Smt.K.Kavitha

Page No.1 of 15 S.C No.10 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

:: AT WANAPARTHY ::

Dated, this the 4th day of April, 2025

Present:- Smt. Kavitha Kamalapuram, Asst. Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy. FAC Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy.

Sessions Case No.10 of 2024

[ Preliminary Registered Case No.8 of 2022 committed by Principal

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy in Crime No.24 of 2022

of P.S. Pebbair, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Prosecution conducted : by.Addl. Public Prosecutor, Wanaparthy.

Accused :Vakiti Swamy, S/o. Late Vakiti Naganna, Age: 34 years, Caste: Telugu, Occ: Driver, R/o. H.No.11-33, Near new bus stand Pebbair town, Wanaparthy district.

Accused defended by:Fazal Baig, Advocate

Offences under Section:498-A, 306 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961.

Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding :Found not guilty

Sentence or order:In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences Under Sections 498- A and 306 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry prohibition Act and he is acquitted of the same Under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall stand discharged after expiry of six months as under section 437-A Cr.P.C. and the accused is set at liberty. There is no case property deposited before this court in this

Page No.2 of 15 S.C No.10 of 2024 case.

* * *

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri Fazal Baig, Learned Counsel for the accused and upon hearing both sides and perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

1. The Circle Inspector of Police, Kothakota Circle filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.24 of 2022, for the offences under Sections 498-A, 306 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961.

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

On 07.02.2022 around 09.00 hours, the complainant/L.W.1/

Vallapureddy Narsimha Reddy lodged a complaint at Pebbair PS, in which he stated that he has two daughters and one son. About 9 years back his younger daughter by name Ashwini Bhavya got married against their wishes. After the marriage his daughter Ashwini

Bhavya/deceased never visited his house and was living with the accused in Pebbair village. The deceased was blessed with one son and two daughters and the accused is a DCM driver. After marriage, L.W.1 came to know through some others that after the birth of their kids, his daughter’s/deceased husband started harassing her physically and mentally on the plea that if he got married to his caste lady he would have got dowry. On 06.02.2022, around 7 PM due to the unbearable torments his daughter Ashwini/deceased in order to commit suicide she

Page No.3 of 15 S.C No.10 of 2024 along with her kids Gnaneshwari, aged 5 years, Varun Teja, aged 3 years and Neeharika, aged 10 months went to Jurala main canal and she pushed her three children into the canal and she also jumped into the canal. In the meantime, Kumar/L.W.4 witnessed the incident and jumped into the canal and saved Varun Teja. L.W.1’s daughter/Ashwini

Bhavya and her two daughters Ganeshwari and Niharika drowned in the water and died. Finally, the complainant requested to take necessary legal action against the accused for harassing his daughter physically and mentally due to which she committed suicide by throwing her three children also into the water canal.

As per the contents of the above complaint, the LW-21/B.

Rama Swamy, Sub-Inspector of Police, Pebbair PS registered a case in

Cr.No.24 of 2022, U/s. 302, 307, 498 (A) and 306 of IPC and issued

Express FIR to the concerned. After the receipt of the express FIR, on 07.02.2022 the LW-22/N.Srinivas Reddy CI of Police, Kothakota Circle took up the investigation of this case.

During the course of investigation, LW-22 examined and recorded the statements of witnesses. On 07.02.2022, the deceased No.1 and deceased No.2 dead bodies were found in the limits of Pebbair village by LW-5/Chinthakunata Yella Swamy and LW-6/Madugani

Raju and the dead body of D3 was found in the limits of Gopaldinne village by the LW-7/Patelgari Lokesh. Later, LW-22 visited

Government Hospital, Wanaparthy along with LW-21 and the complainant/LW-1. LW-22 secured the presence of two mediators i.e.

LW-16/Hanumanthukari Shobarani and LW-17/Ura Thikka Reddy and conducted inquest panchanama over the dead bodies of the deceased

No.1/Ashwini and deceased No.3/Vakiti Niharika one after the other in

Page No.4 of 15 S.C No.10 of 2024 the presence of the above mediators. Simultaneously, the LW-21 secured the presence of two mediators LW 18/S.Padma and

Lw.19/S.Laxman Naik and conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased No.2 Vakiti Gnaneshwari. Later, the dead bodies of deceased Nos.1 to 3 were subjected for Post Mortem

Examination. The LW-20/Dr. K.Phalgun, CAS, Govt. District Hospital,

Wanaparthy, held Autopsy over the dead bodies of deceased Nos.1 to 3 and furnished Post mortem report. On 07.02.2022, the LW- 22/N.Srinivas Reddy visited the scene of offence and secured the presence of two mediators i.e. LWs.14/E.Beemeshwar Reddy and 15/G.Chandra Shekar and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch separately. The LW-22 collected water from the

Jurala canal 1st scene of offence in a plastic bottle for chemical analysis and diatom test. Since the deceased No.1 had committed suicide so a memo was filed before the Court for deletion of sections 302 and 307 of

IPC. Thus, the accused committed offences punishable U/s. 498 (A), 306 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

3. The learned Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Wanaparthy took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act vide PRC

No.8 of 2022 against the accused. After following the committal procedure, the said PRC was committed to the Hon’ble District and

Sessions Court, Wanaparthy. The Hon’ble District and Sessions Court,

Wanaparthy had taken cognizance for the said offences and numbered the same as SC No. 10 of 2024 and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to law.

