Smt.K.Satya Kumari

Asst. Sessions and Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram

II Addl District Court Amalapuram · East Godavari · Andhra Pradesh

Smt.K.Satya Kumari, Asst. Sessions and Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram, is posted at II Addl District Court Amalapuram, East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh, India. 550 court orders on record since 2018. 7 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OP, OS, EP cases.

550

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OP/48/2018

Komallapalli Kishore vs Komallapalli S.G. Sudha Vani

18 Mar 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

KOTHAPETA.

Present: Smt.K. Satya Kumari, Senior Civil Judge, Kothapeta

Wednesday, the 18th day of March, 2020.

O.P.No.48 of 2018

Between:

Komallapalli Kishore, S/o late Subrahmanyam, aged 31 years, Timmapuram village, Kakinada Rural. ….Petitioner

and

Smt.Komallapalli S.G. Sudha Vani, W/o Kishore, aged 28 years, D/o B.S.V. Narayana Murthy, Archaka, Near Sivalayam,

P. Gannavaram, East Godavari District. ...Respondent

This petition is coming on 12032020 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri A. Bhaskara Rao, Advocate for the petitioner and

Sri K. Rajeev, Advocate for the respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1.This petition filed by the petitioner under Sec.9 of Hindu Marriage

Act, seeking to restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the petitioner.

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

The respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and the marriage took place at P. Gannavaram village on 12052013 as per

Hindu rites and caste custom. At the time of marriage, no reciprocals have been taken place either at the time of marriage or after the marriage or at any time because petitioner and his family members are against the dowry system. However, the parents of the respondent got prepared mangala sutram and the petitioner presented gold chain weighing about 2 tulas. At the time of marriage, the petitioner used to work as private 2 employee. However, the father of the petitioner was an archaka. The respondent studied M.Sc., (Maths.) After the marriage, the respondent joined with the petitioner at the house of the petitioner at Timmapuram and both of them lived happily. On 17022014, female baby was born to the respondent and she was named as Lakshmi Praneetha. At the time of naming ceremony of the child, the mother of the petitioner presented gold chain of 1 sovereign to the child.

While so, the petitioner and the respondent along with the baby went to P. Gannavaram on 07012015 for Sankranthi festival by leaving the respondent and her daughter at her parents' house. Then, the petitioner came back and on 14012015 the petitioner resigned his private job and joined in temple as Archaka. As the things stood thus, in the end of April, 2015, the respondent went to P. Gannavaram for thread marriage function of her relative, namely Vamsi. Later the respondent has not joined with the petitioner in view of her examination in June, 2015.

In spite of several repeated requests by the petitioner and his mother, the respondent has not joined with the petitioner and the respondent postponed on one ground or the other. The respondent disliked the petitioner since he was an Archaka. The respondent studied

M.Sc., (Maths) and working in Degree college at Munganda village. The respondent demanded the petitioner to come to P. Gannavaram live as illetum soninlaw and the petitioner refused to come to P. Gannavaram as there is no other person to lookafter his mother and unmarried brother. The petitioner is not interested to shift his residence to P.

Gannavaram village from Timmapuram village.

All the efforts made by the petitioner are proved futile. Then the petitioner decided and came to conclusion that he has to file the above petition for conjugal life. Hence this petition.

3.Counter filed by the respondent and denied petition averments except marriage. The respondent contended that the marriage of the respondent and petitioner was performed at Gannavaram on 1252013 as per Hindu law rites and cast custom. The marriage was consummated. This respondent and the petitioner were blessed with child who born on 17022014. The girl child was named after Lakshmi

Praneetha. At the time of marriage, the respondent’s parents gave

Rs.1,30,000/ to the petitioner towards dowry, Viyyapuralu lanchanams etc. Respondent’s parents presented ½ tula gold ring to the petitioner at the time of marriage. The petitioner presented gold chain weighing one tula to the respondent but not 2 tulas a contended by the petitioner. The petitioner’s father is only archaka but it was represented at the time of marriage that he is doing job in Endowments Department. The parents of the respondent purchased saree samans, cot, beeruva etc., to present to the respondent at the time of sending her to the house of petitioner.

But the petitioner’s brother and mother refused to take them. After the respondent joined the petitioner, the mother of the petitioner used to demand the respondent to bring money for purchase of the saree samans, cots beeruvas etc., as per their choice at Kakinada.

Sentimentally the respondent’s parents want to give the saree samans purchased by them but the petitioner’s mother refused to take them and several times demanded the respondent to get money from her parents for purchase of the saree samans at Kakinada.

When the respondent is residing with petitioner at Thimmapuram village which is in outskirts of Kakinada town, the respondent got job in

Sri Chaitanya college, Kakinada as lecturer. The petitioner’s mother refused to allow the respondent to join in that job. The petitioner was suspended from the job in Pithapuram as he has not properly doing job in IIFL company. The respondent also requested the petitioner to try for a job in Sri Chaitanya college as he stated that he passed M.Com. But the petitioner did not try for an job.

The respondent’s motherinlaw is a dominating lady. When the respondent got job in Sri Chaitanya College, Kakinada the petitioner’s mother stated that she will not allow the respondent into their house as a Brahmin lady is not supposed to do any job. She will not ask her son to do job and earn and lookafter the welfare of the respondent but admonished the respondent for getting job such is the nature of mother inlaw of this respondent.

In December, 2014 the mother of the petitioner and brother of the petitioner went to Rudrampur of Khammam District as the petitioner s brother got job as an archaka in temple there. The peititoner ansd respondent were at Timmapuram at that time.

The respondent’s daughter Praneetha fell sick in January, 2015,

Sankranthi days when they were at Gannavaram and she was treated for some as outpatient admitted in Naga Surya Children’s Hospital, College road, Amalapuram and she was admitted as inpatient in the last week of

January, 2015 and treated there for two weeks. When the respondent informed about the illhealth of the daughter to the petitioner the 5 petitioner along with his mother and brother came to the hospital from

Rudrampur and gave one yellow lemon and tied with red coloured holy thread to the hand of the daughter Praneetha. Except that the petitioner not even offered to pay the hospital expneses and not even bring piece of bread and did not ask how this respondent is treating daughter. The said conduct of the petitioner and his mother and brother speaks volumes abuot their nature. Father of the respondent was made to pay hospital fee and to meet expenditure. All the medical record of daughter

Praneetha of the treatment done at Naga Surya Children’s hospital, college road, Amalapuram is at the house of petitioner at Timmauram as the respondent and the petitioner went to Rudrampur from that place.

Later the petitioner took the respondent and their months and sick baby to Rudhrampur in February, 2015. At that place, the petitioner has not get job of his own and used to help his younger brother in that temple. The younger brother of the petitioner has to give every pie to the petitioner as he has no job then. His younger brother not has sufficient money for the needs of the respondent and her daughter. This respondent was asked to stay in one single iron sheet room shed. At that place there is used to be no bath room. During the summer season the months baby of the respondent and the respondent were allowed to suffer in staying in that tin roof shed. All the things were bore by the respondent without informing her parents as the petitioner and her people will change their attitude and lookafter the respondent and her baby well. But the hope and wishes of the respondent were not come into reality. The petitioner is his brother not even attended to the small needs of the daughter of the respondent Praneetha by supplying baby 6 powder, soap, milk etc. The respondent's father who came to know about the bad situation of the respondent and her daughter at

Rudhrampur requested the petitioner to get job at suitable atmosphere for the sake of the health of the daughter Praneetha. The respondent and her parents searched for the job to the petitioner in and around the

P. Gannavaram and in East Godavari District but the petitioner refused to join the offered job of archaka.

The petitioner brought the respondent and her daughter Praneetha in April, 2015 to Gannavaram for attending thread marriage in her junior paternal uncle's house, she attended the same and later she attended thread marriage in the house of younger sister of the petitioner's mother at Tanuku. The respondent was taken to Rudrampur by her father. She has stayed in Rudrampur in the mid summer of 2015 under the above said claimating conditions.

Thereafter, the petitioner brought the respondent and daughter

Praneetha to Gannavaram in the month of July, 2015 and asked her to search for a suitable job and left them at Gannavaram and went away to

Rudrampur by saying that he will get job of his choice and will take them. The respondent as per the advice of the petitioner obtained job in

Munganda college in the month of August, 2015 and requested the petitioner to get job nearby Munganda so they can stay together at one place for the sake of their girl. Though the respondent searched some jobs for the petitioner in and around Munganda the petitioner did not come forward to join in the said job, as his brother is not accepting the said jobs. Later, the petitioner has not comeforward to take back this 7 respondent and the daughter Praneetha even though he has returned back to Thimmapuram along with his brother and mother, as his brother lost the job at Rudrapurar.

The respondent and her people regularly demanded the petitioner to take her back to her conjugal home. The respondent also disputed the petitioner to take her back and her daughter Praneetha along with him but the petitioner her mother and brother evaded for the request and demands of the petitioner and the elder.

The petitioner has issued a legal notice with false and untenable allegations for that this respondent approached the petitioner through the elders to settle the matter. But the petitioner, his mother and brother have not come forward to attend before the elders for the sitting which was conducted at the house of their relative in Amalapuram. As the matter placed before the elders at the advice of the elders the respondent has not issued any suitable reply for the legal notice issued by the petitioner for settling the matter between them.

The daughter of the petitioner and respondent Praneetha is now aged 3 ½ years. The petitioner has not attended for the

Aksharabhyasyam function though this respondent and her father requested him to present and did the said function as per caste custom.

The petitioner has not attended to the Aksharabhyasyam. The respondent joined his daughter Praneetha with megre amount of

Rs.6,000/ salary per month. The expenditure for the education, welfare, daily needs and for medical expenses of daughter Praneetha is very high and the respondent is not able to meet all the expenditure.

The respondent is also not having good health and she is suffering a lot for doing job at Amalapuram and by going and returning back daily to

Gannavaram.

There is no willful neglect or latches on the part of the respondent is not living with the petitioner. The petitioner willfully neglected this respondent and his daughter and left them to their fate without attending to their needs as a dutiful husband and father. The petitioner without any legal, reasonable or justifiable cause neglected this respondent and living separately. Hence, the respondent prays the court to dismiss the petition.

4.During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the petitioner, P.W.1 examined and Ex.P.1 and P.2 marked. On respondent side R.Ws.1 and 2 examined no documents marked.

5.Heard on both sides.

6. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of decree

of restitution of conjugal rights as prayed for?

7.POINT:

This petition filed under Sec.9 of Hindu Marriage Act, the burden lies on the petitioner to establish that the respondent withdrawn from the society of the petitioner without reasonable excuse. To support the petitioner’s case, petitioner examined as P.W.1 and Ex.P.1 and P.2 are marked. The evidence of P.W.1 is in accordance with the averments of his petition as well as the contents of Ex.P.1 to P.2. Ex.P.1 is the marriage wedding card and Ex.P.2 is the photograph along with

Compact Disc.

The main contention of the petitioner is that in the month of April, 2015 the respondent went to P. Gannavaram to attend marriage function of their relative. Later, she did not join with the petitioner in view of her examination in the year 2015. Thereafter, the petitioner made several efforts to take back the respondent. On that the respondent postponed the same. The petitioner further submits that the respondent demanded him to come to P. Gannavaram as an illatum soninlaw for which he refused the same. The petitioner is not interested to shift his residence to

P. Gannavaram. In the crossexamination of P.W.1 he admitted that after filing of the present petition the parents of the respondent tried to settle the matter to lead marital life. He further admitted that on the occasion of Divali festival, in the year 2019 he went to the respondent’s house and stayed there for 2 days. He further admitted that he fail to stand on his promises given to the respondent at the time of Diwali festival. He further admitted that the respondent never put any conditions on the petitioner to lookafter his mother. He further admitted that there are no disputes arose in between himself and the respondent.

He further admitted that the respondent always told him that she is willing to lead marital life. But he neglected his minor daughter.

8.As against the above evidence, the respondent herself examined as

R.W.1 and got examined R.W.2. The evidence of R.W.1 is in accordance with the counter averments. The main contention of the respondent is that when she approached to the petitioner through elders to settle the matter but the petitioner and his mother, brother did not comeforward to attend before the elders. The petitioner never looked after the welfare of the respondent and his minor daughter at any point of time. There is no 10 willful neglect or latches on the part of the respondent for living separately from her husband. The petitioner himself neglected to respondent and her daughter and left them to their fate without providing to their minimum needs. She is ready and willing to lead marital life with her husband. But petitioner did not visit to her parents’ house. He has no intention to lead marital life with the respondent. The evidence of R.W.2 who is the father of R.W.1 also corroborated with the evidence of R.W.1 in all material aspects.

9. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner and respondent are legally wedded wife and husband and they were blessed with one female child.

On perusal of material on record, it clearly shows that there are no disputes in between the petitioner and respondent. The petitioner himself left the respondent and his minor child. He himself admitted in his crossexamination that he failed to stand by on his promise given to respondent at the time of Diwali festival 2019. The evidence of R.W.1 discloses that she tried her level best to lead the marital life with the petitioner but the petitioner himself not willing to take back the petitioner. The respondent also placed the matter before the elders for settlement, but the petitioner never attended before the said settlement.

The respondent interested to join the company of the petitioner. But the petitioner avoiding the same on one pretext (or) other. Evidence disclosing that there is no willful latches (or) negligence on the part of the respondent. The material on record clearly indicates that the respondent did not intentionally leave the matrimonial house and she was compelled to live in her father’s house because of the negligence on the part of the shows that the petitioner neglected the respondent and her daughter. He 11 did not lookafter their welfare during their staying in the petitioner’s house. The petitioner failed to prove his case that the respondent withdrawn from the society of the petitioner without reasonable excuse.

Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the respondent and as against the petitioner.

10.In the result, the petition is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to Stenographer(Gr.I), transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 18th day of March, 2020.

Sd/ K. Satya Kumari

Senior Civil Judge,

Kothapeta.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner:

P.W.1: Komallapalli Kishore

For Respondent:

R.W.1: K.S.G. Sudha Vani

R.W.2: B. Satya Venkata Narayana Murthy

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioner:

Ex.P.1: Marriage wedding card

Ex.P.2: Photograph along with Compact Disc.

For Respondent:

Nil

Sd/ K. Satya Kumari

Senior Civil Judge,

Kothapeta.

OS/2/2020

Vatsavai Venkata Rama varma vs Alluri Krishnam Raju

17 Jun 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

KOTHAPETA

Present: Smt.K. Satya Kumari, Senior Civil Judge, Kothapeta.

Wednesday, the 17th day of June, 2020.

I.A.No.96 of 2020 in O.S.No.2 of 2020

Between:

Vatsavai Venkata Rama Varma, S/o Rama Bhadri Raju, Hindu, aged 49 years, D.No.185/2, Eathakota,

Ravulapalem Mandal. ...Petitioner

and

1.Alluri Krishnam Raju, S/o Sitarama Raju, Hindu, aged 59 years, House No.395, Ramachandrapuram, h/o Podagatlapalli, Ravulapalem Mandal.

2.Alluri Sitarama Raju, S/o Krishnam Raju, Hindu, aged 35 years, House No.395, Ramachandrapuram, h/o Podagatlapalli, Ravulapalem Mandal. …Respondents

This petition is coming on 19032020 for final hearing in the presence of Sri C.S. Sastry, Advocate for the petitioner/plaintiff and Sri N. Srinivasu,

Advocate for the respondents/defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1.This petition filed under Order 38, Rule 5 and Sec.151 C.P.C., praying the court to direct the respondent to furnish unencumbered immovable property as security to the suit amount within the time stipulated by the

Hon’ble court failing which order attachment before Judgment of the schedule

property in the interest of justice.

2.To support of his petition, the petitioner/plaintiff filed his affidavit. The averments of the affidavit in brief are as follows:

The respondents/defendants borrowed an amount of Rs.25,00,000/ 2 from the petitioner and executed a promissory note dt.09092017 in favour of the petitioner. In spite of several demands made by the petitioner, the respondent did not repay the suit debt.

The petitioner further stated that the schedule annexed to the petition is the absolute property of the respondents. The respondents are contemplating to screen the schedule property in collusion with their family members in or to avoid the debt of the petitioner. If the respondents are allowed to do so, the interest of the petitioner will be suffered and it will be very difficult for the petitioner to realize the fruits of the decree. Hence, the petition.

3.The respondents filed their counter denying the petition averments.

The respondents contended that the respondents are the permanent residents of the village and they are having their own avocation of cultivation and doing agricultural work, how the petitioner can be prevented to recover the alleged debt. If at all it was decreed at a later stage, as they are always amicable to the court’s order and attending to the courts. Even otherwise, the value mentioned in the petition schedule is very low and any of the item is sufficient to discharge the alleged debt, if at all it can be considered as the alleged transaction is assumed as correct for the purpose of arguments, though these respondents are denying any such alleged transaction of execution of promissory note and its consideration. The ingredients of granting attachment are not appearing in the petitioner’s affidavit as per law. In fact, how the petitioner gathered intention of the respondent contemplating to screen the property is disappearing in the petitioner’s affidavit. In the absence of such specific requirement, it can only be 3 considered that the contents of the petitioner is just a mere apprehension.

Hence, respondents prays the court to dismiss the petition.

4.Both parties have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence to prove their respective contentions.

5.Heard on both sides.

6. Now the point that arose for consideration is:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for attachment

before Judgment as prayed for?

7.POINT:

The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petition schedule property is the absolute property of the respondents. Despite the demands, the respondent did not pay any due amount. The respondents are trying to screen the schedule property with an intention to avoid for payment of debt amount to the petitioner. Except, the petition schedule property, the respondents have no valuable assets.

On the other hand, the respondents opposed to allow the petition. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that the petitioner did not disclose about the source of information or the grounds for screen the property by the respondents. To prove his contentions, he relied upon a decision reported in A.I.R.(38) 1951 Calcutta 156 His Lordship held that “plaintiff alleged that the defendants were trying to dispose off their properties set out in a schedule to the plaint. The statement was based partly on information and partly on belief. But the source of information as well as the grounds of belief were not stated. No overtact towards the alienation of the properties was even suggested. For example negotiations or 4 offers for sale, and there was no proof that the properties were in danger for alienation. Mere vague allegations are not sufficient.

8.The learned counsel for the respondents/defendants relied upon a decision reported in A.I.R., 1985 Madras 269 Their Lordship held that the application for attachment before Judgment relief could be granted not as a in a matter of course, but only if conditions set out in Rule 5 are satisfied.

9. Order 38, Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 “Where, defendant may be called upon to furnish security for production of property”:-

(1) Where at any stage of a suit, the court is satisfied, by affidavit or

otherwise, that the defendant, with intent to obstruct or delay the

execution of any decree that may be passed against him,

a) is about to dispose of the whole or in part of his property, or

b) is about to remove the whole or any part of his property from the

local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court may direct the

defendant, within a time to be fixed by it, either to furnish security,

in such sum as may be specified in the order, to produce and place

at the disposal of the Court, when required, the said property or the

value of the same, or such said portion thereto as may be sufficient

to satisfy, the decree or to appear and show because why he should

not furnish security.

(2) The plaintiff shall unless the Court otherwise directs specify the

property required to be attached and the estimated value thereof.

(3) The Court may also in the order direct the conditional attachment

of the whole or any portion of the property so specified.

4) If an order of attachment is made without complying with the

provisions of Sub rule (1) of this rule such attachment shall be void.

10.There must be positive and definite material on the two points set out in Order 38, Rule 5 of the Code, namely (1) that the defendant is about to dispose off the whole or part of his property, and (2) that the disposal is with the intention of obstructing or delaying the Execution of any decree that may be passed against him. An attachment before Judgment is not a 5 process to be adopted as a matter of course. In the present petition, the petitioner alleged that the respondents are trying to alienate the petition schedule property in order to avoid the payment of the debt amount to the petitioner. Mere allegations that the defendants are trying to selling their properties is not sufficient. Particulars must be stated. The petitioner simply stated that the respondents are trying to alienate the petition schedule property. There is no material on record to show that the defendants are trying to alienate the property. There is no evidence that there have been attempts by the defendants to dispose of the property with a view to defeat the decree. Mere satisfaction that there has been an attempt to dispose of the property is in itself not sufficient. The petitioner did not disclose the source of the information of attempted alienation. The third party affidavit also did not disclose as to when an attempt was made to alienate, what type of alienation was intended to be made and to whom the alienation was being desired to be made and who gave such information.

The petitioner failed to prove the essential ingredients of Order 38, Rule 5

C.P.C. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the respondents and as against the petitioner.

11.In the result, the petition is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to Stenographer (Gr.I), transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 17 th day of June, 2020.

Sd/ K. Satya Kumari

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOTHAPETA.

(NO ORAL OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDECNE IS ADDUCED ON EITHER

SIDE). Sd/ K. Satya Kumari

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOTHAPETA.

OS/2/2020

Vatsavai Venkata Rama varma vs Alluri Krishnam Raju

17 Jun 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

KOTHAPETA

Present: Smt.K. Satya Kumari, Senior Civil Judge, Kothapeta.

Wednesday, the 17th day of June, 2020.

I.A.No.96 of 2020 in O.S.No.2 of 2020

Between:

Vatsavai Venkata Rama Varma, S/o Rama Bhadri Raju, Hindu, aged 49 years, D.No.185/2, Eathakota,

Ravulapalem Mandal. ...Petitioner

and

1.Alluri Krishnam Raju, S/o Sitarama Raju, Hindu, aged 59 years, House No.395, Ramachandrapuram, h/o Podagatlapalli, Ravulapalem Mandal.

2.Alluri Sitarama Raju, S/o Krishnam Raju, Hindu, aged 35 years, House No.395, Ramachandrapuram, h/o Podagatlapalli, Ravulapalem Mandal. …Respondents

This petition is coming on 19032020 for final hearing in the presence of Sri C.S. Sastry, Advocate for the petitioner/plaintiff and Sri N. Srinivasu,

Advocate for the respondents/defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

O R D E R

Hon’ble court failing which order attachment before Judgment of the schedule

property in the interest of justice.

2.To support of his petition, the petitioner/plaintiff filed his affidavit. The averments of the affidavit in brief are as follows:

3.The respondents filed their counter denying the petition averments.

Hence, respondents prays the court to dismiss the petition.

4.Both parties have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence to prove their respective contentions.

5.Heard on both sides.

6. Now the point that arose for consideration is:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for attachment

before Judgment as prayed for?

7.POINT:

9. Order 38, Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 “Where, defendant may be called upon to furnish security for production of property”:-

(1) Where at any stage of a suit, the court is satisfied, by affidavit or

otherwise, that the defendant, with intent to obstruct or delay the

execution of any decree that may be passed against him,

a) is about to dispose of the whole or in part of his property, or

b) is about to remove the whole or any part of his property from the

local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court may direct the

defendant, within a time to be fixed by it, either to furnish security,

in such sum as may be specified in the order, to produce and place

at the disposal of the Court, when required, the said property or the

value of the same, or such said portion thereto as may be sufficient

to satisfy, the decree or to appear and show because why he should

not furnish security.

(2) The plaintiff shall unless the Court otherwise directs specify the

property required to be attached and the estimated value thereof.

(3) The Court may also in the order direct the conditional attachment

of the whole or any portion of the property so specified.

4) If an order of attachment is made without complying with the

provisions of Sub rule (1) of this rule such attachment shall be void.

The petitioner failed to prove the essential ingredients of Order 38, Rule 5

C.P.C. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the respondents and as against the petitioner.

11.In the result, the petition is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to Stenographer (Gr.I), transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 17 th day of June, 2020.

Sd/ K. Satya Kumari

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOTHAPETA.

(NO ORAL OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDECNE IS ADDUCED ON EITHER

SIDE). Sd/ K. Satya Kumari

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOTHAPETA.

OP/67/2019

Karri Satyanarayanareddy vs Karri Mani

19 Mar 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

KOTHAPETA.

Present: Smt.K. Satya Kumari, Senior Civil Judge, Kothapeta

Thursday, the 19th day of March, 2020.

O.P.No.67/2019

Between:

Karri Satyanarayanareddy, S/o China Ramakrishna reddy, aged 53 years, Hindu, Retired employee, D.No.10192/n3/98 B, Janaki Enclave, Road No.21, Near eseva, Karman Ghat, Saroor Nagar, Rangareddy District, State of Telangana. …Petitioner

and

Karri Mani, W/o Satyanarayanareddy, aged 43 years, Hindu, D.No.2342, Ubalanka, Ravulapalem Mandal. …Respondent

This petition is coming on 18032020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri T.M.K. Sarma, Advocate for the petitioner and the respondent was set exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed under Sec.13(1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage

Act, 1955 to pass a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent which was taken place on 28041990 and for costs.

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

The petitioner submits that his marriage with the respondent is a 2nd marriage. The petitioner got married previously with Chilakamma.

The petitioner got one female child by name Anushareddy through his 1st wife Chilakamma. The 1st wife of the petitioner died in the year 1989.

The respondent is the daughter of maternaluncle of the petitioner. The relatives and the elders suggested marrying the respondent and she also 2 expressed her willingness and the marriage was performed. Out of relationship and as it is the 2nd marriage no dowry was given to the petitioner.

The petitioner submits that immediately after the marriage the respondent joined with the petitioner for marital life at Hyderabad. They lived there for about 4 years and later shifted to Rajasthan, Madras and

Rajahmundry. During the wedlock, they were blessed with two female children by name Sirisha Reddy, Manisha Reddy and son by name

K.V.S.M.K. Reddy. The petitioner submits that the respondent led the marital life with the petitioner happily for some time and later started quarreling with the petitioner without any reason and harassed the petitioner. The petitioner and respondent shifted their residence to the

Ubalanka village in the year 2011. The parents of the respondent also residing in Ubalanka village and at the instance of her father and due to the disputes in the joint business of her father and the petitioner she left the conjugal life of the petitioner without any fault on the part of the petitioner in the month of December, 2011. The respondent filed a criminal case against the petitioner under Sec.498A of I.P.C., with false and frivolous allegations in C.C.No.93/2012. After the trial the case is ended in acquittal on 27042015. The respondent also filed

M.C.No.7/2013. The said maintenance petition is allowed on

11062013 granting Rs.2,000/ per month to the respondent. The petitioner regularly paying the monthly maintenance to the respondent without committing any default. The respondent filed a petition in

Crl.M.P.No.164/2014 for enhancement of the maintenance and it is

3 pending. The respondent harassing the petitioner like anything by filing false cases against the petitioner.

The petitioner submits that he performed the marriages of his 3 daughters. Prior to their marriages, they lived with the petitioner. The son is studying B.Com., computers in Prathibha college, Kukatpalli and residing with the petitioner. The respondent never cared about the children.

The petitioner submits that filing of false cases and leaving the children to their fate is nothing but cruelty and harassment by the respondent. The respondent deserted the petitioner in the year 2011 and living separately and as such the petitioner is entitled to ask the relief of divorce on the ground of desertion also. The marriage between respondent and petitioner is irretrievably broken and there is no possibility of reunion. There is no scope for the petitioners to live jointly and there is no other source except to take divorce. Thereby the petitioner is obliged to file the petition for divorce.

3.The respondent was called absent, no representation hence, she was set exparte on 12032020.

4.During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner himself examined as P.W.1 and Ex.P.1 and P.2 are marked.

Ex.P.1 is the marriage wedding card and Ex.P.2 is the three photographs along with Compact Disc.

5. Heard the counsel for petitioner, perused the material on record.

4 6.N OW POINT FOR CONSIDERATION IS:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of divorce by

dissolving the marriage in between petitioner and respondent

held 28041990 as prayed for?

7.POINT:

This being petition filed under Sec.13(1) (ia) and (ib) of Hindu

Marriage Act, burden lies on the petitioner to establish that the respondent harassed him and deserted him without any reasonable cause. In support of his case, the petitioner himself was examined as

P.W.1 and Ex.P.1 and P.2 are got marked. It is averred by the petitioner in his pleadings as well as in his evidence as P.W.1 that the marriage of the petitioner and respondent was held 28041990 and they were blessed with two female children by name Sirisha Reddy, Manisha Reddy and son by name K.V.S.M.K. Reddy. The respondent used to quarrel with the petitioner without any reason and harass him. Due to the disputes in the joint business of her father and the petitioner, the respondent left the conjugal life with the petitioner in the month of December, 2011 and filed a criminal case in C.C.No.93/2012 and also filed M.C.No.7/2013 and the respondent was paying Rs.2,000/ per month to the respondent in the said maintenance case.

8.On overall scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.P.1 and P.2 it clearly discloses that the respondent used to harass the petitioner and humiliate him by harassing and finally deserted him and then onwards the petitioner and the respondent are living separately. It is established that the petitioner and respondent have been living separately and there is no scope for their reunion. Hence, no purpose will be served by continuing marital tie of the petitioner and respondent.

9.Considering all the facts and circumstances discussed supra, it can be safely concluded that the petitioner is entitled for dissolution of marriage and divorce from the respondent. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the petitioner and as against the respondent.

10. In the result, the petition is allowed without costs by granting

decree of divorce dissolving the marriage in between the petitioner

and respondent held 28041990.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 19 th day of March, 2020.

Sd/ K. Satya Kumari

Senior Civil Judge,

Kothapeta.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner:

P.W.1: Karri Satyanarayana Reddy

For Respondent:

Exparte

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioner:

Ex.P.1: Marriage wedding card

Ex.P.2: Three photographs along with Compact Disc.

For Respondent:

Nil

Sd/ K. Satya Kumari

Senior Civil Judge,

Kothapeta.

EP/1/2020

Penumatcha Venkata Appalaraju vs Merla Ramanjaneyulu

18 Mar 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

KOTHAPETA.

Present: Smt.K. Satya Kumari, Senior Civil Judge, Kothapeta

Wednesday, the 18th day of March, 2020

E.P.No.1/2020 in O.S.No.32/2016

Between:

Penmetsa Venkata Appalaraju, S/o Trimurthi Raju, aged 53 years, Hindu, Cultivation, r/o Lolla village,

Atreyapuram Mandal. ...Petitioner/D.Hr.,/Plaintiff

and

Merla Ramanjaneyulu, S/o Venkata Ratnam, aged 50 years, Hindu, Business, r/o Ryali village, Atreyapuram Mandal. ….Respondent/J.Dr.,/Defendant

This petition is coming on 12032020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B. Bhaskara Rao, Advocate for the petitioner/D.Hr./plaintiff and Sri A. Bhaskara Rao, Advocate for the respondent/J.Dr.,/defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1. This is an execution petition filed by the petitioner/decree holder under Order 21, Rule 22, 54, 64 and 66 of C.P.C., seeking the court to issue notice to the respondent/Judgment debtor and to attach the schedule property and sale the same for realization of the decreetal amount.

2.Since, the E.P., is filed beyond two years, Rule 22 notice issued to the Judgment debtor. After receiving Rule 22 notice, the Judgment debtor filed his counter denying the petition averments. The respondent/Judgment debtor contended that he has no salable interest over the schedule property. The respondent stated that he constructed 2 the house by availing loan from Andhra Bank by way of deposit of title deed. The petitioner is not entitled to seek any relief. Hence, he prays the court to dismiss the execution petition with costs.

3.The above contentions of the Judgment debtor will be considered during the enquiry. The very object of issuance of Rule 22 notice is to know how the decree is not executable. More particularly to know whether there was any payment of decreetal amount by the Judgment debtor to the petitioner or not. From the contentions in the counter of the Judgment debtor, it is very clear that no amount paid by the

Judgment debtor to the petitioner towards decreetal amount. Therefore, the decree is executable, since the decreetal amount is remained unpaid.

Hence, order for next step i.e., issue Rule 54 notice and attachment of the schedule property on payment of process.

Dictated to Stenographer(Gr.I), transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 18 th day of March, 2020.

Sd/ K. Satya Kumari

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOTHAPETA.

Order Record 512 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
IP/13/2020	Vatsavai Venkata Rama Varma vs Alluri Krishnam Raju	12 Jul 2021	order	—
OS/18/2020	Kumpatla Venkata Ramesh vs Darapureddi Sridhar	10 Jul 2021	Other	—
OS/2/2020	Vatsavai Venkata Rama varma vs Alluri Krishnam Raju	10 Jul 2021	Other	—
OS/12/2020	Tetali Lakshmi vs Nandra Bhagyavathi and 6 others	10 Jul 2021	Other	—
EP/21/2018	Arumilli Durga prasad vs Devalla Visweswar	01 Jul 2021	order	—
S.O.P/1/2021	Chode Venkata Satish vs NILL	30 Apr 2021	order	—
OP/47/2020	Jakkamsetti (Vasamsetti) Padmavathi vs Jakkamsetti Koteswara Rao	22 Apr 2021	order	—
OP/51/2019	Kusuma Naga Lakshmi vs Nil	06 Apr 2021	order	—
OS/2/2020	Vatsavai Venkata Rama varma vs Alluri Krishnam Raju	17 Jun 2020	order	—
OP/67/2019	Karri Satyanarayanareddy vs Karri Mani	19 Mar 2020	order	—
EP/1/2020	Penumatcha Venkata Appalaraju vs Merla Ramanjaneyulu	18 Mar 2020	order	—
OP/48/2018	Komallapalli Kishore vs Komallapalli S.G. Sudha Vani	18 Mar 2020	order	—
OP/48/2019	Smt Velagala Sri Laxmi vs Nil	18 Mar 2020	order	—
EP/26/2019	Vadrevu Sriranga Murthy vs Achanta Venkateswara Rao	17 Mar 2020	order	—
EP/27/2019	Vadrevu Sriranga Murhty vs Achanta Venkateswara Rao	17 Mar 2020	order	—
OS/30/2018	Andhra Bank, Rural Credit Branch Ravulapalem, represented by Senior Branch Manager vs Karri Veera Venkata Surya Satya narayana Reddy	17 Mar 2020	Judgement	—
IP/4/2017	Kandregula Venkateswara Rao vs Chanda Choultry	16 Mar 2020	order	—
EP/21/2019	Eeri Anjaneyulu vs Mittapalli Prasad	11 Mar 2020	order	—
OP/1/2020	Smt Vasamsetti Satyaveni vs Vasamsettti Balanaganna	11 Mar 2020	Decree	—
OP/1/2020	Smt Vasamsetti Satyaveni vs Vasamsettti Balanaganna	11 Mar 2020	order	—
OS/16/2016	Vipparthi satish kumar vs Vipparthi Indira	11 Mar 2020	Decree	—
OS/16/2016	Vipparthi satish kumar vs Vipparthi Indira	11 Mar 2020	Judgement	—
IP/1/2018	Kankatala Naga Surya Venkateswara Gupta vs Karri Syama Sundara Reddy	10 Mar 2020	order	—
FDP/78/2019	Puvvula Srinu vs Loll. Durgayya	10 Mar 2020	order	—
OP/7/2020	Bonthu Lakshminarayanamma @ Lakshmi vs Bonthu Srinu	04 Mar 2020	order	—
OP/35/2019	Eepuri Devasahayam vs Smt Eepuri Laxmi	04 Mar 2020	order	—
EP/23/2019	Smt Deepati Anantha Lakshmi Kumari vs Yalamanchili Satyanarayana	03 Mar 2020	order	—
OP/68/2019	Dammu Rama Krishna vs Dammu Venkata Durga	03 Mar 2020	order	—
OP/18/2019	Talabathula Satyaveni vs Talabathula Nookaraju	02 Mar 2020	order	—
OP/3/2020	Meka Saraswathi vs Meka Sarinuvasu	28 Feb 2020	order	—
OP/59/2019	Pinipe Neelima vs Pinipe Srinivas	28 Feb 2020	order	—
OS/23/2011	Tanikella Veerabhadra Vara Prasadarao vs The Grama Panchayat,Kothapeta	27 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
OS/12/2018	Chirla Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Reddy vs Meka Suryanarayana	26 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
OS/12/2018	Chirla Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Reddy vs Meka Suryanarayana	26 Feb 2020	Decree	—
OP/47/2019	Mutyala Venkatesh vs Smt Mutyala Bharathi	25 Feb 2020	order	—
EP/23/2015	Dirisala Vishnu Murthy vs Annamdevula Lakshmana Swami	24 Feb 2020	order	—
OS/33/2017	Appari Ananthalakshmi Satyavathi vs Chelluboina Hymavathi	24 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
OS/143/2014	Yaga Bangaramma vs Smt. Vithanala Venkata Lakshmi	24 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
EP/13/2019	Penmatsa Surya Raghava Raju vs Mokenapalli Kumara Swamy	18 Feb 2020	order	—
OP/75/2019	Alluru Padma vs Alluru Venkateswara Raju	18 Feb 2020	order	—
OP/76/2019	Relangi Manikanta Jyothi vs Relangi Gopi	18 Feb 2020	order	—
EP/24/2019	Savaram kabirdas vs Kanuri Srirama Murthy	17 Feb 2020	order	—
OP/55/2019	Padala Ramesh Reddy vs Padala Ramya Tanmaye	13 Feb 2020	Decree	—
OP/55/2019	Padala Ramesh Reddy vs Padala Ramya Tanmaye	13 Feb 2020	order	—
FDP/319/2017	Bokka China Kondayya vs Pilli Maridi, s/o. Venkanna	13 Feb 2020	order	—
FDP/319/2017	Bokka China Kondayya vs Pilli Maridi, s/o. Venkanna	13 Feb 2020	Decree	—
IP/2/2019	Yepuganti Rambabu vs Tutarapu Venakta Krishna	12 Feb 2020	Decree	—
IP/2/2019	Yepuganti Rambabu vs Tutarapu Venakta Krishna	12 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
EP/14/2019	Koppula Manga Devi vs Dasari Satyanarayana	11 Feb 2020	order	—
OP/69/2019	Smt.Chappidi. Dhana Kanaka Durga @ Daya Mani vs Chappidi. Ramesh	11 Feb 2020	order	—
OP/69/2019	Smt.Chappidi. Dhana Kanaka Durga @ Daya Mani vs Chappidi. Ramesh	11 Feb 2020	Decree	—
AS/6/2019	Gangumalla Shanmukeswara Rao vs Gandrothu Varalakshmi	10 Feb 2020	order	—
IP/4/2018	Appana Surya Prakasharao vs Kommana Narendra	10 Feb 2020	Decree	—
IP/4/2018	Appana Surya Prakasharao vs Kommana Narendra	10 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
OP/32/2019	Kovvuri Ranjit Krishna Reddy vs Kovvuri Charishma	10 Feb 2020	order	—
OS/5/2019	Corporation Bank, Ravulapalem Rep. K. Venkata Ramana vs M/s. Sri Vihil Kirana and Milk Parlour Rep. Karri Venkata Suredra Reddy	08 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
OS/70/2017	Bolla Nageswara Rao vs Aane Padma	08 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
OP/2/2020	Velagana Vijaya Lakshmi vs Velagana Veera Venkata Satyanarayana murthy	07 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
OP/2/2020	Velagana Vijaya Lakshmi vs Velagana Veera Venkata Satyanarayana murthy	07 Feb 2020	Decree	—
EP/31/2016	Mattaparthi Venkata Ramana vs Appari Satyanarayana	06 Feb 2020	order	—
EP/32/2016	Koppisetti Subbalakshmi vs Appari Satyanarayana	06 Feb 2020	order	—
SC/24/2019	State Sub-Inspector of Police, P. Gannavaram P.S. vs Toleti Venkata Ratnam Naidu @ Venkataratnam	03 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
OP/70/2019	Smt. Illa @ Gubbala Satyadurga Devi vs Illa Veera Venkata Suresh Krishna	31 Jan 2020	order	—
OP/70/2019	Smt. Illa @ Gubbala Satyadurga Devi vs Illa Veera Venkata Suresh Krishna	31 Jan 2020	Decree	—
OP/39/2019	Mattaparthi Venkata Padmanabha Varma vs Sukka Chamundeswari @ Chandhu	30 Jan 2020	order	—
OP/39/2019	Mattaparthi Venkata Padmanabha Varma vs Sukka Chamundeswari @ Chandhu	30 Jan 2020	Decree	—
OP/61/2018	Matha Srinivasa Rao vs Matha Venkta Lakshmi	29 Jan 2020	Decree	—
OP/61/2018	Matha Srinivasa Rao vs Matha Venkta Lakshmi	29 Jan 2020	order	—
OP/42/2019	Suthapalli Surya Subrahmanyeswara Rao vs Nil	28 Jan 2020	Decree	—
OP/42/2019	Suthapalli Surya Subrahmanyeswara Rao vs Nil	28 Jan 2020	order	—
IP/1/2016	penmatsa subbaraju vs Samayamathula Veera Venkata Satyanarayana	27 Jan 2020	Judgement	—
IP/1/2016	penmatsa subbaraju vs Samayamathula Veera Venkata Satyanarayana	27 Jan 2020	order	—
IP/1/2016	penmatsa subbaraju vs Samayamathula Veera Venkata Satyanarayana	27 Jan 2020	Decree	—
EP/4/2018	Motipalli Satyavathi vs Thumu China Somayya	24 Jan 2020	order	—
OS/17/2019	Illa Srinivas vs Guthula Lakshmi	24 Jan 2020	Judgement	—
AS/2/2019	Nalla Santamma vs Jalli Hema Latha	23 Jan 2020	Judgement	—
AS/3/2019	Nalla Santamma vs Nalla Verinamma	23 Jan 2020	Judgement	—
AS/4/2019	Nalla Santhamma vs Nalla Venkata Ramana	23 Jan 2020	Judgement	—
AS/7/2019	Tanikella Venkata Ramarao vs Chigatapu Srinivas	23 Jan 2020	order	—
FDP/73/2018	Kadiyala Subhadra - died vs Eamani Rama Gopalam - died	23 Jan 2020	order	—
OP/43/2019	Bandela Satish vs Nil	22 Jan 2020	order	—
EP/26/2019	Vadrevu Sriranga Murthy vs Achanta Venkateswara Rao	21 Jan 2020	order	—
EP/27/2019	Vadrevu Sriranga Murhty vs Achanta Venkateswara Rao	21 Jan 2020	order	—
OP/62/2019	Sabbbiti Prasad vs Sabbbiti Baby	21 Jan 2020	Decree	—
OP/62/2019	Sabbbiti Prasad vs Sabbbiti Baby	21 Jan 2020	order	—
EP/7/2019	Yanamandala Brahmayya @ Brahmanandam vs Bokka Subrahmanyam	10 Jan 2020	order	—
IP/5/2018	Smt Challa Vijayalakshmi vs Palivela Thrimurthulu	10 Jan 2020	order	—
OP/58/2019	Lanke Phanindra Varma vs Lanka Shanthi	10 Jan 2020	order	—
OS/76/2016	Chelluboyina Surya Satyanarayanarayana vs Kandregula Varalakshmi	10 Jan 2020	Judgement	—
OS/52/2018	State Bank of India, Ravulapalem vs Guthula Venkata Subash	06 Jan 2020	Judgement	—
OS/52/2018	State Bank of India, Ravulapalem vs Guthula Venkata Subash	06 Jan 2020	Decree	—
SC/211/2019	State vs Kamuju Srinu @ Srinivasa Rao	23 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
EP/34/2016	Sanaboyina Bhyravamurthy vs Kamuju Srilakshmi	20 Dec 2019	order	—
OS/14/2019	Bokka Venkata Trimmurthulu vs Damadora Mangalakshmi	20 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
OS/57/2017	Tripurari Jyothi vs Edurada Sitamahalakshmi	20 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
OP/24/2019	Appana Raju vs Appana Rajeswari	19 Dec 2019	order	—
OP/31/2019	Chiluvuri Ramesh Varma vs Nil	19 Dec 2019	order	—
OS/63/2017	Dasari Veera Venkaa Satyanarayana Prasad vs Dasari Veera Venkata Radharani	18 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
EP/7/2019	Yanamandala Brahmayya @ Brahmanandam vs Bokka Subrahmanyam	17 Dec 2019	order	—
OP/56/2019	Smt Dirisala Santhoshi Kumari vs Dirisala Sri Dharmasastra Manikantha Tatayya(Ayyappa)	17 Dec 2019	order	—

Showing 100 of 512 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Jul 2021		5
Apr 2021		3
Jun 2020		2
Mar 2020		22
Feb 2020		35
Jan 2020		33
Dec 2019		29
Nov 2019		32
Oct 2019		4
Sep 2019		32
Aug 2019		32
Jul 2019		36

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt.K.Satya Kumari handled?

Smt.K.Satya Kumari has handled 550 court orders since 2018 at II Addl District Court Amalapuram. The average disposal rate is 16 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt.K.Satya Kumari hear?

Based on available records, Smt.K.Satya Kumari primarily handles Civil matters (Original Petitions, Original Suits) and Criminal matters (Sessions Cases) at II Addl District Court Amalapuram.

Where is Smt.K.Satya Kumari currently posted?

Smt.K.Satya Kumari is posted as Asst. Sessions and Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram at II Addl District Court Amalapuram, East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Smt.K.Satya Kumari available online?

Yes. 7 judgments by Smt.K.Satya Kumari are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt.K.Satya Kumari dispose cases?

Smt.K.Satya Kumari disposes approximately 16 cases per month, based on 550 orders handled over their tenure at II Addl District Court Amalapuram.

Since when is Smt.K.Satya Kumari serving?

Smt.K.Satya Kumari has been serving at II Addl District Court Amalapuram since 2018.

Case Types

OP 38%

OS 32%

EP 12%

SC 6%

AS 5%

IP 5%

FDP 1%

CMA 0%

Posting History

Jul 2021 — Jul 2021

Asst. Sessions and Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram · 1 orders
Mar 2021 — Jul 2021

senior civil judge cum Asst.Sessions judge · 7 orders
Aug 2018 — Oct 2020

senior civil judge cum Asst.Sessions judge · 542 orders

Other Judges at this Court

G.Chandramouleswari

II Additional District Judge Amalapuram

3 orders

Ganta Priyadarsini

XIV Additional District Judge Amalapuram

0 orders

Kethavath Moti Lal

Asst. Sessions and Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram

4 orders

Mohammed Rahamtulla

Principal Civil Judge( Junior Division)-cum- J.M.F...

1,323 orders

Ms Sunkara Srirekha

Addl. Civil Judge( Junior Division)-Cum-Addl. J.M....

1,164 orders

Sri P.V. Prasada Rao

Special Magistrate, Amalapuram

545 orders

← View all judges at II Addl District Court Amalapuram

Smt.K.Satya Kumari

KOTHAPETA.

O.P.No.48 of 2018

O R D E R

Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of decree

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

EXHIBITS MARKED

KOTHAPETA

I.A.No.96 of 2020 in O.S.No.2 of 2020

O R D E R

(1) Where at any stage of a suit, the court is satisfied, by affidavit or

otherwise, that the defendant, with intent to obstruct or delay the

local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court may direct the

defendant, within a time to be fixed by it, either to furnish security,

in such sum as may be specified in the order, to produce and place

at the disposal of the Court, when required, the said property or the

value of the same, or such said portion thereto as may be sufficient

to satisfy, the decree or to appear and show because why he should

(2) The plaintiff shall unless the Court otherwise directs specify the

property required to be attached and the estimated value thereof.

(3) The Court may also in the order direct the conditional attachment

provisions of Sub rule (1) of this rule such attachment shall be void.

KOTHAPETA.

(NO ORAL OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDECNE IS ADDUCED ON EITHER

KOTHAPETA.

KOTHAPETA

I.A.No.96 of 2020 in O.S.No.2 of 2020

O R D E R

(1) Where at any stage of a suit, the court is satisfied, by affidavit or

otherwise, that the defendant, with intent to obstruct or delay the

local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court may direct the

defendant, within a time to be fixed by it, either to furnish security,

in such sum as may be specified in the order, to produce and place

at the disposal of the Court, when required, the said property or the

value of the same, or such said portion thereto as may be sufficient

to satisfy, the decree or to appear and show because why he should

(2) The plaintiff shall unless the Court otherwise directs specify the

property required to be attached and the estimated value thereof.

(3) The Court may also in the order direct the conditional attachment

provisions of Sub rule (1) of this rule such attachment shall be void.

KOTHAPETA.

(NO ORAL OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDECNE IS ADDUCED ON EITHER

KOTHAPETA.

KOTHAPETA.

O.P.No.67/2019

O R D E R

Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of divorce by

dissolving the marriage in between petitioner and respondent

decree of divorce dissolving the marriage in between the petitioner

Sd/­ K. Satya Kumari

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

EXHIBITS MARKED

KOTHAPETA.

O R D E R

KOTHAPETA.

Sd/ K. Satya Kumari