vs Smt. Vattikuti Anusha	30 Apr 2026	Order	—
OS/61/2025	Marni Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana alias Chinna vs Kuramdasu Ganesh	27 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/47/2026	Neela Ravikumar vs Neela Amulya	27 Apr 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/21/2026	Utukuri Siva vs Nil	17 Apr 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/53/2026	Jankala Manikanta vs Nil	17 Apr 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/209/2025	Gandi (Koonisetty) Kethana Sirisha vs Nil	17 Apr 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/38/2025	Chinna Veerababu vs Chimma Devi	16 Apr 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/50/2026	Chikkireddy Nageswara Rao vs Nil	16 Apr 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/130/2024	Mamidi Asha vs Didla Srinivasa rao	16 Apr 2026	Order	—
OS/24/2024	Talloju Krishna Veni vs Iddem Sri Lakshmi	15 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/51/2026	Mattaparthi Sattibabu vs Nil	13 Apr 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/39/2026	Ommi Satyanarayana Murthy vs Nil	10 Apr 2026	Order	—
AS/19/2024	Gummuluri Kanakayya vs Gopu Ramesh	09 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/66/2025	Pilla Surya Rao Kapu vs Pilla Venkata Ramana Murthy	09 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/105/2024	Kanumilli Chinnarudra Manga Rao vs Smt.Kanumilli (Burugupalli)Vanisha	09 Apr 2026	Order	—
EP/81/2018	Tripuramallku Archana vs Adabala Sriramachandra Murthy	08 Apr 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/56/2026	Mortha Siva Ramakrishna vs Nil	08 Apr 2026	Order	—
EP/8/2017	Pichikala Achyutha Ramayya vs Janga Pullareddy	07 Apr 2026	Order	—
OS/3/2020	Gullampudi Gangadhararao vs Koruprolu Rajya Lakshmi and another	02 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/42/2026	Chanapathi Harish vs NIL	02 Apr 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/52/2026	Chintala Siva Satyanarayna alias Siva vs Nil	01 Apr 2026	Order	—
OS/20/2021	Chundru Venkatraju Chowdary vs Putta Veera Venkata Satyanarayana	31 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/61/2025	Marni Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana alias Chinna vs Kuramdasu Ganesh	31 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/155/2018	Muppana Reena vs Gandepalli Radha	31 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/20/2026	Gode Veeravishnuswararao vs Nil	31 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/33/2025	Arapaka alias Tanuku Venkata Lakshmi vs Arapaka Veera Venkata Satyanarayana	30 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/217/2025	Yarra Sekhar vs Nil	30 Mar 2026	Order	—
EP/37/2018	Vanaparthi Lakshmi Kumari vs Palaparthi Sathibabu	26 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/43/2026	Gopaluni B. N. K. Siva Laxman vs Nil	26 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/161/2025	Baddi Srinivas alias Srinivasu alias Srinu vs Nil	26 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/40/2026	Kantipudi Sri Chaitanaya vs Nil	23 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/150/2025	Kaparapu Nageswara Rao vs Nil	23 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/28/2026	Yaramati Sri Venkata Nagakrishna vs None	20 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/100/2025	Margani Murali Gangadhara Rao vs Addanki alias Margani Lakshmi Kumari	20 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/14/2025	Giduthuri Venkanna babu vs Giduthuro Sridevi	18 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/25/2026	Karri Sailaja vs Badda Sridhara Rao	18 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/27/2026	Malla Srinivasa Rao vs Malla (Karnapathi) Akshaya alias Gagana Akshaya	18 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/38/2026	Vasa Venkata Basavavara Chandrashker alias Chandrashker vs Nil	18 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/41/2026	Nadigatla (Kaparapu) Rajya Lakshmi vs Nil	18 Mar 2026	Order	—
FDP/11/2023	Shaik Lalbee vs Shaik Sattar Bibi	18 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/36/2026	Smt. Pitta Kumari vs Nil	17 Mar 2026	Order	—
AS/222/2018	Madireddy Mangayyamma vs Thammineedi Sivaramakrishna	16 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
EP/17/2023	Mangina Uma Devi vs Surapureddy Venkata Lakshmi	16 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/32/2026	Ambati Durga Prasad vs Nil	16 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/168/2025	Gollavilli Siva vs Gollavilli Jyothi alias Usha Sri	16 Mar 2026	Order	—
EP/6/2026	Siddanthapu Satyanarayana vs Naragani Satyanarayana (died)	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
EP/11/2024	Chinta Bapireddy vs Rasaputhra Sridevi	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/45/2025	State Bank of India, A. Annavaram, Represented by its Branch Manager, S. Bhardwaj Adibhatla vs Sri Gangaram Agencies, Rep. by its Prop. Siddha Venkata Seetharama Chandra Murthy	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/49/2022	Lanka Lakshmi vs Matsa China Kasulu @ Kasulu	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/72/2024	Kona Vijay vs Kona (Challapu)Sithadevi	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/35/2026	Dasyam Rajeswara Rao alias Rajesh vs Nil	13 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/157/2025	Nela Aswini Prasad vs Nil	12 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/34/2026	Matta Venkata Krishnaveni vs Nil	09 Mar 2026	Order	—
EP/81/2019	Repaka Vijaya Lakshmi vs Yenugu Sitha Veera Venkata Padmavathi	06 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/180/2024	Karri Madhava Kumar vs Karri Alekhya	06 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/29/2026	Kantipudi Vishnu vs Nill	05 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/87/2024	Kotipalli Rama Krishna vs Kotipalli Siri Venkata Lakshmi	05 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/149/2024	Sappa Veera Sathi Babu vs Smt.Sappa (Pasala)Parvathi	05 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/143/2025	Penupothula Sivagangadhar vs Nil	03 Mar 2026	Order	—
IP/8/2021	Ruttala Venkata Lakshmi vs Buddana Lakshmi and 23 others	02 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/85/2018	Nune Balaji Veera Venkata Satyanarayana vs Boddu Satyanarayana Murthy	02 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/142/2025	Adabala Swamy vs Nil	02 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/15/2024	Adapa Durga Rao vs Adapa Bullemma	27 Feb 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/82/2025	Vanarasi Anantha Lakshmi vs Vanarasi Subba rao	27 Feb 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/183/2024	Ponnaganti Sattibabu vs Ponnaganti Santhi	27 Feb 2026	Order	—
AS/267/2018	The Commissioner vs Yerra Anjaneyulu (died)	25 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/17/2026	Palla Appala raju vs Nil	24 Feb 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/208/2025	Chavalam Bharat Kumar vs Nil	23 Feb 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/68/2015	Thota Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy vs Smt Thota Veera Venkata Padma Kumari	20 Feb 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/185/2025	Teku (Yenugu) Mahalakshmi vs Teku Veerababu	20 Feb 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/188/2025	Vadisileti Parvathi vs Vadisileti Veera Venkata Mohan	20 Feb 2026	Order	—
EP/32/2022	Gonibilli Veera Venkata Siva Prasad vs Gonibilli Satyavathi	19 Feb 2026	Order	—
OS/23/2023	Mummidi Ramesh Raja vs Koppana vijay	19 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/30/2025	Dantuluri Radha Krishna Veni alias Madhavi vs Dantuluri Hari Prasad Varma	18 Feb 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/22/2026	Bezwada Mehar Chaitanya vs Nil	17 Feb 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/211/2025	Arigi Tatarao vs Nil	17 Feb 2026	Order	—
FDP/163/2015	Jinnala Prabhavathi vs Gudisi Annapoorna	17 Feb 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/23/2026	Mudragada Subrmanyam vs Nil	16 Feb 2026	Order	—
OS/59/2025	Kovvuri Siva Sankar Venkatareddy vs Gudala Srinu	13 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CMA/38/2018	Pasumarthi Rama Chandra Rao vs Panchayat Secretary	12 Feb 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/141/2024	Ravipati Venkata Lakshmi vs Ravipati Sathi Babu	12 Feb 2026	Order	—
OS/154/2018	Mavireddy Meri Kumari vs Bolla China Veerraju	11 Feb 2026	Judgement	—

Showing 100 of 7,116 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2026		28
Apr 2026		21
Mar 2026		44
Feb 2026		33
Jan 2026		28
Dec 2025		25
Nov 2025		38
Oct 2025		36
Sep 2025		56
Aug 2025		20
Jul 2025		58
Jun 2025		12

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Dr.K.Deepa Dyva Krupa handled?

Dr.K.Deepa Dyva Krupa has handled 7293 court orders since 2014 at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Peddapuram (Taluka). The average disposal rate is 50 orders per month.

What types of cases does Dr.K.Deepa Dyva Krupa hear?

Based on available records, Dr.K.Deepa Dyva Krupa primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Peddapuram (Taluka).

Where is Dr.K.Deepa Dyva Krupa currently posted?

Dr.K.Deepa Dyva Krupa is posted as SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,Peddapuram at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Peddapuram (Taluka), East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Dr.K.Deepa Dyva Krupa available online?

Yes. 16 judgments by Dr.K.Deepa Dyva Krupa are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Dr.K.Deepa Dyva Krupa dispose cases?

Dr.K.Deepa Dyva Krupa disposes approximately 50 cases per month, based on 7293 orders handled over their tenure at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Peddapuram (Taluka).

Since when is Dr.K.Deepa Dyva Krupa serving?

Dr.K.Deepa Dyva Krupa has been serving at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Peddapuram (Taluka) since 2014. and is currently posted there.

Case Types

CC 68%

OS 15%

H 7%

EP 4%

PRC 2%

MC 2%

AS 1%

SC 1%

Posting History

Nov 2023 — Present

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,Peddapuram · 960 orders
Apr 2022 — Nov 2023

Junior Civil Judge, Alamuru · 3,522 orders
Apr 2014 — May 2017

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE · 2,811 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 6

Other Judges at this Court

Lakkoju Devi Ratna Kumari

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram

3,288 orders

G. Bullemma

Addl.Judicial First Class Magistrate,Peddapuram

2,900 orders

N.Saraswathi

VII Addl. District and Sessions Judge,Kakinada

8 orders

← View all judges at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Peddapuram (Taluka)