Page No.5 of 15 S.C No.10 of 2024

4. After appearance of the accused before this Court and hearing both sides and perusal of the material on record, charge for the offences under Sections 498-A, 306 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act have been framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in vernacular language for which he pleaded not guilty for the said charge and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution to prove it’s case has examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9. On behalf of the accused none were examined and no documents are marked. The learned APPO has given up the evidences of L.W.6,10,12 and 14 to 22 as the witnesses turned hostile.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, for which the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

7. The points that arise for determination in this case are:- “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt?”

8. Heard the arguments of the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused and perused the material available on record.

Page No.6 of 15 S.C No.10 of 2024

9. Point No. a:-

The prosecution’s case is that on 06.02.2022, around 19:00 hours in the main water canal of Pebbair village, the wife of the accused and his three children committed suicide unable to bear the alleged harassment of the accused. But one of the children was rescued by name

Varun Tej.

10. In order to properly comprehend the scope and ambit of

Section 306 of IPC, it is important to carefully examine the basic ingredients of Section 306 IPC. The said section is reproduced as under:- "306. Abetment of suicide - If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

11. The word "suicide" in itself is nowhere defined in the Indian

Penal Code, however it’s meaning and import is well known and requires no explanation. "Sui" means "self" and "cide" means "killing", thus implying an act of self-killing. In short, a person committing suicide must commit it by himself, irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving his object of killing himself.

Discussion, appreciation of evidence and reasons thereof:-

12. To establish the guilt of the accused for the aforementioned offences, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 10.

Page No.7 of 15 S.C No.10 of 2024

13. P.W.1 is the complainant and father of the deceased No.1.

P.Ws.2, 4 to 8 are the circumstantial witnesses. P.W.3 is the eye witness. P.W.9 and 10 are the neighbours of deceased No.1.

14. P.W.1/V.Narasimha Reddy, who is the complainant and father of the deceased No.1 in his evidence-in-chief deposed that he knows LWs.2 to 13 and the accused. He stated that the deceased No.1/

Ashwini is his daughter and she died three years back by jumping into the canal along with her two children/deceased Nos.2 and 3, who are his grandchildren as her husband i.e. the accused was not looking after her welfare and their children. He stated that they came to know about the same on the next day of the said incident. He stated that he cannot recognize the husband of the deceased. He stated that he lodged complaint before the police under Ex.P1 and police examined him and recorded his statement.

During his cross-examination by the defence counsel, PW.1 stated that he along with his son used to reside in the same house at the time of the alleged incident. He agreed that the deceased No.1/Ashwini went away from their house without informing them and got married. He agreed that they did not agree for her marriage and that the deceased No.1 and her children were happily residing with the husband of the deceased

No.1. He agreed that he did not mention in Ex.P1 or in his Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement that the husband of the deceased No.1 was not looking after her welfare and their children and that he came to know about the alleged incident on the next day. He agreed that after the deceased No.1 got married, he never visited or seen her and her children till the date of the alleged incident. He agreed that there is a temple of Chamundeswari near

Page No.8 of 15 S.C No.10 of 2024 the alleged scene of offence and pilgrims go to the canal to wash their hands and feet through the steps. He denied the suggestion that the deceased Nos.1 to 3 also went to wash their hands and feet and slipped into the canal. He stated that he came to know about the death of the deceased Nos.1 to 3 from their neighbour. He agreed that he did not mention in Ex.P1 or in his Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement that the neighbour informed him about the death of the deceased Nos.1 to 3. He stated that

Ex.P1 was scribed by LW3/Veera Reddy. He agreed that he does not know the contents of Ex.P1. He stated that his Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement was recorded on the next day of receiving the death information by the constable. Further, he denied the other suggestions put to him by the defence counsel.

15. P.W.2/J.Veera Reddy, who is the brother-in-law of the deceased No.1 and circumstantial witness deposed that the deceased

No.1 is his sister-in-law and she died by slipping accidentally into the canal when she went to visit the temple in the year 2020.

During his cross-examination by the defence counsel he stated that he does not know the name of the person who recorded his Sec.

161 Cr.P.C statement. He agreed that he did not narrate the contents of his

Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement.

16. P.W.3/P.Kumar, who is cited as an eye-witness deposed that in the year 2022, he was present at the jathara of the temple but he does not know any facts of the case. He turned hostile to the prosecution case. The learned APPO cross-examined P.w.3 with the permission of the court but no useful material was elicited in support of the

Page No.9 of 15 S.C No.10 of 2024 prosecution case. Further, he denied that he deposed before the police as in Ex.P2.

17. P.W.4/MD.Sathar, P.W.5/C.Yella Swamy, P.W.6/P.Lokesh,

P.W.7/J.Rajitha and P.W.8/V.Suresh, who are the circumstantial witnesses deposed that they do not know any facts of the case. They turned hostile to the prosecution case. The learned APPO cross- examined P.w.4 to Pw.8 with the permission of the court but no useful material was elicited in support of the prosecution case. Further, they denied that they deposed before the police as in Ex.P3 to P7.

18. P.W.9/G.Uma and P.W.10/K.Jayamma who are the neighbours of the deceased No.1 deposed that they do not know any facts of the case. They turned hostile to the prosecution case. The learned APPO cross- examined P.w.9 and Pw.10 with the permission of the court but no useful material was elicited in support of the prosecution case. Further, they denied that they deposed before the police as in Ex.P8 and P9.

19. At this stage, the Court must examine whether there is a direct connection between the accused and the offence leading to the death of the deceased. Regarding the second part of Section 306 of IPC, the prosecution needs to establish that the deceased No.1 took the extreme step of committing suicide as a result of the accused’s harassment and abetment.

20. To prove the second part of section 306 of IPC, the

Page No.10 of 15 S.C No.10 of 2024 prosecution has to prove the ingredients covered under section 107 of

IPC.

Section 107 IPC: Abetment of a thing :-

A person abets the doing of thing, who-

Firstly:- Instigates any person to do that thing; or

Secondly:- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes places in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

Thirdly – Intentionally aids, by an act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.”

Explanation 2, which has been inserted along with Sec.107 reads as under:- “Explanation 2:- Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act”

21. As discussed earlier in this case, the main allegation of the prosecution is that the deceased No.1 along with her children committed suicide solely due to the harassment and abetment of the accused. But none of the witnesses including the family members of the deceased have presented any incriminating material against the accused that would connect him to this case and establish that the deceased took her life solely because of the harassment and abetment of the accused.

Page No.11 of 15 S.C No.10 of 2024

22. The learned counsel for the accused contended that the ingredients of abetment are lacking in this case. He further contended that there is no mens rea on part of the accused and even to attract an offence under Section 306 of IPC, the guilty mind of the accused must be established by the prosecution. The learned counsel further contended that in this case, there are no words uttered by the accused abetting the deceased to commit suicide or he created any such circumstance, which resulted in the death of the deceased Nos.1 to 3 or that there were such circumstances which lead the deceased No.1 to commit suicide along with her children, having no other alternative.

23. This court relied on the following judgments:

In S.S. Chheena v Vijay Kumar Mahajan, 2010 AIR SCW 4938 the Hon’ble Apex Court explained the concept of abetment along with necessary ingredients for offence under Section 306 of IPC as under:

“28. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.”

Page No.12 of 15 S.C No.10 of 2024

In Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2001

SC 3837, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that :

“Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect, or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. the present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation."

In Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B., AIR 2010 SC 512, the

Hon’ble Apex Court explained the parameters of Section 306 in

following words:

“12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that

before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC,

the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the

Page No.13 of 15 S.C No.10 of 2024 accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.

13. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306

IPC.”

24. However, this Court has found no positive evidence of abetment, instigation, threats or use of abusive words in

Ex.P1/complaint which could have driven the deceased No.1 to take such a drastic step to end her life and the life of her children. Infact, abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person to do a certain thing. Without positive act on part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, the accused cannot be convicted. In this case, this Court did not find any direct inducement of instigation on part of the accused to compel the deceased No.1 along with her children to commit suicide as the prosecution has failed to prove the mens rea on part of the accused. It should be noted that a single isolated incident cannot be considered as a sufficient ground for abetment. Regardless of the circumstances, based on the evidence provided by P.Ws.1 to 10, it is clear that the death of the deceased No.1 and her children was not due to any underlying cause of action that would fulfill the ingredients of

Section 306 of IPC i.e. (i) the abetment (ii) the intention of the accused

Page No.14 of 15 S.C No.10 of 2024 to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide and Section 107 of IPC to implicate the accused in this case. Thus, there is no evidence on record to establish that the accused is solely responsible for the death of the deceased. Further, all the prosecution witnesses turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. In these circumstances, this court is left with no other option except, to acquit the accused. Thereby, the accused is entitled for an acquittal.

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

Under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry prohibition Act and he is acquitted of the same Under Section 235 (1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall stand discharged after expiry of six months as under section 437-A Cr.P.C.

and the accused is set at liberty. There is no case property deposited

before this court in this case.

-Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 4th day of April, 2025.

Assistant Sessions Judge,

Wanaparthy. FAC Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1 is Vallapu Narsimha Reddy/complainant -None- P.W.2 is J. Veera Reddy/circumstantial witness P.W.3 is P. Kumar/Eye witness P.W.4 is Md.Sathar/circumstantial witness

Page No.15 of 15 S.C No.10 of 2024

P.W.5 is C. Yella Swamy/circumstantial witness P.W.6 is P. Lokesh/circumstantial witness P.W.7 is J. Rajitha/circumstantial witness P.W.8 is V. Suresh Kumar/circumstantial witness P.W.9 is G. Uma/neighbour of the deceased No.1 P.W.10 is K.Jayamma/neighbour of the deceased No.1

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 is the report lodged by P.W.1. Ex.P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3. Ex.P3 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4. Ex.P4 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5. Ex.P5 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.6. Ex.P6 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.7. Ex.P7 is the the 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.8. Ex.P8 is the the 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.9. Ex.P9 is the the 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.10.

FOR DEFENCE:

-Nil –

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

Assistant Sessions Judge,

Wanaparthy. FAC Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy.

Page No.1 of 5 HMOP No.121 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

:: AT WANAPARTHY ::

Dated, the 4th day of May, 2026

Present:- Smt. Kavitha Kamalapuram,

Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Wanaparthy.

HMOP No. 121 of 2024

Between:

N.Pooja @ Chandana @ Islavath Puja, W/o. Nenavath Mohan, D/o. Late Islavath Gobriya, Age: 24 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Tellarallapally Thanda Village, Pangal Mandal, Wanaparthy District. …Petitioner No.1.

And

Nenavath Mohan, S/o. Nenavath Chandru, Age: 27 years, Occ: Driver, R/o. H.No.1-23, Kistagiri Thanda of Peddagudem Village, Wanaparthy Mandal and District. …Petitioner No.2.

Sub:- Petition filed under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

*** This petition is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B. Chandra Sekhar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

:: ORDER ::

1.This is a petition filed by the petitioners under Section. 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of their marriage dated:

09.12.2022 and to grant decree of divorce on mutual consent.

2.The brief case of the petitioners is that :

Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the wife and husband and respectively and their marriage was solemnized on 09.12.2022 at

Page No.2 of 5 HMOP No.121 of 2024 petitioner No.1’s house at Tellarallapally Thanda of Pangal Mandal,

Wanaparthy District as per Hindu Customs prevailing in their community.

The petitioners are governed by Hindu Law. It is submitted that after the marriage, the petitioner No.1 joined the petitioner No.2 at her in-law’s house at Kistagiri Thanda, Peddagudem Village of Wanaparthy Mandal and

District. Out of their wedlock they are blessed with one daughter by name

Jeevana. It is submitted that thereafter, some disputes arose between both the parties and as the situation was intolerable, the petitioner No.1 was constrained to leave the company of the petitioner No.2 on 04.11.2023. Since then, they are residing separately. It is submitted that with the intervention of elders, meetings were held among the family members of both the petitioners to patch up their differences that arose between them but all the meetings turned futile. Since the petitioners could not reconcile the differences between them and found no scope to reunion in leading marital life, on 15.07.2024, the elders of both the families and well wishers came to a conclusion and advised the petitioners to get separated mutually and after considering all the facts and circumstances, their ages and future life, they have taken a decision to obtain mutual divorce. On 15.07.2024, both the petitioners agreed to the terms as under:

a. The second petitioner agreed to pay Rs.8,50,000/-(Rupees

Eight lakhs fifty thousand only) to the petitioner No.1, out of which

Rs.5,50,000/- (Rupees five lakhs fifty thousand) is the amount returned to the petitioner No.1 which was given by her and Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) is towards future and permanent alimony to the petitioner No.1.

b. Out of the said amount, Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) had been paid on 15.07.2024 and it was agreed by the 2nd petitioner to pay Rs.3,00,000/- within two months therefrom. It was also agreed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as on the date of the order of the petition.

Page No.3 of 5 HMOP No.121 of 2024 c. Both the petitioners agreed to file a petition for divorce under mutual consent before the appropriate court.

It is submitted that the first petitioner waived her right of future maintenance or future permanent alimony. The minor child will be with the petitioner No.1. Hence, the present petition.

3.After filing the present petition, the petition was adjourned by granting six months time expecting change in the attitude of the petitioners, so that they may live together. When the matter was posted after 6 months, the petitioners failed to appear before this court and after granting several adjournments this court dismissed the present case for default on 21-08-2025. In the month of April, 2026 the petitioners filed an application vide I.A. No.192 of 2026 under Sec.5 of limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the restoration petition under Order 9 Rule 9 of

CPC. The said I.A. No.192 of 2026 was allowed condoning the delay in filing the restoration petition. The I.A. No.162 of 2026 under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC was filed for restoration and the same was allowed. Both the petitioners appeared and still they expressed the same view to take divorce by getting their marriage dissolved.

4. Both the petitioners filed their chief affidavits and petitioner

No.1/Chandana @ Pooja got examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked

Exs.P1 and P2. Petitioner No.2/Nenavath Mohan got examined himself as

P.W.2 and no documents are marked through P.W.2. After recording the evidence, the counsel for the petitioners is heard and this Court perused the material available on record.

5.The point for consideration in this petition is:

“Whether the petitioners are entitled for getting their marriage dissolved by way of mutual consent by getting a decree of divorce?”

6. POINT:

Page No.4 of 5 HMOP No.121 of 2024

The petitioners through their affidavits assert that their marriage was solemnized on 09.12.2022 at petitioner No.1’s house at Tellarallapally

Thanda of Pangal Mandal, Wanaparthy District as per Hindu customs and rites. They were blessed with a daughter. Subsequently, some differences arose between both the petitioners. Consequently, they decided to part ways and started living separately since 04.11.2023. Both the parties agreed to seek divorce. They voluntarily filed the application before this

Court, requesting to dissolve their marriage by granting the decree of divorce. All attempts to reconcile their marital life have been unsuccessful leaving no hope for reunion.

7.The evidence presented by P.Ws.1 and 2 strongly demonstrate that the marital bond between both the petitioners has deteriorated leading them to live separately since 04.11.2023. After cooling off period of 6 months, the petitioners appeared before this Court and stated that there is no possibility of their reunion and they are not withdrawing their consent to take divorce on mutual consent. This Court conducted reconciliation talks, but the same could not be materialized. Both the petitioners submitted that there are no chances of their reunion and that they are living separately since 04-11-2023. They have also submitted that, out of their free will and wish, without any coercion from anyone, they have decided to take divorce. The acrimony between the parties has rendered the marriage between the petitioners irreparable. The emotional foundation of the marriage seems to have completely vanished and denying the divorce would only perpetrate bitterness between the parties.

There is no benefit in attempting to maintain the marriage that appears to have ceased to exist.

8.Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in their evidence-in-chief have reiterated the version stated by them in their petition. Through P.W.1, the

Marriage photographs (2 in number) and Wedding card, dated:09.12.2022 are marked as Exs.P1 and P2 respectively.

Page No.5 of 5 HMOP No.121 of 2024

9.There is no dispute of marriage between the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and their living separately. In this case, all the mandatory requirements for grant of decree of divorce on mutual consent are satisfied and since there is no scope of cohabitation of petitioner Nos.1 and 2, this Court feels it appropriate to grant decree of divorce by mutual consent as prayed for. Point is accordingly answered.

10.In the result, the petition is allowed. The marriage of the petitioner No.1 (wife) with petitioner No.2 (husband) which has taken place on 09.12.2022 is dissolved by granting divorce on mutual consent from the date of this order. In the circumstances no costs.

-Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 4th day of May, 2026.

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioners:

P.W.1:Chandna @ Pooja

P.W.2:Nenavath Mohan

Exhibits marked

For Petitioners:

Ex.P1:Marriage photographs (2 in number)

Ex.P2:Wedding card, dated: 09.12.2022.

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy.

Page No.1 of 6 HMOP No.107 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT WANAPARTHY

Dated, the 4th day of April, 2025

Present:- Smt.Kavitha Kamalapuram, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy.

HMOP No.107 of 2024

Between:

K.Nandhini, W/o. Rachala Vinay Kumar Goud, D/o. Thirupathaiah Goud, Age: 24 years, Occ: Student, R/o. H.No.4-34, Kurumurthy village, Chinna Chinthakunta mandal, Wanaparthy District, Telangana State. …Petitioner No.1.

And

Rachala Vinay Kumar Goud, S/o. Rachala Murali Goud, Age: 32 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. H.No.45-41/1, Wanaparthy town and District, Telangana State. …Petitioner No.2.

Sub:- Petition filed under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

***

This petition is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Mohan Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

:: ORDER ::

1. This is a petition filed by the petitioners under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of their marriage dated:

Page No.2 of 6 HMOP No.107 of 2024 21.04.2023 and to grant decree of divorce on mutual consent.

2. The brief case of the petitioners is that:

Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the wife and husband respectively and their marriage was solemnized on 21.04.2023 at Laxmi Krishna

Garden at Wanaparthy as per the Hindu rites and customs. The marriage was settled and arranged by both the side elders. After the marriage, petitioner No.1 joined the company of the petitioner No.2 at the house of petitioner No.2 at Wanaparthy town only for 5 days. During that period, the marriage was not consummated due to some personal misunderstandings and they used to quarrel severely. Parents of the petitioner No.1 came to the house of petitioner No.2, then both the petitioners expressed their non-cohabitation. Parents of both the petitioners convinced the petitioners to live together but they expressed their unwillingness to continue their marital life. Both the petitioners quarreled seriously in the presence of their parents. Hence, parents of petitioner No.2 asked the parents of petitioner No.1 to take back the petitioner No.1 to their home. Parents of petitioner No.1 took petitioner No.1 to Kurmurthy village. Since 26.04.2023 petitioner No.1 is staying at her parental home till date. Elders and both their parents made efforts to reconcile the petitioners but they could not reconcile. On 11.09.2024, mutual settlement

Page No.3 of 6 HMOP No.107 of 2024 took place between both the petitioners. Petitioner No.2 returned the entire gold ornaments to petitioner No.1 which was presented by the parents of the petitioner No.1 at the time of marriage. Petitioner No.1 agreed that she has no further claims towards any maintenance against the petitioner No.2 and also any rights over petitioner No.2 and his properties. Hence, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 agreed for the terms of mutual settlement.

Therefore, both the petitioners have decided to part their ways by dissolving their marriage and as such the present petition is filed by them.

3. After filing the present petition, the petition was adjourned by granting six months time expecting change in the attitude of the petitioners, so that they may live together. But even after 6 months, they expressed the same view to take divorce by getting their marriage dissolved.

4. Both the petitioners filed their chief affidavits and petitioner

No.1/K.Nandhini got examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2. Petitioner No.2 got examined himself as P.W.2/Rachala Vinay

Kumar Goud and no documents are marked through P.W.2. After recording the evidence, the counsel for the petitioners was heard and this Court perused the material available on record.

5. The point for consideration in this petition is:

Page No.4 of 6 HMOP No.107 of 2024 “Whether the petitioners are entitled for

getting their marriage dissolved by way of mutual

consent by getting a decree of divorce?”

6. POINT:

The petitioners through their affidavits assert that their marriage was solemnized on 21.04.2023 at Laxmi Krishna Garden at

Wanaparthy as per the Hindu customs and rites prevailing in their community. After their marriage, they lived at the house of petitioner No.2 at Wanaparthy only for a period of 5 days. Their marriage was not consummated due to misunderstandings. Due to the differences between them they started living separately since 26.04.2023. Though the elders and parents of both the petitioners made efforts to reconcile them they could not reconcile. Both the parties agreed to seek divorce and settled all the matters between them. They voluntarily filed the application before this Court, requesting to dissolve their marriage by granting the decree of divorce. All attempts to reconcile their marital life have been unsuccessful leaving no hope for reunion.

7. The evidence presented by P.Ws.1 and 2 strongly demonstrate that the marital bond between both the petitioners has deteriorated. After cooling off period of 6 months, the petitioners appeared before this Court and stated that there is no possibility of their reunion and they are not

Page No.5 of 6 HMOP No.107 of 2024 withdrawing their consent to take divorce on mutual consent. This Court conducted reconciliation talks, but the same could not be materialized.

Both the petitioners submitted that there are no chances of their reunion and that they are living separately since 26.04.2023. They have also submitted that, out of their free will and wish, without any coercion from anyone, they have decided to take divorce. The acrimony between the parties has rendered the marriage between the petitioners irreparable. The emotional foundation of the marriage seems to have completely vanished and denying the divorce would only perpetrate bitterness between the parties. There is no benefit in attempting to maintain the marriage that appears to have seized to exist.

8. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in their evidence-in-chief have reiterated the version stated by them in their petition. Through

P.W.1/K.Nandhini, the wedding card, dated: 21.04.2023 and the marriage photographs (2 in Nos.) are marked as Exs.P1 and P2 respectively.

9. There is no dispute of marriage between the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and their living separately. In this case, all the mandatory requirements for grant of decree of divorce on mutual consent are satisfied and since there is no scope of cohabitation of petitioner Nos.1 and 2, this

Court feels it appropriate to grant decree of divorce by mutual consent as

Page No.6 of 6 HMOP No.107 of 2024 prayed for. Point is accordingly answered.

10. In the result, the petition is allowed. The marriage of the petitioner No.1 (wife) with petitioner No.2 (husband) which has taken place on 21.04.2023 is dissolved by granting divorce on mutual consent from the date of this order. In the circumstances no costs.

-Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 4th day of April, 2025.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For petitioners:

P.W.1: K.Nandhini. P.W.2: R.Vinay Kumar Goud.

Exhibits marked

For petitioners:

Ex.P1: Wedding card, dated: 21.04.2023. Ex.P2: Marriage photographs (2 in Nos).

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy.

Page 1 of 6 HMOP No.117 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

:: AT WANAPARTHY ::

Dated, this the 26th day of March, 2025

Present:- Smt Kavitha Kamalapuram Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy. FAC Additional Senior Civil judge, Wanaparthy.

HMOP No.117 of 2024

Between: Gaddam Anitha, W/o. Panthagani Ravikumar, D/o. Gaddam Anjaneyulu, Age: 26 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o. H.No.5-62, Manajipet Village, Ghanpur Mandal,Wanaparthy District-509380. …Petitioner.

AND

Panthagani Ravikumar, S/o. P.Laxmaiah, Age: 28 years, Occ: Driver, R/o. H.No.8-33/1, Mandula Gadda, Ghanpur Village, and Mandal, Wanaparthy District-509380. …Respondent.

Sub:- Petition filed under Section 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

***

This petition is coming up before me for final disposal in the presence of Sri M.Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent having been remained ex-parte and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

Page No. 2 of 6 HMOP No.117 of 2024

:: ORDER ::

1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner/wife under Section 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking dissolution of her marriage performed with the respondent on 13.08.2020 and to grant a decree of divorce.

2. In the petition, it is the case of the petitioner that:

Marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was performed on 13.08.2020 at the residence of the petitioner at Manajipet Village,

Ghanpur Mandal, Wanaparthy District as per Hindu rites and customs. It was an arranged marriage solemnized in the presence of well-wishers and others of both sides. Respondent came illatom to petitioner’s home as there is no male offspring to the parents of the petitioner. Petitioner and the respondent lived happily for a period of two months and they have no issues. Petitioner joined the company of the respondent at her native place at Manajipet village, Ghanpur mandal, Wanaparthy district.

Thereafter, the respondent used to pickup quarrels with the petitioner without any reason, abused her in filthy language, beat the petitioner and her mother many times. The respondent harassed the petitioner mentally and physically. The petitioner had borne all such harassment with an intention to see change in the attitude of the respondent in due course of time. But the respondent did not change. Finally, on 07.09.2022, the

Page No. 3 of 6 HMOP No.117 of 2024 respondent left the company of the petitioner without any information.

The respondent never treated the petitioner with love and affection. The respondent attitude is very dangerous, pervert and he is a drunkard. The respondent used to beat the petitioner and threaten her with knives. The petitioner made several complaints before P.S Ghanpur. But the respondent did not stop torturing the petitioner. Whenever the respondent takes alcohol, the petitioner and her mother used to hide themselves in the neighbouring houses. The respondent also suspected the character of the petitioner. Several panchayats were conducted

before the caste elders but the respondent did not change his cruel

behaviour He bluntly refused to join the company of the petitioner. The respondent used to come home late and abused the petitioner in filthy language and used to throw the food outside. The respondent many times fulfilled his natural calls on bed only. The respondent started behaving with the petitioner in an unexpected manner during their private time and harassed her which she cannot explain in words. The parents and relatives requested the respondent to mend his ways but he did not change. Since the date of the marriage, the respondent treated the petitioner in a very cruel manner and was of sadistic mentality. Because of these cruel acts of the respondent, the petitioner suffered depression

Page No. 4 of 6 HMOP No.117 of 2024 in her life and as there is no possibility of happy marital life with the respondent, the present petition is filed by the petitioner.

[

3. Inspite of service of notice on him, the respondent did not choose to appear before this Court and therefore, he was set ex-parte.

4. The point that arises for consideration in this petition is:- “Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of a decree of divorce for dissolution of her marriage which was performed with the respondent on 13.08.2020 as prayed for?”

5. Petitioner in support of her case has examined herself as

P.W.1/G.Anitha and got marked Exs.P1 and P2.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.

7. POINT:

It is the case of the petitioner that her marriage with the respondent was performed on 13.08.2020. They lived together happily for a period of two months. The petitioner joined the company of the respondent at her native place at Manajipet village. Thereafter, the respondent started harassing the petitioner mentally and physically and used to beat the petitioner and her mother. He used to consume alcohol

Page No. 5 of 6 HMOP No.117 of 2024 and attended the natural calls on bed. On.07.09.2022, the respondent left the company of the petitioner without any information. Inspite of holding several panchayaths, the respondent did not change his attitude.

8. Petitioner as P.W.1 in her evidence-in-chief has reiterated the version stated by her in the petition and she got marked Ex.P1/the wedding card, dated: 13.08.2020 and Ex.P2/ joint photograph (1 in number).

9. As already stated above, the respondent did not choose to make his appearance before the Court inspite of service of notice on him. The case of the petitioner is that she was subjected to harassment and desertion by the respondent due to which she suffered depression and there was no change in his attitude, inspite of holding of panchayaths remained unrebutted and unchallenged.

10. In view of the unchallenged evidence of the petitioner, it can be said that the petitioner has proved her case that she was subjected to cruelty at the hands of the respondent and was deserted by the respondent/husband. Hence, she is entitled to get a decree of divorce by dissolving their marriage dated: 13.08.2020. The point is answered accordingly holding that the petitioner is entitled to decree of divorce.

Page No. 6 of 6 HMOP No.117 of 2024

11. In the result, the petition is allowed by granting a decree of divorce for dissolution of marriage of the petitioner with the respondent performed on 13.08.2020 from the date of this order without any costs in the facts and circumstances of the petition and in the interest of justice.

-Dictated to the Stenographer Grade III, typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 26th day of March, 2025.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy.

FAC Additional Senior Civil judge,

Wanaparthy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For petitioner: For respondent:

P.W.1: G.Anitha -Ex-parte-

Exhibits marked

For petitioner:

Ex.P1: Wedding card, dated: 13.08.2020. Ex.P2: Joint photograph (1 in number).

For respondent:

-Nil-

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy. FAC Additional Senior Civil judge, Wanaparthy.

Page No.1 of 6 HMOP No.97 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT WANAPARTHY

Dated, the 7th day of April, 2025

Present:- Smt.Kavitha Kamalapuram, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy.

HMOP No.97 of 2024

Between:

K.Maheshwari @ Harika, W/o. Suguru Ramesh, D/o. Kummari Sailu, Age: 29 years, Occ: Staff Nurse, R/o. H.No.12-10-104, Housing board colony, Mahabubnagar Town and District. …Petitioner No.1.

And

Suguru Ramesh, S/o. Nagendram, Age: 34 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. H.No.1-99, Buddaram village, Gopalpet mandal, Wanaparthy District, T.S. …Petitioner No.2.

Sub:- Petition filed under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. *** This petition is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri N.Purushotham, learned counsel for the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

:: ORDER ::

1. This is a petition filed by the petitioners under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of their marriage dated:

12.05.2013 and to grant decree of divorce on mutual consent.

2. The brief case of the petitioners is that:

Page No.2 of 6 HMOP No.97 of 2024

Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the wife and husband respectively and their marriage was performed on 12.05.2013 at the house of the petitioner No.2 at Housing board colony, Mahabubnagar town and district as per the Hindu customs and traditions. It was an arranged marriage and consummated. After the marriage, both the petitioners lived happily for a period of 2 years and blessed with a baby girl namely Hanwika, aged: 10 years old. Thereafter, some differences arose between both the petitioners.

They started living separately since 10.02.2022. Though the elders made efforts to reconcile them but all went in vain. As such the elders advised the petitioners to take mutual divorce. On the advice of the elders, petitioner No.2 agreed to give Ac.1-00 gts of land to his daughter and one open plot to petitioner No.1 towards permanent alimony to petitioner No.1.

As such petitioner No.2 got registered to an extent of Ac.0-30 gts in

Sy.No.637/ee and to an extent of Ac.0-10 gts in Sy.No.613/aa situated in

Buddaram village of Gopalpet mandal, Wanaparthy district to his daughter by name Hanwika through a registered gift deed bearing document No.970 of 2024, dated:26.08.2024. Petitioner No.2 also registered an open plot bearing No.D-92 in Sy.No.71, 72/aa, 70/u, 69/e,1,2,3,4, 70/a,2,3,4, 70/e1,2,3,4 situated in the limits of Nagavaram village of Wanaparthy mandal and district through a registered gift deed bearing document

No.9478 of 2024, dated:04.09.2024. Petitioner No.1 has relinquished her

Page No.3 of 6 HMOP No.97 of 2024 right of maintenance against the petitioner No.2. All issues between both the parties are resolved amicably. Therefore, both the petitioners have decided to part their ways by dissolving their marriage and as such the present petition is filed by them.

3. After filing the present petition, the petition was adjourned by granting six months time expecting change in the attitude of the petitioners, so that they may live together. But even after 6 months, they expressed the same view to take divorce by getting their marriage dissolved.

4. Both the petitioners filed their chief affidavits and petitioner

No.1 got examined herself as P.W.1/M.Maheshwari @ Harika and got marked Exs.P1 and P2. Petitioner No.2 got examined himself as

P.W.2/S.Ramesh and no documents are marked through P.W.2. After recording the evidence, the counsel for the petitioners is heard and this

Court perused the material available on record.

5. The point for consideration in this petition is:

“Whether the petitioners are entitled for

getting their marriage dissolved by way of mutual

consent by getting a decree of divorce?”

6. POINT:

The petitioners through their affidavits assert that their

Page No.4 of 6 HMOP No.97 of 2024 marriage was solemnized on 12.05.2013 at the house of the petitioner No.2 at Housing board colony, Mahabubnagar town and district. After the marriage, they lived happily for a period of 2 years. Thereafter, some differences arose between both the petitioners and they started living separately since 10.02.2022. Both the parties agreed to seek divorce. They voluntarily filed the application before this Court, requesting to dissolve their marriage by granting the decree of divorce. All attempts to reconcile their marital life have been unsuccessful leaving no hope for reunion. On the advice of the elders, petitioner No.2 agreed to give Ac.1-00 gts of land to his daughter and one open plot to petitioner No.1 towards permanent alimony to petitioner No.1.

7. The evidence presented by P.Ws.1 and 2 strongly demonstrate that the marital bond between both the petitioners has deteriorated. After cooling off period of 6 months, the petitioners appeared before this Court and stated that there is no possibility of their reunion and they are not withdrawing their consent to take divorce on mutual consent. This Court conducted reconciliation talks, but the same could not be materialized.

Both the petitioners submitted that there are no chances of their reunion and that they are living separately since 10.02.2022. They have also submitted that, out of their free will and wish, without any coercion from

Page No.5 of 6 HMOP No.97 of 2024 anyone, they have decided to take divorce. The acrimony between the parties has rendered the marriage between the petitioners irreparable. The emotional foundation of the marriage seems to have completely vanished and denying the divorce would only perpetrate bitterness between the parties. There is no benefit in attempting to maintain the marriage that appears to have seized to exist.

8. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in their evidence-in-chief have reiterated the version stated by them in their petition. Through

P.W.1/K.Maheshwari @ Harika, the wedding card, dated: 12.05.2013 and the marriage photographs (3 in Nos.) are marked as Exs.P1 and P2 respectively.

9. There is no dispute of marriage between the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and their living separately. In this case, all the mandatory requirements for grant of decree of divorce on mutual consent are satisfied and since there is no scope of cohabitation of petitioner Nos.1 and 2, this

Court feels it appropriate to grant decree of divorce by mutual consent as prayed for. Point is accordingly answered.

10. In the result, the petition is allowed. The marriage of the petitioner No.1 (wife) with petitioner No.2 (husband) which has taken place on 12.05.2013 is dissolved by granting divorce on mutual consent

Page No.6 of 6 HMOP No.97 of 2024 from the date of this order. In the circumstances no costs.

-Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 7th day of April, 2025.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For petitioners:

P.W.1: K.Maheshwari @ Harika. P.W.2: S.Ramesh.

Exhibits marked

For petitioners:

Ex.P1: Wedding card, dated: 12.05.2013. Ex.P2: Marriage photographs (3 in Nos).

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy.