Sri. K.Kalyan Chakravarthy

1

SC 187 of 2010

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE –

CUM – II ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-PRL. FAMILY

COURT, MEDCHAL – MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY

PRESENT: SRI. K. KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY,

III Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum-II Addl. MSJ cum Prl. Family Court Judge at Kukatpally

DATED THIS THE 22 nd DAY OF APRIL, 2024

SESSIONS CASE No.187 OF 2010

Name of the Complaint : The State of Telangana through PS Sanathnagar

Name of the Accused : A3 Chinthala Venkataswamy S/o. Ckhandraiah, Age: 30 years, Occ: Centring work, R/o. Sanuur village, Rayaparthi mandal, Warangal district, Telangana

Charges : Sec.3, 4 and 5 of Explosive & Substance Act, Sec.25 (1) of Arms Act and Sec.120-B IPC

Crime No. & PRC No. : Crime No.63/2005 / PRC 84/2006

Plea of the Accused : Found not guilty

Finding of the Court : Found not guilty

Sentence of order : In the result, the Accused no.3 is not found guilty for the offences U/s.3, 4 and 5 of Explosive Act, Sec.25 (1) of Arms Act and Sec.120-B IPC and accordingly acquitted U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled

Prosecution conducted by : Addl. Public Prosecutor

Accused defended by : Sri B. Damodar

Case Committed by : XII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at Kukatpally

This case coming on 26-03-2024 for final hearing before me on this day in presence of Sri Y. Nageshwara Rao, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri G. Parasharamulu, Sri B. Damodar, advocate for accused and upon perusal of the material papers on record and the case having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

This is a split up case against A3 from the original case no.325/2006.

The original case SC 325/2006 ended in acquittal vide judgment dtd 30-11- 2

SC 187 of 2010

2010. By that time of trial in that case, A3 was in abscond, as such case against A3 was split up vide SC 187/2010.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-

The Inspector of Police, Sanathnagar PS filed charge sheet against A1 to A7 in Cr.No.63/2005 of Sanathnagar PS for the offence U/s.3, 4 and 5 of

Explosive Act, Sec.25(1) of Arms Act and Sec,120-B IPC on the ground that

A1 to A7 belongs to Warangal, Nalgonda and Nellore districts; that earlier A1 and A2 worked in PWG and Janashakti for some period and thereafter A1 to

A7 formed into a gang and committed extortions in various places of

Cyberabad i.e. Kushaiguda, Ghatkesar, Nacharam, Saroornagar fruit market and likewise they committed extortions in Bowenpally, Marredpally areas of

Hyderabad city, Bibinagar, Bhongir, Mothkur, Thirumalgherry and other places at Warangal district; that in December 2004 one Mallesh of Thorur contacted A2 claiming that he got money dispute with his brother in law

Venkata Narayana and sister who are resident of Borabanda and offered amount for settling the issue, as such A1 to A5 and A7 went to Kabeernagar in December 2004 and kidnapped Venkata Narayana in a Jeep and took him to a garden at Thorur and confined him for four days; that when Venkata

Narayana informed that the amount is with one Prasad and Prasad was not available and promised to give Rs.1.00 lakh if he was let off; that the accused left the Venkata Narayana and threatened not to disclose the incident to anybody; that Venkata Narayana promised to arrange amount by end of January 2005, but subsequently Venkata Narayana failed to pay the amount, as such A1 to A7 planned to visit the house of Venkata Narayana in the early hours of 27-02-2005, collect the money and if he failed to pay amount to kidnap him, as such they assembled at Bharatnagar Railway station on 27-02-2005 in the early hours; that A2 gave a pipe bomb to A1 and A2 also kept the pipe bomb with him and on 27-02-2005 in the early hours, all the accused A2 to A7 came to Bharathagar Railway station and waiting for A1; at about 3.00 a.m. while A1 was proceeding towards

Bharatnagar Railway station, police caught him under suspicious circumstances and on interrogation found pipe bomb and in furtherance of his confession, other accused were apprehended and further they also found pipe bomb and other weapons were seized, as such A1 to A7 committed offence U/s.3 to 5 of Explosives Act, Sec.25(1) of Arms Act and Sec.120-B of

IPC.

