Sri.K.Kiran kumar

Date:16.08.2022 fair O.S.No.61 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: WANAPARTHY

Present: Sri. K. Kiran Kumar, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy.

TUESDAY ON THIS THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST

TWO THOUSAND TWENTY TWO

Original Suit Number 61 of 2017

Between:

Sri. P.Bhasker Reddy S/o. P. Konda Reddy, age 42 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o:Kothakota Village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. …Plaintiff. A N D

1. Sri. P. Janaki Ramulu S/o. P. Chennappa, age major, Occ: Driver TSRTC, R/o: Utakunta Village, Dharmapur Post, Mahabubnagar District.

2. Sri. Venkata Swamy S/o. V. Chandraiah, age 40 years, Occ: Driver, R/o:H.No.3-85, Annasagar Village, Bhoothpur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. …Defendants.

Sub:- Suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.4,10,000/- (Rupees four lakhs ten thousand only) with interest from the defendants.

***

This suit is having come for final hearing on 04.08.2022 in the presence of Sri. B. Venkateshwar Reddy, learned counsel for the plaintiff and Sri. K. Rama Chandra Reddy, learned counsel for the defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 set exparte and upon hearing the counsels for the plaintiff and Defendants, perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration to this date, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff praying this Court to pass a decree directing the defendants to repay/return an amount of Rupees four lakhs ten thousand only (Rs.4,10,000/-) only (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit amount’) with future interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of suit till the date of realization of entire amount.

2. Brief facts as averred in the plaint:

It is pleaded by the plaintiff that, the plaintiff and defendants are well acquainted each other, due to said acquaintance, on 10.10.2014, the defendant No.1 requested the plaintiff and obtained Rs.2,50,000/- to meet

Page 1 of 8PRl.SCJ Wanaparthy

Date:16.08.2022 fair O.S.No.61 of 2017

his family necessities. The defendant No.2 stood as guarantor. Further, the defendants also agreed to repay the same as and when demanded by the plaintiff at the rate of 24% per annum and executed promissory note on the same day itself. The defendants remained as defaulters though the plaintiff made several demands, as such, the plaintiff got issued legal notice on 04.03.2017 through registered post demanding the defendants to repay the debt amount. Upon which, the defendant No.1 gave a false reply and not paid the amount, the defendant No.2 neither replied nor paid the suit amount as agreed. Hence, in this compelling situation, the plaintiff was constrained to file the present suit against the defendants for the aforesaid reliefs.

3. The summons were dispatched to the address of the defendants nominated in the plaint by the plaintiff, after receipt of the summons, the defendant No.1 made his appearance through his counsel and filed his detailed written statement and the proceedings against the defendant No.2 went on ex-parte.

4. The case of the Defendants in brief is as follows:

The defendant No.1, in the written statement, denied all the averments of the plaint, much less, the suit transaction.

5. It germens from the suit record, the contesting parties did not opt to exercise, the methods for settlement postulated under Section 89 of Code of

Civil Procedure.

6. In support of suit claim, the plaintiff himself got examined as PW-1 and the plaintiff has placed reliance upon six (06) documents under Exs.A1 to A6.

To further the case of plaintiff, one of the attestor of promissory note under

Ex-A1, Sri. Shaik Waheed Ali got examined as PW-2. After reporting no further evidence on behalf of plaintiff, the plaintiff side evidence was closed and the chance to lead evidence on behalf of defendants was given, the defendant No.1 got examined as DW-1, but no documents filed on his behalf.

Page 2 of 8PRl.SCJ Wanaparthy

Date:16.08.2022 fair O.S.No.61 of 2017

7. Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff and the learned counsel for the defendants. Perused the material placed on record.

8. Now the following issues are settled for trial:

1. Whether the suit promissory note dt.10.10.2014 for Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand only (Rs.2,50,000/-) is true, valid and supported by cash consideration and binding upon the defendants to discharge the same as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

9. POINT:

At Trial, the plaintiff has filed his affidavit in lieu of chief examination of

PW-1, on perusal of chief examination of PW-1, it is reiteration of the facts incorporated in the plaint on oath. To further the case of plaintiff, one of the attestor of promissory note under Ex-A1, Sri. Shaik Waheed Ali got examined as PW-2. To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has placed reliance six (06) documents exhibited on his behalf as Exs.A1 to A6.

10. After reporting closure of the plaintiff side evidence, the chance to lead evidence on behalf of defendant No.1 was given, the defendant No.1 got examined himself as DW-1. No documents are marked on behalf of defendant No.1.

11. Documents of the plaintiff:

Ex-A1 is promissory note, dt.10.10.2014; Ex-A2 is surety bond, dt.10.10.2014; Ex-A3 is office copy of legal notice, dt.04.03.2017; Ex-A4 is postal receipts (2) for defendants No.1 and 2; Ex-A5 is postal acknowledgments (2) of defendants No.1 and 2 and Ex-A6 is reply notice, dt.17.03.2017 by defendant No.1.

12. Documents of the defendant No.1: NIL.

13. Arguments:

For Plaintiff:

Page 3 of 8PRl.SCJ Wanaparthy

Date:16.08.2022 fair O.S.No.61 of 2017

During the course of Argument, the learned counsel for plaintiff has argued that, plaintiff has lend the suit amount to the defendant No.1 for his urgent family necessities and evidencing the said transaction, he executed the suit document i.e., Ex-A1 in favour of plaintiff and defendant No.2 stood as guarantor, inspite of repeated requests and demands, the defendants have flouted the promise and failed to repay the amount covered under the suit document. It is further argued that, by examining the plaintiff and attestor and also by placing reliance upon the document under Ex-A1, precisely, it is argued that, the plaintiff is able to establish the suit claim and no contra evidence is available to discredit the version of plaintiff/PW-1 and thus, the plaintiff becomes eligible for recovery of the suit amount.

For Defendant:

Resisting the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for plaintiff, the learned counsel for defendant No.1 has vehemently argued that, the suit is not maintainable either on law or on facts, the plaintiff has filed the present suit by manipulating the suit document. It is further argued that, no relationship of creditor and debtor prevails between plaintiff and defendant

No.1. Further, no consideration was passed to the defendant No.1 under

Ex-A1. Ultimately, it is argued that, the suit is liable for dismissal with exemplary cost.

14. ISSUE No.1.

It is the testimony of Plaintiff/PW-1 that, he has acquaintance with the defendant No.1, out of the said acquaintance, the defendant No.1 has approached the plaintiff on 10.10.2014 and requested him to arrange a loan amount of Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand only (Rs.2,50,000/-) to meet his urgent personal necessities, believing the words of defendant No.1, the plaintiff had lend the said amount to the defendant No.1 in the presence of witnesses and defendant No.2 stood as guarantor for the repayment and the defendant No.1 has executed promissory under Ex-A1in favour of plaintiff

Page 4 of 8PRl.SCJ Wanaparthy

Date:16.08.2022 fair O.S.No.61 of 2017

and the same was attested by two individuals and defendant No.2 executed surety bond in favour of plaintiff. It is further contention of plaintiff/PW-1 that, he made several demands to the defendants, but the defendants went on dodging the matter on one pretext or the other.

15. To substantiate the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff has secured the presence of one of the attestor of Ex-A1 namely Shaik Waheed Ali and examined him as PW-2, in turn, PW-2 has testified that on 10.10.2014 the defendant No.1 has borrowed an amount of Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand (Rs.2,50,000/-) from plaintiff in his presence and thereafter executed the promissory note under Ex-A1 in favour of plaintiff in presence of himself and another attestor. PW-2 further testified that the defendant No.2 stood as guarantor for the said transaction. PW-2 deposition is supporting the claim of the plaintiff.

16.Refuting the contention of the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 has filed his written statement and himself got examined as DW-1, through the written statement and evidence of DW-1, the defendant is denying the contention of the plaintiff and also denying the fact that, he has executed promissory note under Ex-A1 towards discharge of repayment of any debt. It is the case of the defendant No.1 that, no transaction as alleged by plaintiff has ever occurred, so the question of execution of promissory note under Ex-A1 in favour of plaintiff does not arise.

17.Ex-A6 is the office copy of the reply legal notice dt.17.03.2017, issued on behalf of the defendant No.1 to the plaintiff. The recital of the said legal notice discloses that, the defendant No.1 has denied the suit transaction, execution of promissory note in favour of plaintiff and he also denies that he has acquaintance with the plaintiff. It is evident that, the plaintiff has not preferred to issue rejoinder to the said notice. In the cross-examination of

PW-1, a question was posed that both the defendants are not having cordial

Page 5 of 8PRl.SCJ Wanaparthy

Date:16.08.2022 fair O.S.No.61 of 2017

relationship, as such, the defendant No.2 in collusion with the plaintiff got created the suit promissory note, this suggestion was denied, as a matter of fact, the said stand was not taken by the defendant No.1 in his reply legal notice under Ex-A6. Although, the defendant No.1 is denying his acquaintance with the plaintiff, but nothing would elicit in that regard.

Further, while answering the question, PW-1 has categorically stated that the suit transaction took place at his residence in the presence of defendants and PW-2, one Manyam and Pratap Reddy. It is apparent that, the defendant

No.1 is denying the signature in the relevant column of the promissory note, but nothing is placed on record to establish the said contention. As a matter of fact, not a single question was posed to PW-1 denying the signature in the relevant column of Ex-A1. On the whole, the cross-examination conducted on behalf of defendant No.1 appears to be formal and casual.

18.In order to ascertain the signature available on the relevant column of

Ex-A1 is that of defendant No.1, this Court is invoking Section 73 of Indian

Evidence Act, 1872. Undisputedly, the vakalath filed on behalf of the defendant No.1, written statement and deposition of DW-1 bears the signature of defendant No.1. On perusal of the signature in vakalath, written statement and deposition of DW-1, they are alike and scribed in English language as “P. Janaki Ramulu”, whereas, postal acknowledgement of legal notice under Ex-A3 bears the signature which is quite different to the admitted signatures of defendant No.1. It is apparent that, the defendant

No.1 is in habit of putting his signature time to time differently. The signature of defendant No.1 compared with the signature in the relevant column in Ex-A1 has a similar pattern, font and stroke, which is identically similar. Even on keen observation of the signatures found on the relevant column of written statement, vakalath, deposition of DW-1, they are also identically similar to the signature in the relevant column of promissory note under Ex-A1. From the above material, an inference has to be drawn by this

Page 6 of 8PRl.SCJ Wanaparthy

Date:16.08.2022 fair O.S.No.61 of 2017

Court that the defendant No.1 has executed the promissory note under

Ex-A1.

19. At the same time, the plaintiff/PW-1 has produced the required documents i.e., Ex-A1to show that, on 10.10.2014, the defendant No.1 has borrowed an amount of Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand only(Rs.2,50,000/-) from the plaintiff/PW-1 in the presence of PW-2 and PW-2 has attested the promissory note under Ex-A1. In the present case, the details of the legal enforceable debt has been spoken by PW-1 and the same is supported by the evidence of PW-2.

20. However, there is no satisfactory material available and seemed convincing this Court to falsify the contention of the plaintiff/PW-1, further there is no positive and cogent material to discredit the case of plaintiff/

PW-1.On perusal of the cross examination of PW-1, no efforts were made to elicit favourable aspects for defendant No.1, bemuse, it appears to be very formal and casual, nothing worth could be elicit from the mouth of PW-1 to disbelieve his evidence. Precisely, the cross examination of PW-1 and PW-2 could not yield any benefit to the defendant No.1. Further, no contra evidence is available to disbelieve the claim of plaintiff, thus, it gives an occasion to this Court to draw an inference that, the defendant No.1 has executed promissory note under Ex-A1 and the defendants could not satisfy this Court that Ex-A1 is not supported by consideration. Viewed in any angle, the defence taken by the defendant No.1 is bleak and untenable.

21. In the light of admitted and undisputed facts, coupled with unchartered oral testimonies of PW-1, coupled with unimpeachable documentary evidence, placed on record as Ex-A1, drawing the presumption U/Sec.114 (g) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, there is no room for inferring the defence plea of defendants as probable. Thus, it is deemed that Ex-A1 is true, valid and

Page 7 of 8PRl.SCJ Wanaparthy

Date:16.08.2022 fair O.S.No.61 of 2017

binding and it is issued towards legally enforceable debt. Accordingly, the issues are answered in favour of plaintiff.

22. ISSUE No.2:

In the result,the suit is decreed against defendants and the defendants are liable to pay suit amount i.e., Rupees four lakhs ten thousands only (Rs.4,10,000/-) to the plaintiff. The defendants are liable to pay the suit amount with interest on the principal amount @ 12% per annum from the date of suit, till the date of decree and @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization. No order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 16th day of August, 2022.

Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

PW-1: Sri. P. Bhasker Reddy. DW-1: Sri. P. Janaki Ramulu.

PW-2: Sri. Shaik Waheed Ali.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex-A1: Promissory Note, dt.10.10.2014.

Ex-A2: Surety bond, dt.10.10.2014.

Ex-A3: Office copy of legal notice, dt.04.03.2017.

Ex-A4: Postal receipts (2) for defendants No.1 and 2.

Ex-A5: Postal acknowledgments (2) of defendants No.1 and 2.

Ex-A6: Reply notice, dt.17.03.2017 by defendant No.1.

FOR DEFENDANTS: NIL.

Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy.

Page 8 of 8PRl.SCJ Wanaparthy

Date: 29-04-2022 FairHMOP 71 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: WANAPARTHY

Present:- Sri. K. KIRAN KUMAR,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WANAPARTHY.

ON FRIDAY, THIS THE 29 th DAY OF APRIL, 2022.

H.M.O.P. No. 71 of 2021.

Between:

Smt Pentamma W/o. Paigeri Anjaneyulu, age: 38 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Ayyavaripalli Village of Pebbair Mandal.

... Petitioner

And

Sri Paigeri Anjaneyulu S/o. late Masikonda, age: 42 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Gummadam Village of Pebbair Mandal.

... Respondent

Claim:- Petition filed under section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage. *** This petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of M/s. B. Chandra Sekhar Rao, Learned counsel for the Petitioner and Respondent remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1.This petition is filed by the petitioner Under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of HINDU

MARRIAGE ACT 1955, seeking the following reliefs.

I.To grant a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent which was solemnized on 18-04-1997 at Beechupali Anjaneya Swamy

Temple, Beechupalli Village of Itikayal Mandal.

II.To award costs of the petition.

2. The brief averments of the petitioner are that:

For Petitioner:

2.1. The petitioner and respondent profess Hindu religious faith, accordingly, their marriage was performed on 18-04-1997 at Beechupali Anjaneya Swamy Temple,

Beechupalli Village of Itikayal Mandal, as per the prevailing Hindu religion rites and rituals and the said marriage is love marriage.

2.2. That, after the said marriage, the petitioner joined the matrimonial society of the respondent and lived happily only for few months. Thereafter, the respondent used to harass the petitioner for want of additional dowry and used to beat her indiscriminately and never treated the petitioner with love and affection and even did not provide bare

Page 1 of 4SCJ Wanaparthy

Date: 29-04-2022 FairHMOP 71 of 2021

requirements and left her to her fate, as such, she is living separately with her parents since 12 years and the petitioner never bother about the whereabouts of the petitioner and that on 25-09-2020, the respondent came to the place of the petitioner and beat her indiscriminately, as such, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the Police,

Wanaparthy.

2.3.It is pleaded that, the petitioner tried to sort out the differences arose among the petitioner and respondent and to that effect, number of panchayats were conducted to pacify the matter and change the behavior of the respondent, but the respondent turn a deaf ear and used to harass the petitioner. Further, all the mediations and panchayats to unite the petitioner and respondent were futile and as there is no chance of reunion, the petitioner decided to dissolve the marriage held in between petitioner and respondent through approaching this Court by way of filing the present petition praying to dissolve the marriage between petitioner and respondent solemnized on 18-04-1997, by way of granting divorce. Hence, the petition.

3. After service of summons on the respondent, respondent failed to appear before this court in person nor engaged any Counsel/Advocate on his behalf. Hence, the respondent is set ex parte.

4.In order to prove the case of the petitioner, petitioner filed the affidavit in lieu of her chief examination as PW1 got marked Ex.P1 and P2 on her behalf. After reporting closure of evidence, the matter was posted for Arguments.

5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for Petitioner and perused the record.

6.Basing on the contentions of the Petitioner, now the point that would arise for consideration before this Court is:

7.1) Whether the petitioner is entitled for dissolution of her marriage with

respondent which was solemnized on 18-04-1997 by granting decree of Divorce, as

prayed for?

Page 2 of 4SCJ Wanaparthy

Date: 29-04-2022 FairHMOP 71 of 2021

2) To what result?

POINT NO.1:

8. During the course of enquiry, the petitioner has filed her affidavit in lieu of chief examination of PW1. On perusal of the deposition of PW1, it is nothing but reiterating averments of the petition. More or less, it is replica of the petition averment. It is pleaded by the petitioner that they are legally wedded wife and husband and they are governed by Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It is further contention of the petitioner that, they got married on 18-04-1997 and the said marriage is love marriage.

9.It is further contention of the petitioner that, after the said marriage, the petitioner joined the matrimonial society of the respondent and lived happily only for few months. Thereafter, the respondent used to harass the petitioner for want of

additional dowry and used to beat her indiscriminately and never treated the petitioner

with love and affection and even did not provide bare requirements and left her to her fate, as such, she is living separately with her parents since 12 years and the petitioner never bother about the whereabouts of the petitioner and that on 25-09-2020, the respondent came to the place of the petitioner and beat her indiscriminately, as such, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the Police, Wanaparthy.

10.It is further contention of the petitioner that, the petitioner tried to sort out the differences arose among the petitioner and respondent and to that effect, number of panchayats were conducted to pacify the matter and change the behavior of the respondent, but the respondent turn a deaf ear and used to harass the petitioner.

Further, all the mediations and panchayats to unite the petitioner and respondent were futile and as there is no chance of reunion.

11. As can be seen from the material placed on record, the respondent neither filed any counter nor appeared before this court for conciliation or placed any material on record to contradict the case of petitioner, further there is no iota of evidence before this court to suggest that, the petitioner is at fault in leaving the matrimonial society of the respondent.It is the specific case of the petitioner that, the respondent used to harass the petitioner for want of additional dowry, further there is no material to

Page 3 of 4SCJ Wanaparthy

Date: 29-04-2022 FairHMOP 71 of 2021

counter that, the respondent has harassed the petitioner for want of additional dowry and the petitioner is not at fault in leaving the matrimonial society. Moreover, the testimony of PW1 remained unchallenged and inspires the confidence of this Court.

Further, the document under Ex.P1 and P2 clearly suggests that, respondent is the husband of petitioner and their marriage was performed on 18-04-1997. The pleadings of the petitioner also remained unchallenged and there is no rebuttal or contra evidence to disbelieve the plea of petitioner. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent. Accordingly, this point is answered.

POINT NO.2:

In the result, this petition is Allowed, by granting a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of the petitioner/Smt Pentamma with the Respondent/Sri

Paigeri Anjaneyulu which was solemnized on 18-04-1997 with immediate effect. In the circumstances, there is no order as to costs. In compliance of section 23(4) of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the office is directed to furnish the copy of this order to the petitioner.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 29 th day of April, 2022.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WANAPARTHY.

A P P E N D I X O F E V I D E N C E

W I T N E S S ES E X A M I N E D

FOR PETITIONER:- FOR RESPONDENT:-

PW1: Smt Pentamma/Petitioner-:Nil:-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENT:

Ex.P1 is Marriage Wedding Card.-Nil-

Ex.P2 is Marriage Photograph.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WANAPARTHY.

