K Phattabhi Rama Rao

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AT JAGTIAL

PRESENT: K.PATTABHI RAMA RAO,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,PEDDAPALLI.

FAC: Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial.

Friday, the 8th day of February, 2019

H.M.O.P. No. 75 OF 2018

Between:- Marri Mahender Reddy, S/o. Narsimha Reddy, Age: 24 years, Occ: Agril., and Business, R/o. H. No. 14-2-64, Kothapet (v), Malyal

(m), Jagtial Dist. …Petitioner No.1. A N D Marri Anusha, W/o. Mahender Reddy, Age: 22 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H. No. 14-2-64, Kothapet (v) Malyal (m), Jagtial Dist, at present with her parents Kandiri Raji Reddy, H.No. 4-52, Muthyampet (v), Malyal (m), Jagtial dist. …Petitioner No.2.

This petition coming on 01-02-2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri T.G. Prasad, Advocate for the Petitioner No.1 and and Petitioner No.2, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day the Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

This is a petition filed by the wife and husband voluntarily for dissolution of their marriage under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage

Act, 1955, on their mutual consent.

2. According to the averments in the joint petition and representation made by their respective counsel, the petitioners are

Hindus by religion and they are governed by Hindu Law, and their marriage is the one recognized as valid by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. According to the averments in the petition the marriage of the first petitioner and second petitioner was solemnized on 04-08-2016 according to Hindu rites and Customs at 9.57 am in Reddy

Kalyana Mantapam, Muthyampet (v), Malyal (m), which is within the 2 jurisdiction of this Court. Thus, this court has got jurisdiction to entertain the case.

3. It is further stated by the petitioners in their joint petition that after the marriage of the 1st and 2nd at night the marriage has to be consummated, but the Petitioner No.2 reluctant for consummation of marriage as she is not ready love the Petitioner No.1 and if the

Petitioner No.1 touched, the Petitioner No.2 wants to commit suicide.

The Petitioner No.1 and Petitioner No.2 have been living separately for a period of one year above i.e., from 05-08-2016 to till this day and that they have not been able to live together. The efforts made to understand each other proved futile during the said period. Thereafter some disputes arose between the 1st and 2nd petitioners, on that the first and second petitioners are living separately at their respective houses. Their parents and elders made efforts to iron out the differences for their reunion but efforts are in vain. According to the petitioners and their counsels, both the petitioners have negotiated with each other and having arrived at a conclusion that it would not be possible to live together, they have decided to get their marriage dissolved by legal process. Ergo, they have filed this joint petition

before this court. According to the contents of the petition, they have

made the arrangements for dissolution of the marriage with mutual consent. They have reduced all the terms and conditions into an agreement and decided to take divorce for mutual consent.

4. The petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 are examined as P.W. 1 and P.W.2 respectively.

5. The petition was presented on 05-03-2018 and the same was 3 posted to 18-01-2019 after the compulsory wait period of 6 months.

The petitioners did not change their mind. Before recording the evidence of the petitioners No.1 and 2, on 01-02-2019 the court has ascertained the facts from both the petitioners and satisfied that the consent given by each of the parties is a voluntarily one and it is free consent. Both the petitioner have applied for divorce willingly and with mutual consent and Therefore their marriage has to be dissolved under

Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act.

6. In the result, this petition is allowed and the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 solemnized on 04-08-2016 is hereby dissolved on their mutual consent by granting a decree of divorce on mutual consent under section 13-B of the Hindu. Marriage

Act, 1955. No costs.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, Transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me, In the open court, on this the 8th day of February,

2019.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

PEDDAPALLI

FAC: Senior Civil Judge Jagtial.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined

For the Petitioner No.1 For the Petitioner No.2

Marri Mahender Reddy.Marri Anusha.

Exhibits marked

For the Petitioner No. 1 For the Petitioner No.2

---Nil--- ---Nil---

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

PEDDAPALLI

FAC: Senior Civil Judge Jagtial.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AT JAGTIAL

PRESENT: K.PATTABHI RAMA RAO,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,PEDDAPALLI.

FAC: Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial.

Friday, the 8th day of February, 2019

H.M.O.P. No. 82 OF 2018

Between:- Peddi Thirupathi, S/o. Mallaiah, Aged about 32 years, Occ: Journalist, R/o. H.No. 8-17, Lambadipalle, Thakkallapalli, Karimnagar, Telangana – 505 452. …Petitioner No.1. A N D Peddi Anvesha, W/o. Peddi Thirupathi, D/o. Late Ramchandram, Age: 26 years, Occ: Private Services, R/o. H.No. 5-2-08, Khilagadda, Jagtial (Rural), Jagtial (Dist), Telangana – 505 327. …Petitioner No.2.

This petition coming on 01-02-2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri V. Madhav Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner No.1 and and Petitioner No.2, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day the Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed by the wife and husband voluntarily for dissolution of their marriage under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage

Act, 1955, on their mutual consent.

2. According to the averments in the joint petition and representation made by their respective counsel, the petitioners are

Hindus by religion and they are governed by Hindu Law, and their marriage is the one recognized as valid by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. According to the averments in the petition the marriage of the first petitioner and second petitioner was solemnized on 14-03-2015 according to Hindu rites and Customs at Ponnala Gardens

Function Hall Jagtial, which is within the jurisdiction of this Court. Thus, this court has got jurisdiction to entertain the case.

2

3. It is further stated by the petitioners in their joint petition that after the marriage the 1st and 2nd that the ideology, living style etc., among the petitioners No.1 and 2 was not compatible and therefore developed displeasure and dislike against each other thereby it has become complete incompatibility between them. The efforts made to understand each other proved futile during the said period. Thereafter some disputes arose between the 1st and 2nd petitioners, on that the first and second petitioners are living separately at their respective houses and Petitioner No.1 and Petitioner have no children through their marriage. Their parents and elders made efforts to iron out the differences for their reunion but efforts are in vain. According to the petitioners and their counsels, both the petitioners have negotiated with each other and having arrived at a conclusion that it would not be possible to live together, they have decided to get their marriage dissolved by legal process. Ergo, they have filed this joint petition

before this court. According to the contents of the petition, they have

made the arrangements for dissolution of the marriage with mutual consent. They have reduced all the terms and conditions into an agreement and decided to take divorce for mutual consent.

4. The petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 are examined as P.W. 1 and P.W.2 respectively.

5. The petition was presented on 13-07-2018 and the same was posted to 31-01-2019 after the compulsory wait period of 6 months.

The petitioners did not change their mind. Before recording the evidence of the petitioners No.1 and 2, on 01-02-2019 the court has ascertained the facts from both the petitioners and satisfied that the 3 consent given by each of the parties is a voluntarily one and it is free consent. Both the petitioner have applied for divorce willingly and with mutual consent and Therefore their marriage has to be dissolved under

Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act.

6. In the result, this petition is allowed and the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 solemnized on 14-03-2015 is hereby dissolved on their mutual consent by granting a decree of divorce on mutual consent under section 13-B of the Hindu. Marriage

Act, 1955. No costs.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, Transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me, In the open court, on this the 8th day of February,

2019.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

PEDDAPALLI

FAC: Senior Civil Judge Jagtial.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined

For the Petitioner No.1 For the Petitioner No.2

Peddi Thirupathi. Peddi Anvesha.

Exhibits marked

For the Petitioner No. 1 For the Petitioner No.2

---Nil--- ---Nil---

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

PEDDAPALLI

FAC: Senior Civil Judge Jagtial.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AT JAGTIAL

PRESENT: K.PATTABHI RAMA RAO,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,PEDDAPALLI.

FAC: Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial

Friday, the 8th day of February, 2019

H.M.O.P. No. 125 OF 2017

Between:- Jangili Padma, W/o. Shekar, Age: 22 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Thakkallapalli Village of Mallial Mandal Jagtial dist. …Petitioner. A N D

Jangili Shekar, S/o. Kistaiah, Age: 25 years, Occ: Agricultural, R/o. Thakallapalli village of Mallial mandal, Dist: Jagtial. …Respondent.

This petition coming on 16-11-2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.P. Sri Ramulu, Advocate for Petitioner and the Respondent was set exparte, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day the Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed under order 13 Rule (1) (1a) of Hindu

Marriage Act 1995 for dissolution of marriage of the petitioner with the respondent on the ground of cruelty.

2. According to the contents of the petition the marriage of the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 25-08-2013 and they lived amicably for some time. The allegation is that at the time of marriage parents of the petitioner have presented cash of

Rs.3,00,000/- half tula gold ring, 2 ½ tulas gold neck less, motorcycle worth Rs.65,000/- and house hold articles worth Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry to the respondent and the marriage was duly consummated. It is stated that the petitioner and the respondent lived amicably only for one week and after that the respondent has started harassing the 2 petitioner for additional dowry of Rs.3,00,000/-. It is alleged that the respondent has subjected the petitioner to physical and mental cruelty.

According to the petitioner a panchayat was conducted and as per the advice of elders the petitioner joined the respondent on the assurance given by him that he would not harass her but the respondent again has started harassing her physically and mentally and after making all the efforts to settle the disputes and having failed to get the reunion of the couple, the petitioner has filed the petition. The petitioner has also gave report to the police and a criminal case was registered against the respondent for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and Section 3 & 4

Dowry Prohibition Act. Therefore the petitioner has filed this petition for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent on the ground of physical and mental cruelty.

3.The respondent has received the notice and he engaged an advocate but later he has failed to file the counter despite giving repeated opportunities and finally on 26-10-2018 the respondent was set exparte.

4. The petitioner examined herself as PW1 and she also got her mother examined as PW2. Both of them have repeated the contents of the petition in their examination in chief. The evidence of PW’s.1 and 2 proves the contents of the petition. Their evidence proves that the marriage took place between the petitioner and the respondent and after the marriage the respondent has subjected the petitioner to cruelty. Therefore the petitioner is entitled to seek the relief of dissolution of her marriage with the petitioner.

3

5.In the result, the petition is allowed and the marriage between petitioner and respondent that was solemnized on 25-08-2013 is hereby dissolved by granting a decree of divorce. There is no order as to costs.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, Transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me, In the open court, on this the 23rd day of

November, 2018.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

PEDDAPALLI

FAC: Senior Civil Judge Jagtial.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined

For the Petitioner For the Respondent

PW1. Sai Lavanya---Nil-- PW2. Gaddam Rani

Exhibits marked

For the PetitionerFor the Respondent

---Nil--- ---Nil---

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

PEDDAPALLI

FAC: Senior Civil Judge Jagtial.

TAKA060002052015

Presented on : 18-11-2015 Registered on : 04-01-2016 Decided on : 01-02-2019 Duration : 3 years, 2 months, 14 days

IN THE COURT OF

Senior Civil Judge AT JAGTIAL ,KARIMNAGAR

Presided Over by SRI K.PATTABHI RAMA RAO

OS/3/2016

Exhibit No.:

: Andhra Bank rby M.Krishna Age: 0 Occupation : Address: Kodimyala villagle of Gangadhara mandal of Karimnagar district.

VERSUS : Punugoti Nanda Rao Age: 0 Occupation : Address: Himmatraopet village of Kodimyala mandal of Karimnagar district.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : Muralidhar Rao Advocate for : appearing for Punugoti Nanda Rao: Advocate appearing for respectively.

Claim :

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 01-02-2019 )

Counsel for the plaintiff has not pressed the suit, Therefore the suit is dismissed as not pressed and withdrawn. No order as to costs.

ORDER

Date : 01-02-2019 (SRI K.PATTABHI RAMA RAO)

Senior Civil Judge

JAGTIAL

,KARIMNAGAR

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

(SRI K.PATTABHI RAMA RAO)

{JUDGE_DESIGNATION_NAME}

JAGTIAL ,KARIMNAGAR

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