3

SC 187 of 2010

3. The learned Magistrate Court took cognizance of the offences punishable U/s.3 to 5 of Explosives Act, Sec.25(1) of Arms Act and Sec.120-

B of IPC and numbered as PRC 84/2006 and committed the case to Hon’ble

Metropolitan Sessions Court. In turn the Metropolitan Sessions Court made over the case to 3rd Addl. District and Sessions Court at LB Nagar. After receiving the case file the 3rd Addl. District & Sessions Court framed charges for the offences U/s.3 to 5 of Explosives Act, Sec.25(1) of Arms Act and

Sec.120-B of IPC against the A1 to A7, read over and explained to them, for which A1 to A7 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. But subsequently as the A3 was in abscond, the case was proceeded against A1, A2, A4 to A7 and ultimately that case ended in acquittal vide CC No.325/2006 dtd 30-11- 2010 after trial.

4. In the split up case i.e. present case SC 187/2010 NBW against A3 was issued and on 13-10-2022 A3 was arrested and produced before this

Court on execution of NBW. As already charges were framed in the original case, again charges are not framed and proceeded with the trial.

5. During prosecution side evidence, Pws1 to 3 examined and Exs.P1 and

P2 marked.

6. After closing of prosecution side evidence, A3 was examined U/s.313

Cr.P.C., for which A3 denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard both sides.

8. Now the points for determination are:-

1.Whether there is sufficient evidence to bring home the guilt of A3 for the offence U/s.3 to 5 of Explosive Act?

2.Whether there is sufficient evidence to bring home the guilt of A3 for the offence U/s.25(1) of Arms Act?

3.Whether there is sufficient evidence to bring home the guilt of A3 for the offence U/s.120-B of IPC?

4.What result?

9. Point nos.1 to 3:-

1.Whether there is sufficient evidence to bring home the guilt of A3 for the offence U/s.3 to 5 of Explosive Act?

2.Whether there is sufficient evidence to bring home the guilt of A3 for the offence U/s.25(1) of Arms Act?

3.Whether there is sufficient evidence to bring home the guilt of A3 for the offence U/s.120-B of IPC?

4

SC 187 of 2010

10. The Public Prosecutor submitted that in this case the witness for the confession corroborated evidence of Pws2 and 3. Pw2 is the eye witness to the offences and his evidence his proving recovery of explosives and arms basing on confession of A1 to A7 including A3 and it is clear that A1 to A7 criminally conspired to do away with the life of Venkata Narayana and for that purpose they collected explosives and arms and conspired to meet at

Bharatnagar Railway station and in the meanwhile police arrested them, as such charged offences are proved.

11. The counsel for the accused submitted that any confession before police, is hit bySec.25 of Indian Evidence Act and furthermore there is no evidence to show that there is conspiracy among A3 and other accused and furthermore so called knife claimed to be recovered from A3 is not produced

before the court, as such there is no evidence at all to prove charged

offences.

12. Regarding offence U/s.3 to 5 of Explosive Act, it is contention of the prosecution that A1 and A2 are found in possession of pipe bomb, as such this section is added. However even according to prosecution case, A3 is found in custody of knife, but not explosives. Already main case vide SC 325/2006 was ended in acquittal disbelieving the version of prosecution that accused were in possession of pipe bombs, as such it cannot be believed that there is conspiracy between A3 and other accused and so A1 and A2 are in possession of pipe bombs. Not only that, Pw1 who is sole witness for confession deposed as if from the possession of A3, knife was seized.

