Sri. K. Prasad

Senior Civil Judge Metpalli

Metpalli, SCJ Court Complex · Jagitial · Telangana

Sri. K. Prasad, Senior Civil Judge Metpalli, is posted at Metpalli, SCJ Court Complex, Jagitial, Telangana, India. 1,171 court orders on record since 2021. 14 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles H, OS, SC cases.

1,171

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

H.M.O.P/15/2024

Itta Kiran vs Itta Srinilaya

21 Oct 2024

1 of 6 HMOP.No.15 of 2024

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

PRESENT: SRI K. PRASAD,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

JAGTIAL.

Monday, this the 21st day of October, 2024

H.M.O.P.No. 15 OF 2024.

Between:-

Itta Kiran Kumar S/o. Narayana, Age: 29 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Maddunur village of Buggaram Mandal Jagtial, presently residing at Flat No. 603, 6th floor, sri Ganesh Apartment, Kamatghar, Bhiwandi, Thane District Maharastra State is Petitioner No.1

...Petitioner No.1.

AND Itta Srinilaya @ Bheemanathini Srinilaya w/o Kiran Kumar D/o Bheemanathini Rajamouli Age: 28 years, Occ: House hold, r/o. Madunur village of Buggaram mandal, Jagtial district, presently residing in her parent’s house H.No. 4-2-6/E/2, Bhavaninagar, Jagtial district.

...Petitioner No.2.

PETITION U/SEC.13(B) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955

This petition is coming before me for hearing on 17.10.2024 in the presence of Sri. G. Maruthi, and Sri. C. Mahendra Nath Advocates for petitioner Nos.1 and 2; and having been heard 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 petitioners 1 and 2 for divorce under

Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, on mutual consent.

2. As per the averments of the petition, the petitioners 1 and 2 are legally wedded husband and wife and their marriage was performed on 2 of 6 HMOP.No.15 of 2024 18-12-2022 in the parent’s village of Petitioner No.2 at Vasavi Gardens,

Jagtial as per their caste custom prevailing in their community under

Hindu rites and rituals. At the time of marriage the parents of petitioner No.2 have presented an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- towards pasupu-kunkuma, 2 thulas of gold and other house-hold articles to the

Petitioner No.1. After the marriage both the petitioner No.1 & 2 lived together and lead peaceful happy marital life for a period of 20 days only as husband-wife at Maddunur village of Buggaram mandal.

Thereafter some disputes & differences arose in between the Petitioner

No.1 & 2 and their relationship were strained, thereby marital tie of them could not be continued. Therefore the petitioners No.1 & 2 have decided to live separately from each other. The elders of petitioners

No.1 & 2 have tried their level best to resolve the disputes about their differences arose in between them. They are residing separately since from the first week of January 2023 and finally on 09-09-2023 panchayath was conducted in between them, but all the efforts of both side elders are advised them to live together, but in vain and they continued to live separately from each other and decided to file the present petition before the Hon’ble Court for Divorce decree with mutual consent U/sec. 13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Petitioner

No.1 has agreed and paid an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs only) 2 tulas gold and other house-hold articles to the petitioner 3 of 6 HMOP.No.15 of 2024

No.2 towards return of amount which was given by the parent’s of petitioner No.2 at the time of marriage towards marriage expenditure amount, and also paid an amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs fifty thousand only) to the petitioner No.2 towards effecting divorce as well as relinquishment of her right claiming present, future and permanent alimony against the petitioner No.1. The petitioner No.2 had received the said total amount of Rs. 15,50,000/- from petitioner No.1 towards final settlement and the petitioner No.2 shall have no future claim or any kind of right of maintenance against the petitioner No.1 or his properties etc., Petitioner No.2 has returned Gold and other articles to the petitioner No.1 which was presented by the parents of petitioner

No.1 and also both petitioner No.1 & 2have exchanged their respective articles and presentations to each other which were presented in their marriage. The petitioner No.1 & 2 have no dispute with regard to presentations and articles which were presented at the time of their marriage. The Petitioner No.1 & 2 are no more husband and wife and there is no marital relationship between them. They are at liberty to marry to any others as per their own choice. The hereinafter the Sur- name of petitioner No.2 is known as “Bheemanathini Srinilaya” instead of “Itta Srinilaya”. Both petitioner No.1 & 2 having fully read over understood the contents of this petition in their proper senses and without any duress, coercion or any undue influence and they have 4 of 6 HMOP.No.15 of 2024 decided to dissolve their marriage dated 18-12-2022 and to take

Divorce with their free will and by way of mutual consent. There is no collusion in between the parties for filing this petition. Further the petitioners have not filed any such petition earlier and no such petition is pending in any court of law. This is the first petition filed by the

Petitioners No.1& 2 under Hindu Marriage Act. The cause of action of the petition arose on 18-12-2022, when both the petitioners No.1& 2 have married at Jagtial mandal and subsequently since from the first week of January, 2023 when the petitioners No.1 & 2 are living separately from each other. As such this Hon’ble Court has got jurisdiction to entertain this Petition. Hence this petition.

3.This petition was presented on 11.01.2024. Cooling period of six months is completed. The reconciliation talks were held, but failed.

Both the petitioners stated they do not want to withdraw the petition and represented that there is no chance for re-union and prayed for grant of divorce.

4. Both petitioners 1 and 2 were examined as Pw.1 and Pw.2 respectively and got marked Ex.P1 and P2.

5. Now the point for determination is :

“ Whether the petitioner Nos 1 and 2 are entitled to seek divorce,

as prayed for” ?

POINT:- 5 of 6 HMOP.No.15 of 2024

6.The evidence of Pws. 1 & 2 reveals that bitter misunderstandings took place between them, it became impossible for them to live under one roof, as wife and husband. During the reconciliation talks also they did not turn up for amicable settlement and they have not withdrawn petition which is filed under Sec.13-B of H.M Act for grant of divorce by mutual consent. Pws.1 and Pw.2 are willing to take divorce by mutual consent. They have made their arrangements to exchange their presentations and articles, which are presented at the time of their marriage. The Petitioner No.1 paid an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- ( Rupees Ten Lakhs Only), 2 thulas of gold and towards marriage expenditure amount also paid an amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- (Rupees

Five Lakhs Fifty thousand only) to the Petitioner No.2. The Petitioner

No.2 relinquished all her claims against the petitioner No.1 including future maintenance or permanent alimony over the properties of petitioner No.1. In the above circumstances, I am of the considered view that the petitioners have proved their case and they are entitled for the relief of dissolution of marriage by granting decree of divorce by mutual consent. Accordingly, this point is answered.

7.In the result , this petition is allowed and the marriage took place between the petitioners No.1 and 2 dated: 18.12.2022 is hereby dissolved by way of decree of divorce. No order as to costs.

6 of 6 HMOP.No.15 of 2024

Typed to my dictation to the Typist Cum-Assistant directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 21 st day of October, 2024.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

JAGTIAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PETITIONERS:

Pw.1 : Itta Kiran Kumar Pw.2 : Itta Srinalaya @ Bheemanathini Srinilaya

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PETITIONERS:

Ex.P.1: Original Wedding Card Dt:18.12.2022. Ex.P.2: Marriage photographs (2 in number).

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

JAGTIAL.

OS/33/2023

Bandari @ Bondla Malathi vs Bodla Gangaraju

23 Oct 2024

1 of 6 O.S.No.33 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT : METPALLY.

PRESENT: SRI K. PRASAD

Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial

FAC: Senior Civil Judge, Metpally

Wednesday, this the 23rd day of October, 2024

O.S.NO. 33 OF 2023

Between:-

1.Bandari @ Bodla Malathi, D/o Late Bodla Rajam, W/o Mallareddy, Age: 28 years, Occ: Household, R/o H.No.4-2-26, I.B. Road, Korutla Town, Dist. Jagtial.

2.Bodla Sathamma @ Sathakka, W/o Late Rajam, Age: 65 years, Occ: Household, R/o H.No.4-2-26, I.B. Road, Korutla Town, Dist. Jagtial.

...Plaintiffs.

And

1.Bodla Gangaraju, D/o Late Rajam, Age: 45 years, Occ: Household,

2.Bodla Rajesh, S/o Late Rajam, Age: 24 years, Occ: Business,

3.Bodla Rajitha, D/o Late Rajam, Age: 22 years, Occ: Student,

4.Bodla Venkatesh, S/o Late Rajam, Age: 20 years, Occ: Business,

5.Bodla Laxmi, W/o Late Rajam, Age: 55 years, Occ: Household, All R/o H.No.4-2-26, I.B. Road, Korutla Town, Dist. Jagtial. ….Defendants.

This suit is coming before me on 21.02.2024 for hearing in the presence of Sri. A. RAmchanram Advocate for Plaintiff, defendant remained exparte; upon perusing the material papers on record, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T ::

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff with a prayer to; 2 of 6 O.S.No.33 of 2023

a).Pass a preliminary decree directing the defendants to partition the suit schedule ‘A’ & ‘B’ properties into five equal shares and each one such share be allotted to each plaintiffs towards their share in the ½ share of father of plaintiff no.1 and defendant no.2 to 4 and ½ share may be allotted to the defendant no.1 over the properties shown in annexed schedule ‘A’ & ‘B’ properties.

b). Pass a final decree by allotting 1/5th share in the plaint schedule ‘A’ & ‘B’ properties to each plaintiffs with metes and bounds.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that, the parties to this suit are

Hindus by Religion and constitute Hindu joint family as Mitakshara School law. That the pedigree of the parties as follows:

Bodla @ Metpally Rajam (Died in 2018) (Ammai, wife – died 30 years back)Bodla Rajam Bodla Gangaraju (Son- died in 2004)(Daughter – D1)

Sathamma Laxmi (1st wife – Plaintiff no.2)(2nd wife – D5)

MalathiBodla RajeshBodla RajithaBodla Venkatesh (Plaintiff No.1) (Son – D2)(Daughter – D3) (Son – D4) 3 of 6 O.S.No.33 of 2023

It is submitted that the father of the plaintiff no.1 by name Bodla

Rajam @ Rajireddy, during his lifetime had acquired a residential house

B/H.No.4-2-26 with open area admeasureing 453 Sq.Yards, build up area of 987 Sq. Feets situated at I.B. Road, Korutla proper and mandal and registered in the name of Bodla Rajam, which is suit schedule-’A’ property.

The Grandmother of plaintiff no.1 by name Bodla Ammai during her life time had acquired agricultural land in Sy.No.1148/1 to an extent of Ac.1-30 guntas situated at Korutla village shivar which is suit schedule-’B’ property.

The suit schedule-’A’ property is in the name of grand father of plaintiff no.1 and the suit schedule-’B property is in the name of grandmother of plaintiff no.1.

It is further submitted that the grandfather and grandmother had died, leaving behind their son and daughter i.e., the father of plaintiff no.1 and defendant no.1 as legal heirs. The father of plaintiff no.1 pre deceased to her grandfather and grandmother leaving behind the plaintiffs and defendant nos.2 to 5 as his legal heirs. As such; plaintiffs are entitled 1/5th each share and defendant no.2 to 4 are entitled 1/5th share in ½ share of father of plaintiff no.1; defendant no.1 is entitled ½ share; over the suit schedule ‘A’ & ‘B’ properties.

It is further submitted that the grandfather of plaintiff no.1, during his lifetime used to maintain the joint family affairs. After death of grandfather of plaintiff no.1, defendant no.1 to 5 colluded each other and started mismanaging the joint family properties. To deprive the share of plaintiffs, 4 of 6 O.S.No.33 of 2023 they tried to alienate the suit schedule ‘A’ & ‘B’ properties to third parties and also the plaintiffs came to know the defendant no.5 fraudulently entered her name in municipal records, for which plaintiffs requested to effect partition with metes and bounds and put the plaintiffs in separate possession over their respective undivided share therein, but the defendants with ulterior design, postponed with one pretext or another. Hence the suit.

3.On receipt of summons, the defendants failed to appear before the court to contest the matter, hence, they are set exparte.

4.During the course of trial, the plaintiff no.1 examined herself as PW1 and got marked documents Ex.A1 to A9.

5. Heard the counsel for plaintiff.

6.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief as prayed for?

POINT :

7.In order to substantiate case, plaintiff no.1 examined herself as PW1 reiterating the contents of the plaint. The testimony of PW1 shows that the plaintiffs and defendants are legal heirs of her grandfather and her father and they are having joint peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule ‘A’ & ‘B’ properties as it was succeeded from the father of defendant no.1 and father of plaintiff no.1.

5 of 6 O.S.No.33 of 2023

8. The oral evidence of PW1 coupled with the documents Ex.A1 to A9 establishes that the plaintiffs and defendants are joint owners and possessors of the suit schedule ‘A’ & ‘B’ properties. The defendants failed to contest the matter, so an adverse inference can be drawn out against the defendants for not contesting the matter. There is no rebuttal evidence against the claim of plaintiff, they are entitled for the relief prayed for.

9.In the result, suit is preliminary decree, directing the defendants to partition the suit schedule ‘A’ & ‘B’ properties into five equal shares and each one such share be allotted to each plaintiffs towards their share in the ½ share of father of plaintiff no.1 and defendant no.2 to 4 and ½ share may be allotted to the defendant no.1 in the schedule ‘A’ & ‘B’ properties.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 23 rd day of October, 2024.

Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial.

FAC: Senior Civil Judge, Metpally.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:-FOR THE DEFENDANTS:- PW1: Bandari @ Bodla Malathi. -None- 6 of 6 O.S.No.33 of 2023

:: EXHIBITS MARKED ::

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:-

Ex.A1: Online copy of property tax receipt issued by Municipal office, Korutla, dt. 14.02.2016 in respect of H.No.4-2-26. Ex.A2: Original ownership certificate issued by the Municipal office, Korutla,

dated 17.01.2017.

Ex.A3: Online copy of Assessment register certificate issued by the Municipal office, Korutla, dated 02.11.2020 in respect of H.No.4-2-26. Ex.A4: CC of pahani for the year 1990-91 issued by Dy. Tahsildar, Korutla. Ex.A5: CC of pahani for the year 1993-94 issued by Dy. Tahsildar, Korutla. Ex.A6: CC of pahani for the year 2006-07 issued by Dy. Tahsildar, Korutla. Ex.A7: CC of pahani for the year 2009-10 issued by Dy. Tahsildar, Korutla. Ex.A8: CC of pahani for the year 2014-15 issued by Dy. Tahsildar, Korutla. Ex.A9: CC of pahani for the year 2015-16 issued by Dy. Tahsildar, Korutla.

FOR THE DEFENDANTS:- - NIL -

Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial.

FAC: Senior Civil Judge, Metpally.

H.M.O.P/78/2020

Nerella Gopal vs NIL

26 Aug 2021

1 of 4 OP.No.78 of 2020

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

PRESENT: SRI K.PRASAD

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KARIMNAGAR.

FAC:SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,JAGTIAL

Thursday this the 26thday of August, 2021

H.M.O.P. No. 78 of 2020

Between:-

Nerella Gopal Ramesh,S/o.Ramesh,age:26 years, Occ: Business,R/o.Kamalapur village of Dharmapuri mandal, Jagtial district, C/o.A/502,5th floor 225 Shetal Apartment,L.B.S.Marg Behind Sheetal Cinema,Kurla West.Mumbai Kurla Maharastra . ….Petitioner No.1

And

Nerella Sai Sushmitha @ Karabuja Sai Sushmitha, W/o. Gopal,D/o.late Venkataramanaiah, age: 24 years,Occ: House hold,Caste:Goud,R/o.Kamalapur village of Dharmapuri mandal, Jagtial district but presently residing at her parents house H.No.1-5-7/3/2,Aravind Nagar,Jagtial town and district ….Petitioner No.2

This petition is coming before me on 23-8-2021 for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.Anjaneyulu and G.Suresh Kumar, Advocates for petitioner Nos.1 and 2; upon perusing the material papers on record, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:-

:: ORDER ::

1)This petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 13-B of Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent.

2)The brief averments of petition are that the petitioner No.2 is the legally wedded wife of petitioner No.1, as their marriage was performed on 30-5-2019 at Sumangali Gardens, Dharmapuri Road,Jagtial, as per

Hindu rites and rituals and caste customs prevailing in their community.

That after the marriage the petitioners lived happily and led peaceful marital life for about 3 months at the house of petitioner No.1 at

Kamalapur village. That during the said period differences have been 2 of 4 OP.No.78 of 2020 arose among them and the petitioners developed ill will against each other and the petitioner No.2 left his society in the month of August,2019.

In this regard,the petitioner No.1 approached the caste elders by conducting panchayat at Jagtial two times, in turn the caste elders conducted counseling to the petitioners, but it was not futile. Since 28.8.2019 the petitioners are living separately with their parents and there is no hope to live together as husband and wife in near future and agreed to take divorce by mutual consent on 24-9-2020. The petitioners exchanged gold ornaments and other articles which were presented at the time of their marriage and the petitioner No.1 agreed to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to petitioner No.2 within two months towards her permanent maintenance and alimony hence she has no right to claim over the petitioner No.1 and his property and also there is no right over the property of petitioner No.2 and they are at liberty to marry of their choice of spouse. Hence the petition.

3)The reconciliation talks were held, but failed. Both the petitioners stated that they have not withdrawn from the petition and represented that there is no chance for their re-union and insisted for grant of divorce.

4)To prove the case of the petitioners, the petitioner No.1 is examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2. The petitioner No.2 is examined as PW2 and no documents are marked.

5)Heard both sides and perused the record.

6) Now the point for consideration is:

‘Whether the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are entitled for the relief of grant of decree of divorce under mutual consent’?

3 of 4 OP.No.78 of 2020

7)Point:

In support of the case, the petitioner No.1/PW1 filed Ex.P.1. Ex.P1 is the Wedding card, Ex.P2 is the Marriage photograph. The documents show that the marriage of the petitioner No.1 held with the petitioner

No.2.

8)The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 examined as PWs-1 and 2, their testimony shows that the petitioner No.2 is the legally wedded wife of petitioner No.1 as their marriage was performed on 30-5-2019. That after the marriage, the petitioners lived happily and led peaceful marital life for about 3 months and later differences have been arose among them and the petitioners developed ill will against each other and the petitioner

No.2 left his society in the month of August,2019. In this regard, the caste elders conducted panchayath and counseling to the petitioners, but it was not futile. Since, 28-8-2019 the petitioners are living separately with their parents and greed to take divorce by mutual consent on 24-9-2020.

The petitioners exchanged gold ornaments and other articles which were presented at the time of their marriage and the petitioner No.1 agreed to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to petitioner No.2 within two months towards her permanent maintenance and alimony, hence they have no right to claim on their properties each other. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 clearly proves the case of the petitioners. From the facts and circumstances of the case, this court feels that there is no possibility of reunion of parties due to the attitude of the petitioners herein. Hence, the petitioners are entitled to take divorce by mutual consent as prayed for.

Accordingly the point is answered.

4 of 4 OP.No.78 of 2020

9) IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed by granting decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage dated 30-5-2019 that took place between the petitioner Nos.1 and 2. No order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation by Shorthand writer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 26th day of August, 2021.

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

FAC: SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

JAGTIAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER No.1: FOR PETITIONER No.2:

PW1: Nerella Gopal -----NIL---- PW2: Nerella @Karabuja Sai Sushmitha :EXHIBITS MARKED:

FOR PETITIONER No.1: FOR PETITIONER No.2:

Ex.P.1: Wedding card -----NIL---- Ex.P.2: Marriage Photograph

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

FAC: SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

JAGTIAL.

H.M.O.P/26/2020

Gangadhari srinivas goud vs Gangadhari Lasya

23 Aug 2021

1 of 4 OP.No.26 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT : JAGTIAL

PRESENT: SRI.K.PRASAD,

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KARIMNAGAR

FAC:SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,JAGTIAL

Monday, this the 23rd day of August, 2021

H.M.O.P.No.26 of 2020

Between:-

Gangadhari Srinivas Goud,S/o.late Rajam, Age:31 years, Occ:Nil, R/o.H.No.1-2-41/1/1,Johnsiraod,Korutla proper and mandal of Jagtial district.

….1st Petitioner

And

Gangadhari Lasya,W/o.Srinivas Goud,D/o.Jongoni Kistagoud, age:26 years, Occ:Lady Sales woman in Anand Shopping Mall,Metpally-Main road-Metpally town and mandal, R/o.Korutla proper and mandal presently residing at parent's house at Ibrahimpatnam proper and mandal,Jagtial district. ….2nd Petitioner

This petition coming before me on 16-8-2021 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.P.Sudarshan, Advocate for petitioner Nos.1 and 2, upon perusing the material papers on record, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:-

:: ORDER ::

1)Initially this petition filed U/Sec.13(1)(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, and amended vide orders in IA.No.189/2020 dt 27-11-2020 to Section 13-B of

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent.

2)The brief averments of petition are that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are husband and wife, their marriage was performed on 30.12.2012 at

Ibrahimpatnam proper and mandal as per prevailing customs and traditions in their community. That the said marriage is arranged marriage, there were some differences arose between the petitioners and petitioner No.1 left the society of petitioner No.2 in the year 2016. The petitioners are unable to 2 of 4 OP.No.26 of 2020 patch up their difference even after the intervention of elders and well wishers and on account of serious incompatibility both are unable to live together and continue their marital relationship under one roof and as such they decided to take mutual divorce by way of mutual consent. As per the agreement the petitioner No.1 has paid Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner No.2 towards permanent alimony and full and final settlement to the petitioner

No.2. They further submits that the petitioner No.1 already returned the dowry amount of Rs.60,000/-,1/4th tula gold and household articles to the petitioner No.2 and she acknowledged the same. They further submits that they will not file any civil and criminal cases against each other in future and they relinquished all their rights each other in respect of movable and immovable properties. Both the parties shall not make any disputes or propagation or defame each other at any of the places. Hence the petition.

4)To prove the case of the petitioners, the petitioner No.1 is examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2. The petitioner No.2 is examined as

PW2 and no documents marked on his behalf.

5)Heard both sides and perused the record.

6) Now the point for consideration is:

‘Whether the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are entitled for the relief of grant of decree of divorce under mutual consent’?

3 of 4 OP.No.26 of 2020

7)Point:

In support of the case, the petitioner No.1/PW1 filed Exs.P.1 and P2.

Ex.P1 is the Wedding card, Ex.P2 is the Marriage photographs (2) in Nos.

The documents show that the marriage of the petitioner No.1 held with the petitioner No.2.

8)The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 examined as PWs-1 and 2, their testimony shows that the marriage of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 was performed on 30.12.2012 at Ibrahimpatnam proper and mandal as per prevailing customs and traditions in their community. After the marriage some differences arose between the petitioners and petitioner No.1 left the society of petitioner No.2 in the year 2016. The petitioners are unable to live together even after the intervention of elders and well wishers and decided to take mutual divorce by way of mutual consent and as per the agreement the petitioner No.1 has paid Rs.50,000/- to her towards permanent alimony and full and final settlement to her. They further contends that the petitioner

No.1 already returned the dowry amount of Rs.60,000/-, 1/4th tula gold and household articles to the petitioner No.2 and the petitioner No.2 acknowledged the same and they further contends that they agreed that they will not file any civil and criminal cases against each other in future and they relinquished all their rights each other in respect of movable and immovable properties. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 clearly proves the case of the petitioner. From the facts and circumstances of the case, this court feels that there is no possibility of reunion of parties due to the attitude of the petitioners herein. Hence, the petitioners are entitled to take divorce by mutual consent as prayed for. Accordingly the point is answered.

4 of 4 OP.No.26 of 2020

9) IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed by granting decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage dated 30-12-2012 that took place between the petitioner Nos.1 and 2. No order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation by Shorthand writer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 23rd day of August, 2021.

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

FAC: SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

JAGTIAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER No.1: FOR PETITIONER No.2:

PW1: Gangadhari Srinivas Goud -----NIL---- PW2: Gangadhari Lasya :EXHIBITS MARKED:

FOR PETITIONER No.1: FOR PETITIONER No.2:

Ex.P.1: Wedding card -----NIL---- Ex.P.2: Marriage Photographs (2) in Nos.

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

FAC: SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

JAGTIAL.

H.M.O.P/94/2019

Miriyala Laxminarayana vs Miriyala Lavanya

23 Aug 2021

1 of 4 OP.No.94 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT : JAGTIAL

PRESENT: SRI.K.PRASAD,

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KARIMNAGAR

FAC:SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,JAGTIAL

Monday, this the 23rd day of August, 2021

H.M.O.P.No.94 of 2019

Between:-

Miryala Laxminarayana,S/o.Rajaiah, Age:28 years, Occ:Private employee, R/o.H.No.1-5-163/5/G,Bhagyanagar, Jagtial district.

….1st Petitioner

And

Miryala Lavanya,W/o.Laxminarayana, age:25 years,R/o.H.No. 1-103/1, Kondapur village of Velgatoor mandal,Presently residing at Kothapet village of Velgatoor mandal,Jagtial district. ….2nd Petitioner

This petition coming before me on 17-8-2021 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.S.Vijay Kumar, Advocate for petitioner No.1 and Lala Ramu,Advocate for petitioner No.2, upon perusing the material papers on record, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:-

:: ORDER ::

1)Initially this petition filed U/Sec.13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, and amended vide orders in IA.No.15/2021 dt 19-1-2021 to Section 13-B of

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent.

2)The brief averments of petition are that the second petitioner is the legally wedded wife of first petitioner, their marriage took place on 14.5.2017 at Kothapet village as per the customs prevailed in their community. Though their marriage was consummated, out of their wedlock no children are born to them. The petitioners further submit that irreconcilable differences taken place between the petitioners and they are living separately since 20-4-2018. In these circumstances, elders of both the 2 of 4 OP.No.94 of 2019 parties attempted to resolve the differences between them, but their efforts were gone in vain, as such both the petitioners decided to take divorce by way of mutual consent. The first petitioner shall pay an amount of

Rs.6,25,000/- towards full and final settlement to the second petitioner.

Hence the petition.

4)To prove the case of the petitioners, the petitioner No.1 is examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2. The petitioner No.2 is examined as

PW2 and no documents marked on her behalf.

5)Heard both sides and perused the record.

6) Now the point for consideration is:

‘Whether the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are entitled for the relief of grant of decree of divorce under mutual consent’?

7)Point:

In support of the case, the petitioner No.1/PW1 filed Exs.P.1 and P2.

Ex.P1 is the Wedding card, Ex.P2 is the Marriage photograph. The documents show that the marriage of the petitioner No.1 held with the petitioner No.2.

8)The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 examined as PWs-1 and 2, their testimony shows that the second petitioner is the legally wedded wife of first petitioner, their marriage took place on 14-5-2017 at Kothapet village as per customs prevailed in their community. Though their marriage was 3 of 4 OP.No.94 of 2019 consummated, out of their wedlock no children are born to them. The petitioners further submit that irreconcilable differences taken place between the petitioners and they are unable to live together. They are living separately since 20-4-2018. The elders of both the parties attempted to resolve the differences between them, but their efforts were gone in vain, as such both the petitioners decided to take divorce by way of mutual consent. The first petitioner paid an amount of Rs.6,38,044/- towards full and final settlement and permanent alimony vide demand draft bearing

No.000671 drawn on Gayatri Bank,Dharmaram branch, dt 2-8-2021 and also given all the articles to second petitioner. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 clearly proves the case of the petitioner. From the facts and circumstances of the case, this court feels that there is no possibility of reunion of parties due to the attitude of the petitioners herein. Hence, the petitioners are entitled to take divorce by mutual consent as prayed for. Accordingly the point is answered.

9) IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed by granting decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage dated 14-5-2017 that took place between the petitioner Nos.1 and 2. No order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation by Shorthand writer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 23rd day of August, 2021.

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

FAC: SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

JAGTIAL.

4 of 4 OP.No.94 of 2019

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER No.1: FOR PETITIONER No.2:

PW1: Miryala Laxminarayana -----NIL---- PW2: Miryala Lavanya :EXHIBITS MARKED:

FOR PETITIONER No.1: FOR PETITIONER No.2:

Ex.P.1: Wedding card -----NIL---- Ex.P.2: Marriage Photograph

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

FAC: SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

JAGTIAL.

Order Record 1,129 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/33/2023	Bandari @ Bondla Malathi vs Bodla Gangaraju	23 Oct 2024	JUDGEMENT	—
H.M.O.P/135/2023	Gummadi Lasya vs Gummadi Sridhar	23 Oct 2024	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/206/2023	Waddypally Soumya @ Vooradi Soumya vs Abinav Waddypally	23 Oct 2024	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/120/2023	Lenkala Santhosh vs Lenkala @ Sangem Hymalatha	22 Oct 2024	Order	—
H.M.O.P/15/2024	Itta Kiran vs Itta Srinilaya	21 Oct 2024	Order	—
H.M.O.P/211/2022	Sanda Rajkumar vs Sanda Archana	21 Oct 2024	Order	—
H.M.O.P/230/2022	Repaka Mahesh vs Repaka Sushmitha	21 Oct 2024	Order	Compromised
EP/5/2020	Mandaloju Brahmanandam vs Mandaloju Ramesh	18 Oct 2024	Order	—
OS/119/2018	Muppidi Rajamani vs Edavelli Sathyanarayana Reddy	18 Oct 2024	Order	—
H.M.O.P/25/2020	Allakunta Ramulu vs Allakunta Rajitha	18 Oct 2024	Order	—
H.M.O.P/67/2020	Goddandla Ashok @ Ashok Goud vs Goddandla Lavanya	18 Oct 2024	Order	—
H.M.O.P/110/2023	Pambala Raja Narsaiah vs Pambala Tejaswi@Ramya	17 Oct 2024	Order	—
H.M.O.P/251/2022	Pilli Shekar vs Pilli Divya	17 Oct 2024	Order	—
OS/163/2023	kamati Nagulu vs Kamati Saraswathi	16 Oct 2024	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/26/2024	Mittapelly Sheker Reddy vs Kottala Soumya @ Mokshgna Reddy @ Mittapelly Soumya	16 Oct 2024	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/54/2024	Muttoju Dheeraja@Thummanapally Dheeraja vs Muttoju Santhosh	16 Oct 2024	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/55/2023	Neelam Himasri @ Chinthala Himasri vs Chinthala Sumanth	16 Oct 2024	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/96/2023	Mittapally Madhu vs Mittapally Shilpa@S kumar	16 Oct 2024	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/158/2023	Myadhari Mohan vs Myadhari @ thummala Rakshana	16 Oct 2024	ORDER	—
SC/257/2021	The State through Sub Inspector of Police, Dharmapuri Police Station vs Pasi Mallesh	14 Oct 2024	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/45/2024	Ananthula Rakesh vs Ananthula Bhavitha@ Battu Bhavitha	14 Oct 2024	Order	—
H.M.O.P/61/2024	Eppala Prakash vs Eppala @ Suddala Anusha	14 Oct 2024	Order	—
H.M.O.P/158/2022	kasarapu Srinivas vs Kasarapu Suma	14 Oct 2024	Order	—
SC/327/2019	Rondi Ravinder vs Rondi Manikyam @ Santhosh	08 Oct 2024	Judgement	—
OS/32/2019	Bandari Shankar Rao vs Nuligonda @ Nunugonda Bhoomaiah	04 Oct 2024	Lok adalath	—
SC/23/2024	SHO PS Velgatoor vs Sunke Mallesh	04 Oct 2024	Order	—
OS/21/2024	Vanga Shivani vs Vanga Rajam	04 Oct 2024	ORDER	—
EP/6/2024	Gandhe Uday Bhaskar Rao vs Sikinikantham Nagaiah	03 Oct 2024	Order	—
SC/439/2021	The State through SHO of P.S. Kodimial vs Bhukya @ Bukya Bojya Nayak	03 Oct 2024	Judgement	—
OS/99/2015	Gaddam Shekar vs Gaddam Lavanya	01 Oct 2024	Order	—
OS/104/2015	Bandarapu Rajavva vs Chinthapandu Mallaiah	30 Sep 2024	Order	—
OS/133/2015	Mora Rajavva vs Mora Buchanna	30 Sep 2024	Order	—
H.M.O.P/33/2024	Indanpelly @ Borlakunta Srilatha @ Latha vs Indanpelly Srinivas	30 Sep 2024	Order	—
H.M.O.P/60/2024	Rada Narender vs Kodipelli Vasantha	30 Sep 2024	Order	—
H.M.O.P/101/2024	Pilli Divya vs Pilli Shekar	30 Sep 2024	Order	—
H.M.O.P/166/2019	Madham Raj Kumar vs Madham Lavanya @ Manasa	30 Sep 2024	Order	—
OS/10/2020	Guntha Geetharani vs Pampatti Nagalaxmi	28 Sep 2024	Lok adalath	—
OS/176/2013	Chandoli Anil Kumar vs Chandoli Manohar	28 Sep 2024	Lok adalath	—
CC/2/2022	The SHO PS Jagtial Rural vs Lokini Chandramouli	27 Sep 2024	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/72/2021	Gajoju Dilip Kumar vs Gajoju @ Mandaloju Rashmitha Rani	27 Sep 2024	Order	—
H.M.O.P/112/2019	Paira Sathish Reddy vs Paira manashwini Reddy @ Tejashwini	27 Sep 2024	Order	—
OS/80/2016	Smt. Arapally Dhanarekha Bai vs A.Anitha Reddy	26 Sep 2024	Order	—
H.M.O.P/17/2018	Anuganti Ravi Kumar vs Anuganti Priyanka	26 Sep 2024	Order	—
H.M.O.P/64/2019	Dhanalakota Vasantha Laxmi @ Rani vs Dhanalakota Laxmi Narsaiah Varma	26 Sep 2024	Order	—
H.M.O.P/69/2024	Guduru Naveen Kumar vs Guduru Bhanu Sri@ Vemula Bhanusri	26 Sep 2024	Order	—
H.M.O.P/25/2024	Thurupati. Deepthi vs Kollipara Venkata Sai Praneeth	25 Sep 2024	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/82/2024	Katlakunta Vijay Kumar vs Katlakunta Uma Rani @ Mandapelly Uma Rani	25 Sep 2024	ORDER	—
OS/18/2015	Busi Rajanna vs D1 Busi Dubbaiah @ Pedda Dubbaiah	24 Sep 2024	Order	—
OS/127/2015	Kalikota Krishana chary vs Kalikota Seethaiah	24 Sep 2024	Order	—
SC/154/2021	The State through the Circle Inspector of Police, Jagtial Rural vs Orsu Ramesh	24 Sep 2024	Judgement	—
OS/13/2015	Raparthi Sathaiah vs Vs1. Raparthi Gangadhar	23 Sep 2024	Order	—
OS/65/2016	Enugurthi Kailasam vs Enugurthi Brahmaiah	23 Sep 2024	Order	—
SC/378/2021	The State through SI of Police, Beerpur P.S. vs Medi Narsaiah	23 Sep 2024	Judgement	—
OS/16/2024	Khairunnisa Begum vs Mohammad Mahmood	23 Sep 2024	ORDER	—
OS/42/2015	Angadi Ramesh vs Katlekunta Rajendra	20 Sep 2024	Order	—
OS/98/2014	1.konduri Raja Narsaiah vs Routha Ashok	20 Sep 2024	Order	—
OS/105/2016	Kolla Laxmi @ Manjula vs Kaveti Venkanna	20 Sep 2024	Order	—
OS/124/2015	Chithari Jalander vs Chathari Hanmakka	20 Sep 2024	Order	—
H.M.O.P/33/2022	Dandaveni Ramesh vs Dondaveni @ Thotla Mamatha	20 Sep 2024	Order	—
H.M.O.P/146/2021	Ambadi sheshi Kumar vs Ambadi Soundarya	20 Sep 2024	Order	—
OS/15/2012	Nathi Lacham vs Nathi Bhoomaiah	19 Sep 2024	Judgement	—
OS/49/2011	Borigam Rajesh Kumar vs Borigam Mallesham	19 Sep 2024	Judgement	—
OS/83/2014	Nathi Lachaiah vs D1 Nathi Bhoomaiah	19 Sep 2024	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/123/2023	Choppadandi Bhagavan Rao vs Choppadandi Manorama @ Deshapande Manorama	19 Sep 2024	Order	—
OS/55/2013	Nakka Pochamma vs Nakka Shiva kumar	17 Sep 2024	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/76/2024	Puli Thirupathi vs Puli @ Kakkerla Mounika	17 Sep 2024	Order	—
H.M.O.P/148/2023	Palli Gangadhar vs Palli @ Burra Sujatha	17 Sep 2024	Order	—
EP/4/2014	Laishetty Gangann @ Ganga Reddy vs Dondhari Gangaram	13 Sep 2024	Order	—
OS/68/2013	Batt Laxman vs Mukkera China Mallaiah	13 Sep 2024	Judgement	—
SC/140/2021	The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Jagtual Rural vs Egurla Naresh	13 Sep 2024	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/161/2023	Kondagorla Shekar vs Kondagorla Rajeshwari	13 Sep 2024	Order	—
OS/94/2015	Katti Chandraiah @ Sandaiah vs Manupati Ellaiah	12 Sep 2024	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/24/2023	CHILUVERI GANESH vs CHILUVERI MADHURI @ ANUGADULA MADHURI	11 Sep 2024	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/177/2023	Vannela Saikumar vs Vannela Rajakala	11 Sep 2024	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/184/2023	Rudra Rohith kumar vs Sheelam Tejaswini	11 Sep 2024	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/150/2023	Ravi Shankar Maidam vs Laxmi Ravi Maidam	10 Sep 2024	Order	—
SC/408/2021	The State through Inspector of Police, Jagtial Town P.S. vs Garvandula HariKrishna	09 Sep 2024	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/50/2024	Vennela Pavani vs Kyatham Rajendar Reddy through his G.P.A holder Kyatham Manohar Reddy	09 Sep 2024	Order	—
H.M.O.P/65/2022	Bandalla Mahesh vs Bandalla Lavanya	09 Sep 2024	Order	—
H.M.O.P/183/2022	Kondaveni Mahesh vs Kondaveni Mounika	09 Sep 2024	Order	—
OS/80/2018	Peddiraju Vilola vs Varija	06 Sep 2024	Judgement	—
OS/103/2015	Komuroju Manjula vs Srigade Shyamsunder	06 Sep 2024	Judgement	—
OS/7/2013	Pulla Rayamallu @ Rayamallakka vs Vsyegurla Komuramma @ Komuravva	05 Sep 2024	Judgement	—
OS/11/2016	Smt Kodipelli Vajramma vs Kodipelli Maheshwar Reddy,	05 Sep 2024	Judgement	—
SC/71/2019	Jangiti Gangadhar vs Reddaveni Gangadhar	04 Sep 2024	JUDGEMENT	—
SC/97/2019	Jakkula Laxmi vs Gopu vinod	04 Sep 2024	JUDGEMENT	—
SC/203/2019	the state through SHO PS Mallapur vs Davanapelli Ramesh	04 Sep 2024	JUDGEMENT	—
SC/281/2019	Allala Hanmakka vs Allala Thukaram @ Thukkaiah	04 Sep 2024	JUDGEMENT	—
SC/396/2021	The State through Sub Inspector of Police vs Mamidipelli Nagaraju	04 Sep 2024	JUDGEMENT	—
H.M.O.P/157/2023	Burla Ganga Narsaiah @ Gangadhar vs Burla Pushpa @ Pushpalatha	04 Sep 2024	ORDER	—
S.O.P/3/2024	Nemuri Limbanna vs The Regional Assistant Provident Fund (PF) commissiner(Pension), Employees provident Fund Org.	04 Sep 2024	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/3/2020	Bathini Shivshankara Varaprasad vs Bathini Lavanya	03 Sep 2024	Order	—
H.M.O.P/135/2022	Bhandari Chandra Raju vs Bhandari @ Bomma Swapna	03 Sep 2024	Order	—
OS/33/2016	Sayyed Ishaq vs Suraiya Begum	02 Sep 2024	Judgement	—
OS/151/2014	Banda Bhagya Laxmi vs Koshana Lachamma	02 Sep 2024	Judgement	—
OS/28/2010	Khaja Moinoddin @ Mangaligadda Khaja Moinoddin vs Suddala Bhomaiah Goud	30 Aug 2024	Judgement	—
OS/200/2014	Pandiri Lingaiah vs Sangepu Laxmi	30 Aug 2024	Judgement	—
SC/318/2021	The State through the Sub Inspector of Police Sarangapur P.S. vs Maddi Ranjith	30 Aug 2024	Judgement	—
SC/438/2021	The Inspector of Police, Mallial vs Baljapally Ramya	30 Aug 2024	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/96/2024	Pulla Ramu vs Pulla Manusha @ Bodapatla Manusha	30 Aug 2024	Order	—

Showing 100 of 1,129 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Oct 2024		31
Sep 2024		69
Aug 2024		53
Jul 2024		1
Jun 2024		37
May 2024		14
Apr 2024		33
Mar 2024		35
Feb 2024		44
Jan 2024		21
Dec 2023		46
Nov 2023		37

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri. K. Prasad handled?

Sri. K. Prasad has handled 1171 court orders since 2021 at Metpalli, SCJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 27 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri. K. Prasad hear?

Based on available records, Sri. K. Prasad primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Sessions Cases, Criminal Cases) at Metpalli, SCJ Court Complex.

Where is Sri. K. Prasad currently posted?

Sri. K. Prasad is posted as Senior Civil Judge Metpalli at Metpalli, SCJ Court Complex, Jagitial, Telangana.

Are judgments by Sri. K. Prasad available online?

Yes. 14 judgments by Sri. K. Prasad are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri. K. Prasad dispose cases?

Sri. K. Prasad disposes approximately 27 cases per month, based on 1171 orders handled over their tenure at Metpalli, SCJ Court Complex.

Since when is Sri. K. Prasad serving?

Sri. K. Prasad has been serving at Metpalli, SCJ Court Complex since 2021.

Case Types

H 45%

OS 27%

SC 18%

EP 4%

S 3%

IP 1%

CC 1%

L 1%

Posting History

Mar 2023 — Oct 2024

Senior Civil Judge Metpalli · 145 orders
May 2022 — Oct 2024

Senior Civil Judge · 1,006 orders
Apr 2021 — Sep 2021

Senior Civil Judge · 20 orders

Outcomes on Record

Compromised 1

Other Judges at this Court

Mrs. Madhavi Vinukonda

Junior Civil Judge

26 orders

Sri. D. Nageswara Rao

Senior Civil Judge Metpalli

0 orders

← View all judges at Metpalli, SCJ Court Complex