Page 4 of 4SCJ Wanaparthy

Date:16.08.2022 HMOP.No.51 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT WANAPARTHY

Tuesday, the 16th day of August, 2022

Present:- Sri. K. Kiran Kumar, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy.

H.M.O.P.No.51 of 2022

Between:

Smt. Panduga Jyothi @ Thirupathamma W/o. Panduga Ugendhar D/o. Mandla Shekar, age 21 years, Occ:Household, R/o:H.No.3-98, Rajapur Village of Kodair Mandal, Present R/o: H.No.Remaddula Village of Pangal Mandal, Wanaparthy District. …Petitioner.

And

Sri Panduga Ugendhar S/o. Panduga Kurumaiah, age 25 years, Occ:Private Job, R/o: H.No.3-98, Rajapur Village of Kodair Mandal, Nagarkurnool District. …Respondent.

Sub:- Petition filed U/Sec.13(1)(ia)(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act.

*** This petition is coming for disposal on 16.08.2022 in the presence of Sri A. Balaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent set exparte and having stood over for consideration, till this day the Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This is a petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent under section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act for grant of decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent dated 15.02.2019.

2. The brief averments of the petition are as follows:-

The petitioner is legally wedded wife of respondent and their marriage was performed on 15.02.2019 at Remaddula Village of

Pangal Mandal, Wanaparthy District as per the rites and customs prevailing in their community. After the marriage, the petitioner joined the company of the respondent at Rajapur village of Kodair Mandal and lived happily for a period of six months only. Later, the respondent used to harass the petitioner mentally and physically by beating her and using filthy language towards her and subjected her cruelly, as Prl.S.C.J.Wanaparthy.

Date:16.08.20222 HMOP.No.51 of 2022

such, the disputes arose between the parties. Hence, the petitioner left the matrimonial home and living separately from him in her parents house since two and half years i.e., November, 2019 to till this day. In this regard, several mediations and panchayaths were held before their caste and village elders, but all efforts made by them are in vain, as the respondent did not mend his ways. Due to the attitude of the respondent, the petitioner filed the present petition for dissolution of their marriage.

3.After service of summons on the respondent, the respondent failed to appear before this Court, in person, nor engaged any Counsel/

Advocate on his behalf. Hence, the respondent is set ex-parte.

4.In order to prove the case of the petitioner, the petitioner by name Smt. Panduga Jyothi @ Thirupathamma filed the affidavit in lieu of her chief-examination as PW-1 and got marked Ex-P1 wedding card and Ex-P2 photographs on her behalf. After reporting closure of evidence, the matter was posted for Arguments.

5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for Petitioner and perused the record.

6. Basing on the contentions of the Petitioner, now the points that would arise for consideration before this Court are:

1) Whether the petitioner is entitled for dissolution of his marriage with respondent which was solemnized on 15.02.2019 by granting decree of divorce, as prayed for?

2) To what result?

7. POINT NO.1:

Prl.S.C.J.Wanaparthy.

Date:16.08.20223 HMOP.No.51 of 2022

During the course of enquiry, the petitioner has filed her affidavit in lieu of chief-examination of PW-1. On perusal of the deposition of

PW-1, it is nothing but reiterating averments of the petition. More or less, it is replica of the petition averment. It is pleaded by the petitioner that, they are legally wedded husband and wife and they are governed by Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It is further contention of the petitioner that, they got married on 15.02.2019, unfortunately, the respondent did not had any interest to lead any conjugal life with the petitioner, although, the petitioner has made her best efforts to lead harmonious and peaceful matrimonial life with the respondent.

8.As can be seen from the material placed on record, the respondent neither filed any counter nor appeared before this Court for reconciliation or placed any material on record to contradict the case of petitioner, further there is no iota of evidence before this Court to suggest that, the petitioner is not at fault in leaving the matrimonial life. Further there is no material to counter that, the respondent is not at fault in leaving the matrimonial life. Moreover, the testimony of

PW-1 remained unchallenged and inspires the confidence of this Court.

Further, the documents under Ex-P1 and Ex-P2 clearly suggest that, petitioner is the wife of respondent and their marriage was performed on 15.02.2019. The pleadings of the petitioner also remained unchallenged and there is no rebuttal or contra evidence to disbelieve the plea of petitioner. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent on the ground of Cruelty and desertion. Accordingly, this point is answered.

9.POINT No.2:

Prl.S.C.J.Wanaparthy.

Date:16.08.20224 HMOP.No.51 of 2022

In the result, this petition is allowed, by granting a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of the petitioner/Smt. Panduga

Jyothi @ Thirupathamma solemnized with the Respondent/Sri. Panduga

Ugendhar on 15.02.2019 with immediate effect. In the circumstances, there is no order as to costs. In compliance of section 23(4) of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the office is directed to furnish the copy of this order to the petitioner free of cost.

Typed by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 16th day of August, 2022.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Petitioner: For Respondent:

PW-1: Smt. Panduga Jyothi @ Thirupathamma. None

Exhibits marked

Petitioner: For Respondent:

Ex-P1: Marriage wedding card. - NIL -

Ex-P2: Photographs.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy.

Prl.S.C.J.Wanaparthy.

Date:17.08.2022 HMOP.No.35 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT WANAPARTHY

Wednesday, the 17th day of August, 2022

Present:- Sri. K. Kiran Kumar, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy.

H.M.O.P.No.35 of 2022

Between:

Smt. Vakiti Laxmi W/o. Vakiti Ashok, age 25 years, Caste:Telugu, Occ:Coolie, R/o: Basavaipally village of Devarkadra Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, present R/o:Gatlakhanapur village of Peddamandadi Mandal, Wanaparthy District. …Petitioner.

And

Sri Vakiti Ashok S/o. Balaswamy, age 30 years, Occ: Mason, Caste:Telugu, R/o: Basavaipally village of Devarkadra Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. …Respondent.

Sub:- Petition filed U/Sec.13(1)(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act.

*** This petition is coming for disposal on 17.08.2022 in the presence of Sri Md. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent set exparte and having stood over for consideration, till this day the Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This is a petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent under section 13(1)(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act for grant of decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent dated 26.02.2016.

2. The brief averments of the petition are as follows:-

The petitioner is legally wedded wife of respondent and their marriage was performed on 26.02.2016 at Basavaipally village of

Devarakadra Mandal, Mahabubnagar District as per the rites and customs prevailing in their community by giving Rupees one lakh only (Rs.1,00,000/-) and 3 thulas of gold to the respondent. After the marriage, the couple lived happily for three years, thereafter the respondent started harassing the petitioner by beating her for want of Prl.S.C.J.Wanaparthy.

Date:17.08.20222 HMOP.No.35 of 2022

additional dowry, used to humiliate her and necked her out from his

house. In this regard, both side caste elders advised the respondent to look after the petitioner without harassing, but the respondent did not head their words. Finally, on information given by the petitioner, the parents of the petitioner conducted panchayath before both side elders, but the respondent despite hearing the words of elders, warned the parents of the petitioner before the elders, and deserted the petitioner, as such, the petitioner is living with her parents at

Gatlakhanapur village of Peddamandai Mandal. Hence, the petitioner filed the present petition for dissolution of their marriage.

3.After service of summons on the respondent, the respondent failed to appear before this Court, in person, nor engaged any Counsel/

Advocate on his behalf. Hence, the respondent is set ex-parte.

4.In order to prove the case of the petitioner, the petitioner by name Smt. Vakiti Laxmi filed the affidavit in lieu of her chief- examination as PW-1 and got marked Ex-P1 marriage wedding card and Ex-P2 photographs on her behalf. After reporting closure of evidence, the matter was posted for Arguments.

5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for Petitioner and perused the record.

6. Basing on the contentions of the Petitioner, now the points that would arise for consideration before this Court are:

1) Whether the petitioner is entitled for dissolution of his marriage with respondent which was solemnized on 26.02.2016 by granting decree of divorce, as prayed for?

2) To what result?

7. POINT No.1:

During the course of enquiry, the petitioner has filed her affidavit in lieu of chief-examination of PW-1. On perusal of the deposition of Prl.S.C.J.Wanaparthy.

Date:17.08.20223 HMOP.No.35 of 2022

PW-1, it is nothing but reiterating averments of the petition. More or less, it is replica of the petition averment. It is pleaded by the petitioner that, they are legally wedded husband and wife and they are governed by Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It is further contention of the petitioner that, they got married on 26.02.2016, unfortunately, the respondent did not had any interest to lead any conjugal life with the petitioner, although, the petitioner has made her best efforts to lead harmonious and peaceful matrimonial life with the respondent.

8.As can be seen from the material placed on record, the respondent neither filed any counter nor appeared before this Court for reconciliation or placed any material on record to contradict the case of petitioner, further there is no iota of evidence before this Court to suggest that, the petitioner is not at fault in leaving the matrimonial life. Further there is no material to counter that, the respondent is not at fault in leaving the matrimonial life. Moreover, the testimony of

PW-1 remained unchallenged and inspires the confidence of this Court.

Further, the documents under Ex-P1 and Ex-P2 clearly suggest that, petitioner is the wife of respondent and their marriage was performed on 26.02.2016. The pleadings of the petitioner also remained unchallenged and there is no rebuttal or contra evidence to disbelieve the plea of petitioner. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent on the ground of desertion.

Accordingly, this point is answered.

9.POINT No.2:

In the result, this petition is allowed, by granting a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of the petitioner/Smt. Vakiti Laxmi

Prl.S.C.J.Wanaparthy.

Date:17.08.20224 HMOP.No.35 of 2022

solemnized with the Respondent/Sri. Vakiti Ashok on 26.02.2016 with immediate effect. In the circumstances, there is no order as to costs. In compliance of section 23(4) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the office is directed to furnish the copy of this order to the petitioner free of cost.

Typed by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17th day of August, 2022.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Petitioner: For Respondent:

PW-1: Smt. Vakiti Laxmi. None

Exhibits marked

Petitioner: For Respondent:

Ex-P1: Marriage wedding card. - NIL -

Ex-P2: Photographs.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy.

Prl.S.C.J.Wanaparthy.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT WANAPARTHY

This the 27 th day of April, 2022.

Present:- Sri K.Kiran Kumar

Senior Civil Judge,

Wanaparthy.

H.M.O.P.No.1 of 2018

Between:

kota Shiva Ramakrishna S/o. K.Ananthaiah, age 34 years, Occ: Pvt.employee, R/o Hasan Agencies (Hindustan Coca Cola), Near Mansoor Hotel, N.H.44, Jadcherla Town, Mahabubnagar District.

...Petitioner.

And

Smt.Kyama Srilatha W/o. Kota Shiva Ramakrishna, age 34 years, Occ: Contract employee at Social Welfare School, Nancharla Village, Gunded Mandal, Rangareddy District. R/o. H.No. 13-174/2F, Varun, Arun Apartment, I Floor, Near Saint Paul High School, Sainagar Colony, Jadcherla Town, Mahabubnagar District.

...Respondent.

Sub: Petition filed Under Sec. 13 (1)(ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act 1955.

D O C K E T O R D E R DATED.27-04-2022.

Petitioner and respondent called absent, No representation for petitioner till 4.30pm.

As can been seen from petition docket, this petition, stands for petitioners evidence, since 26-07-2019 and since then the petitioner failed to adduce the evidence and proceed with the case. Though, this Court has granted liberal adjournments to the petitioner to proceed with the trial, but he failed to appear and prosecute the case. Inspite of conditional order, the petitioner failed to oblige the same.

In the circumstances, it is deemed that, the petitioner is not interested to proceed with the case, thus, the petition is dismissed in default.

Given under my hand and seal of the court, this the 27th day of April, 2022.

Senior Civil Judge,

Wanaparthy.