However the knife is not marked as that property was already destroyed after disposal of SC 325/2006. Not only that as per Pw1 the alleged confession was made in the presence of police. Even if for a moment it is believed that knife was recovered from them, unless and until there is evidence to show that A3 conspired with other accused and in furtherance of criminal conspiracy, only A3 got knife and A1 and A2 got pipe bombs, it cannot be believed that A3 also committed offence U/s.3 to 5 of Explosive

Act. Even the Pw2 who is police constable who was on duty at the time of alleged apprehending of A3 claimed that A3 was found in possession of knife. The entire case is basing on alleged confession of A1 and A2, but however that confession was alleged to be made in the presence of

Investigating Officer, as such it is hit by Sec.25 of Indian Evidence Act regarding inculpatory statement. Just because A1 and A2 are found in possession of pipe bombs, it does not mean that A3 conspired with them, as 5

SC 187 of 2010

such A3 also committed offence along with other accused for offence U/s.3 to 5 of Explosive Act. So this court is of the opinion that offence U/s.3 to 5 of Explosive Act is not proved against A3.

13. Now coming to offence U/s.25 (1) of Arms Act, as can be seen from the evidence of Pws1 to 3, they are claiming that A3 is found in possession of knife. When already the case against other accused ended in acquittal, disbelieving possession of explosives and their criminal conspiracy to kidnap

Lw3. When once such criminal conspiracy is not proved, the question of A3 in possession of knife for the purpose of commission of any offence cannot be believed. Mere possession of knife cannot be termed as commission of offence under Arms act unless the prosecution prove that A3 is in possession of the knife with an intention to commit offence. However in the original case, already the A1, A2 and A4 to A7 ended in acquittal disbelieving the prosecution case. So it cannot be termed that A3 committed offence U/s.25 (1) of Arms Act. Furthermore Pw3 deposed as if name of the A3 is Raji

Reddy, but however name of the accused is Venkat Swamy, but not Raji

Reddy, as such doubt regarding identity of the person who is apprehended by the police. Furthermore the so called knife is not produced before this court on the ground that it was destroyed after disposal of SC 325/2006. So this court is of the opinion that A3 cannot be termed as culprit for offence

U/s.25(1) of Arms Act, just because of alleged confession made before police and hence this court is of the opinion that offence U/s.25(1) of Arms act is not made out. Regarding offence U/s.120-B IPC, prosecution must show that there is criminal conspiracy among A1 to A7 to commit offences.

However in this case the original SC 325/2006 ended in acquittal disbelieving criminal conspiracy among A1 to A7. When such criminal conspiracy is disbelieved and that judgment become final, A3 cannot be found guilty for the offence U/s.120-B IPC on the ground that A3 conspired with other accused to kidnap Venkata Narayana. Not only that the so called

Venkata Narayana is not examined as witness in this case to show that there was attempt by the accused nos.1 to 7 to kidnap him. So this court is of the opinion that offence U/s.120-B is also not proved.

6

SC 187 of 2010

14. Point No.4:-To what result?

In the result, accused no.3 is not found guilty for the offence punishable U/s.3 to 5 of Explosive Act and accordingly he is acquitted

U/s.235(1) Cr.P.C.

2. Accused no.3 is not found guilty for the offence punishable

U/s.25(1) of Arms Act and accordingly he is acquitted U/s.235(1)

Cr.P.C.

3. Accused no.3 is not found guilty for the offence punishable

U/s.120-B IPC and accordingly he is acquitted U/s.235(1) Cr.P.C.

4. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period.

Dictated to Steno, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court on this the 22nd day of April 2024.

III Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum-II Addl. MSJ cum Prl. Family Court Judge at Kukatpally

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:-

PW1 Sri R. Mogulaiah PW2 Sri G. Rami Reddy PW3 Sri B. Srinivas Rao

FOR DEFENCE:- -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 Copy of Panchanama Ex.P2 Relevant portion of confession of accused regarding seizure of dagger

FOR DEFENCE:

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS :

None

III Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum-II Addl. MSJ cum Prl. Family Court Judge at Kukatpally

1

SC 177 of 2010

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE –

CUM – II ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-PRL. FAMILY

COURT, MEDCHAL – MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY

PRESENT: SRI. K. KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY,

III Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum-II Addl. MSJ cum Prl. Family Court Judge at Kukatpally

DATED THIS THE 22 nd DAY OF APRIL, 2024

SESSIONS CASE No.177 OF 2010

Name of the Complaint : The State of Telangana through PS Sanathnagar

Name of the Accused : A3 Chinthala Venkataswamy S/o. Ckhandraiah, Age: 30 years, Occ: Centring work, R/o. Sanuur village, Rayaparthi mandal, Warangal district, Telangana

Charges : Sec.363, 364-A, 343 and 506 IPC

Crime No. & PRC No. : Crime No.413/2004 / PRC 03/2006

Plea of the Accused : Found not guilty

Finding of the Court : Found not guilty

Sentence of order : In the result, the Accused no.3 is not found guilty for the offences U/s.363, 364-A, 343 and 506 IPC and accordingly acquitted U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled

Prosecution conducted by : Addl. Public Prosecutor

Accused defended by : Sri B. Damodar, G. Parsharamulu

Case Committed by : XII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at Kukatpally

This case coming on 26-03-2024 for final hearing before me on this day in presence of Sri Y. Nageshwara Rao, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri G. Parasharamulu, Sri B. Damodar, advocate for accused and upon perusal of the material papers on record and the case having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

This is a split up case against A3 and the case was split up from SC 224/2006.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-

The SI of Police, Sanathnagar PS filed charge sheet against A3 and other accused in Cr.No.413/2004 for the offences U/s.363, 364-A, 343 and 2

SC 177 of 2010

506 IPC on the ground that Lw1 / Yaka Lakshmi is the wife of victim / Lw3 by name Venkata Narayana; that the Lw3 is working in STD booth; that A2 to A6 and one Anjaiah belongs to Medak, Warangal, Nalgonda and Nellore districts and that A1 and A2 earlier worked in PWG and Janshakti parties for some period and thereafter A1 to A6 formed into a gang with Anjaiah, committed extortion in various places at Cyberabad, Nalgonda, Warangal and Nizamabad districts; that there is property and money disputes between

Lw3 and his relative by name Mallesh who is A7 in this case, as such A7 approached A2 and offered money if he settles the issue; that accordingly on 27-12-2004 the A1 to A6 kidnapped Lw3, took him to Thorur and confined in a garden for about four days and when the Lw3 claimed that amount is with one Prasad and he is not available, the accused threatened Lw3 not to disclose the incident to anybody and let him off as Lw3 promised to give amount to the accused by end of January 2005; that later Lw3 failed to fulfill the demand, as such accused planned to collect money from Lw3 and if he did not pay the amount, planned to kidnap him and in pursuance of that plan on 27-02-2005 in the early hours A1 was proceeding towards Bharatnagar

Railway station he was arrested along with pipe bombs in his possession and subsequently basing on confession of A1, A2 to A6 were arrested at

Bharatnagar Railway station, as such A1 to A6 committed offences punishable U/s.363, 364-A, 343 and 506 IPC.

3. The learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offences punishable

U/s.363, 364-A, 343 and 506 IPC and committed the case to Metropolitan

Sessions Court vide PRC 03/2006 and as the offence U/s.364-A IPC is triable

by the Metropolitan Session Court, the case was committed to the

Metropolitan Session Court and in turn case was made over to the 3rd Addl.

District Court at LB Nagar for disposal according to law. After receiving case file, the case was proceeded against A1, A2, A4 to A6 by the 3rd Addl.

District & Sessions Judge, by that time A3 was in abscond and case against

A3 was split up and renumbered as SC 177/2010. The 3rd Addl. District &

Sessions Judge disposed that case vide SC 224/2006 on 30-11-2010

acquitting A1, A2 and A4 to A6 for the charged offences. Subsequently in the present case, NBW was issued to A3 and on execution of NBW, A3 was produced on 13-10-2022, as such trial is taken up in this case. After production of A3, charged framed U/secs.363, 364-A, 343 and 506 IPC for which A3 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

SC 177 of 2010

4. During trial, on behalf of prosecution, Pws1 and 2 examined and

Exs.P1 and P2 marked.

5. After closing of prosecution side evidence, A3 was examined U/s.313

Cr.P.C., for which A3 denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him and reported no defence evidence.

6. Heard both sides.

7. Now the points for determination are:-

1.Whether there is sufficient evidence to show that A3 along with other accused kidnapped Pw1 and demanded ransom and thereby committed offences U/s.363 and 364-A IPC?

2.Whether there is sufficient evidence to show that A3 along with other accused wrongfully confined Lw3 and threatened with dire consequences and thereby committed offences U/s.343 and 506 IPC?

3.What result?

8. Point nos.1 and 2:-

1.Whether there is sufficient evidence to show that A3 along with other accused kidnapped Pw1 and demanded ransom and thereby committed offences U/s.363 and 364-A IPC?

2.Whether there is sufficient evidence to show that A3 along with other accused wrongfully confined Lw3 and threatened with dire consequences and thereby committed offences U/s.343 and 506 IPC?

9. The Public Prosecutor submitted that in this case the witness for the confession is examined as Pw2 and his evidence along with evidence of

Investigating Officer supported the version of prosecution about confession of the accused A3 that he participated in the offences along with other accused and basing on confession of A3 knife is also seized, but however in the original case, judgment was passed acquitting the accused and the property was destroyed, as such there is no possibility to produce the property. It is further submitted that the evidence of Pws1 and 2 is sufficient to bring home the guilt for the alleged offences, as such to convict the A3.

10. The counsel for the accused submitted that there is no evidence at all of the victim or the complainant in this case to prove such alleged kidnap and demand of ransom and wrongful confinement of Lw3 and threatening with dire consequences and confession before police is not admissible in evidence U/s.25 of Indian Evidence Act and furthermore that confession do not lead to recovery of property, as such confession is not sufficient to prove 4

SC 177 of 2010

the guilt of the A3 for the charged offences, as such none of the offences are proved.

11. Pw1 is the witness for confession, whereas Pw2 is the Investigating

Officer. As can be seen from the evidence of Pw1, he is claiming that in his presence the A3 and other accused were questioned and the accused confessed about the offences and the police seized the knife. However as mentioned supra, the original case vide SC 224/2006 was ended in acquittal and the property is not marked in that case also to show that basing on confession of A3, knife was seized. So the inculpatory statement claimed to be given by the A3 before the Pw2 is hit by Sec.25 of Indian Evidence Act because at the time of alleged confession, police were present. Coming to the Investigation Officer, according to him, the Lw1 / Yaka Lakshmi gave complaint to Lw6 / V. Surender Reddy about missing of her husbandd and later basing on the same Lw6 registered Cr.No.413/2004. He admitted that victim in this case appeared before him and gave statement that because of harassment caused by his brother in law, complaint was lodged at

Wardhannapet Police station and regarding that case, the Lw3 went to

Warangal and stayed with the brother in law and others up to 01-01-2005, but however Lw1 have no knowledge of the same and lodged complaint with the police. He further admitted that after return of Lw3, that case was closed. When such admission is made by Pw2, the very allegation against accused that he along with other accused kidnapped Lw3 for ransom and further wrongfully confined him and threatened with dire consequences do not arise. So even according to statement given by Lw3 before police, there is no such confession of kidnap earlier. The entire case is set up only basing on the alleged confession of the accused no.1 and no property was recovered from them for the purpose of proving that they conspired and kidnapped Lw3. Furthermore the Lw3 and Lw1 were not examined in this case to show that A3 was also involved in such alleged offence of kidnap, confinement and threatening. Furthermore the Pw2 deposed as if the A3 is

Raji Reddy and he made confession before police. However in the later part of chief examination, Pw2 identified the present accused A3 as Raji Reddy, but in fact A3 is not Raji Reddy and his name is Venkatswamy. As the entire case is basing on alleged confession and Lws1 and 3 were not examined to prove such kidnap for ransom, wrongful confinement or threatening of the witnesses, as such none of the offences are proved. The evidence given by

Pw2 is against to the case of the prosecution as Lw3 stated before police that he was not kidnapped by the accused. Furthermore the so called 5

SC 177 of 2010

property claimed to be recovered from A3 is not produced either in this case or in original case. So this court is of the opinion that there is no sufficient evidence to bring home the guilt of A3 either for the offence U/s.363, 364-A or for the offences U/s.343 and 506 IPC. Accordingly these two points are answered.

12. Point No.3:- To what result?

In the result, accused no.3 is not found guilty for the offence punishable U/s.363 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted U/s.235(1) Cr.P.C.

2. Accused no.3 is not found guilty for the offence punishable U/s.364-A IPC and accordingly he is acquitted U/s.235(1) Cr.P.C.

3. Accused no.3 is not found guilty for the offence punishable U/s.343 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted U/s.235(1) Cr.P.C.

4. Accused no.3 is not found guilty for the offence punishable U/s.506 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted U/s.235(1) Cr.P.C.

5. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period.

Dictated to Steno, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court on this the 22nd day of April 2024.

III Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum-II Addl. MSJ cum Prl. Family Court Judge at Kukatpally

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:- PW1 Sri R. Mogulaiah PW2 Sri B. Srinivas Rao

FOR DEFENCE:- -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 Copy of Panchanama Ex.P2 Relevant portion of confession of accused regarding seizure of dagger

FOR DEFENCE: Nil MATERIAL OBJECTS : None

III Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum-II Addl. MSJ cum Prl. Family Court Judge at Kukatpally

1 FCOP 2785 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE – CUM – II

ADDL. METROPOPLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-PRL.FAMILY COURT, MEDCHAL – MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY

PRESENT:SRI. K. KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY, III Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum-Prl. Family Court, M.M. District at Kukatpally.

Dated, this the 10th day of April, 2023.

FCOP. No.2785 of 2017

Between:

G. Deepthisri W/o. B. Raghu Sree, Age: 29 years, Occ: Pvt. Service, R/o. H.No.5-8, Plot No.255, Sriramnagar colony, (Secretariat colony), Puppalaguda, Hyderabad – 500 089 … Petitioner

And

B. Raghu Sree S/o. B. Ashok Kumar, Age: 36 years, Occ: Service, R/o. H.No.21-2-761/2/C, Near Bhagavathi Bai Montessory School, Patel Market, Rikabgunj, Hyderabad – 500 002 … Respondent

The petition is coming up before me on 14-02-2023 for hearing in presence of Petitioner and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:-

ORDER

1.This petition is filed U/sec.13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.

2.Lengthy petition is filed making several allegations and the main contention is that the respondent suspecting the character of the petitioner, termed her as prostitute and thus harassing her from the time of marriage.

3.After receiving the notice, respondent also filed lengthy counter denying the petition allegations and his contention is that petitioner herself is not interested in marriage and to stay with the respondent, as such she deserted him and used to live according to her wish and not only that the petitioner did not permit the respondent to see the child, as such respondent filed GWOP 2766/2018 and that there are no grounds for divorce.

4.During the enquiry, on behalf of petitioner, Pws1 to 3 were examined and exhibits Exs.P1 to P6 marked. No evidence adduced by respondent.

Furthermore the respondent filed memo on 06-06-2022 that he has no objection for divorce because he is vexed with the attitude of the petitioner.

The record reveals that respondent herein filed GWOP No.2766/2018 and 2 FCOP 2785 of 2017 that petition was not pressed due to compromise between the parties. Even though Pws1 to 3 deposed the evidence against the respondent; when respondent himself admitting for divorce, there is no necessity to decide all these allegations. It is clear that petitioner as well as respondent not interested in the marital life and that both are seeking divorce for some reason or another. So treating this petition as petition U/s.13-B of Hindu

Marriage Act, without going into the allegations made against each other, this court is inclined to grant divorce.

6.Hence the petition is allowed and marriage between the petitioners is dissolved by a decree of divorce.

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court on this the 10th day of April, 2023.

III Addl. District & Sessions Judge-Cum-Prl. Family Court, Medchal - Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS:-

PW1: Deepti Sree PW2: G. Ranga Nayakulu PW3: G. Gayathri

FOR RESPONDENT:

RW1: Sri B. Raghu Sree

DOCUMENTS FILED

For Petitioners:

Ex.P1 Wedding Card Ex.P2 Marriage Photo Ex.P3 Copy of marriage certificate issued by Registrar of Hindu Marriages, Gandipet, dtd 14-09-2010 Ex.P4 Office copy of legal notice issued by respondent, dtd 28-12-2016 Ex.P5 Reply notice issued by petitioner dtd 27-01-2017 Ex.P6 Copy of Aadhar card of petitioner

III Addl. District & Sessions Judge-Cum-Prl. Family Court, Medchal - Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally

DECREE IN ORIGINAL PETITION

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MEDCHAL -

MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY.

PRESENT : Sri. K. Kalyan Chakravarthy, III Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum- Prl.Family Court, Kukatpally, FAC., Addl.Judge, Family Court, Medchal, Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally.

Dated this the 04th day of April, 2023

FC.OP.No. 919 of 2019

BETWEEN : Sanikommu Malla Reddy S/o. Vengala Reddy, Aged about 34 Years, Occ: Pvt. Service, R/o. H. NO. 15-21-83, Flat No. 102, Sri Vastsalya Nilayuam, Balaji Nagar, Kukatpally, M. M. District.

.....Petitioner No.1

A N D

Smt. Yeggem Gowri Supraja W/o. S. Malla Reddy, D/o. Yettem Ramakrishna Reddy, Aged about 32 Years, Occ: Pvt. Service, R/o. D. No. 4-180, Dibbala Road, Satyanarayanapuram, Ongole, Ongole District, A.P.

.....Petitioner No.2

CLAIM:- This petition originally filed U/Sec. 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) of H. M. Act seeking for dissolution of their marriage, but however after appearance of the respondent, both parties compromised, as such they moved petition under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment of the petition to Sec.13-B and accordingly petition is allowed and main case is amended to Sec. 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act.

VALUATION:- A fixed court fee of Rs.10/- is paid under Article-I of Schedule-II of

A.P.C.F & S.V Act.

CAUSE OF ACTION:- The cause of action arose 11.02.2015 when both the petitioners were married, from first week of September, 2019 when both the parties started living separately.

Petition filed on : 16.10.2019 Petition numbered on : 05.12.2019

This petition coming is coming up before me on 11.02.2023 for final hearing in presence of both both petitioners and upon hearing and perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree as follows:-

Cont.,2… : : 2 : :

1. That the petition of the petitioners be and the same is hereby allowed.

2. That the marriage between petitioners that took place on 11.02.2015 is hereby dissolved by way of decree of divorce by mutual consent.

3. That there shall be no order as to costs of the petition.

(Given under my hand and the seal of the court on this the 04th day of April, 2023.)

FAC Additional Judge, Family Court, Medchal- Malkajgiri District, at Kukatpally.

COST OF THE PETITION

FOR PETITIONER FOR RESPONDENT

Stamp on petitionRs. 10-00 -----

Stamp on powerRs. 2-00 -----

Stamp on processRs. 35-00 -----

Advocate fee FC and MC not filed ----- -------------------------------------------------------------------------

TOTALRs. 47-00 ---- -------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAC Additional Judge, Family Court, Medchal- Malkajgiri District, at Kukatpally.

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,

MEDCHAL MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY.

PRESENT : Sri.K.Kalayan Chakravarthy, III Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum- Prl. Family Court, Kukatpally, FAC: Addl.Judge, Family Court, Medchal, Malkajgiri District, at Kukatpally.

Dated this the 04th day of March, 2024

GWOP 4 of 2023

Between :

Smt. Divya Swamiseety D/o. Purnapratap Swamisetty

.... Petitioner

A N D

T. Bharath Krishna Kumar S/o. T. Vijya Kumar

…..Respondent

CLAIM:- This petition filed U/Sec. 7, 10, 25 of G.W. Act.

ORDER

GPA holder of petitioner present. Respondent present in person. The respondent filed no objection memo and along with MOU dated 22.11.2023. As per the MOU both parties entered compromise and respondent agreed for permanent custody of the child to the petitioner and in the no objection memo the respondent gave no objection for giving the permanent custody of the child to the petitioner. In the circumstances the petition is allowed and the petitioner is hereby appointed as guardian of the minor by name Daakshya Tumati and custodian of the child till the child attains majority.

(Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 04thday of March 2024)

FAC Additional Judge, Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally