Sri. K. Satya Naga Bala Prasad

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

Present: Sri K.Satya Naga Bala Prasad,

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Wednesday, this the 29th day of December, 2021

HMOP No. 101 of 2019

Between:-

1.Madasu Veerla Ankama Rao S/o.Subba Rao, Hindu, Aged 30 years, Coolie, R/o.D.No.15- 176, Mutluru Village, Vatticherukuru Mandal, Guntur District.

2.Madasu Pavani @ Naga Pavani W/o.Madasu Veerla Ankama Rao, D/o.Kandukuru Venkata Swamy (Late), Hindu, Aged 27 years, House- wife, C/o.Kandukuru Padmavathi, R/o.Near Ramanamma Ksethram, Guntur Town.

.. Petitioners

AND

NIL .. Respondent

This petition is coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Sri V.L.Krishnarjuna Rao, Advocate for the petitioners 1 and 2 and having stood over for consideration till this day, the matter is heard, this court made the following:-

O R D E R

This petition is filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to dissolve the marriage of the 2nd petitioner held with the 1st petitioner on 11-05-2014 by mutual consent.

2.The facts set out in the petition that the marriage between the petitioners was performed on 11-05-2014 as per Hindu Rites and Caste

Customs at Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam (Purohitha Sangam, Tirumala)

SATYA NAGA BALA PRASAD

KANDREGULA

I am the author of this document Guntur 29.12.2021 12:33 2

before the elders, well wisher and friends both sides. The question of dowry

and lanchanas or gifts was not arisen being as a 2nd marriage to the both petitioners. The 2nd petitioner joined with the 1st petitioner and their marriage was consummated. Both the petitioners lived happily for a period of 16 days only after the marriage. Unfortunately, the 2nd petitioner is having in the habit of going to her parent’s house without consent of the 1st petitioner. On 9-9- 2016, the 2nd petitioner without consent knowledge of the 1st petitioner left away the company of the 1st petitioner at his parents house, till today she did not come back. Later, the parents relatives elders by name Allam Sambaiah and Veerisetty Jagan Mohan of the 1st petitioner approached the 2nd petitioner’s parents for sort out the hurdle in between the petitioners and negotiated it and all their efforts proved futile.

3.It is further averred in the petition that both side elders are also entered in the family affairs of the petitioners and they tried their level best to reunion, the petitioners for amicable solution in their family life that also ended in ashes. Under unavoidable circumstances and occasions both side elders of their respective villagers negotiated it and know the facts that there is no chance for reunion among the petitioners. The petitioners have no trust and confidence on each other. Both the petitioners were not in a position to cooperate with each other and they deliberately show their strong repugnance in the family life, under these conditions, the 2nd petitioner left the matrimonial home of the 1st petitioner on 9-9-2016, as the petitioners have no issues. Due to some other reasons which are purely personal , marital tie between the petitioners was broken. The petitioners came to a conclusion that it is not possible for them to live together as wife and husband and hence they have agreed for the dissolution of the marriage on their own accord. There is no possibility of restoration of conjugal relationship

SATYA NAGA BALA PRASAD

KANDREGULA

I am the author of this document Guntur 29.12.2021 12:33 3 between the petitioners. On the intervention of the elders and mediators both the petitioners came to a compromise and agreed to take divorce by mutual consent. Even, the relatives and the parents of the petitioners are in favour of divorce as it is the only solution. The elders advised the petitioners to seek divorce with mutual consent, so that they can marry again. The 2nd petitioner agreed to take the amount as given by the 1st petitioner towards full and final settlement in view of permanent alimony , both the petitioners agreed not to interfere with the life of the each other in future,there are no claims against each other. Hence, this petition.

4.After registration of petition, the matter was posted after six months for appearance of petitioners and both petitioners appeared before this court and the 1st petitioner himself examined as PW.1 and got marked

Ex.P1 and P2. The 2nd petitioner examined herself as PW.2. Ex.P1 is wedding card and Ex.P2 is marriage photographs (2 in number) along with CD.

5.Heard the counsel for petitioners.

6.Now the point for determination is :

"Whether the petitioners are entitled for

decree of divorce to dissolve their marriage

that was held on 11-05-2014 by mutual

consent?

P O I N T :

7.On perusal of the record, this petition is filed by petitioners under

Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act to dissolve their marriage that was held on 11-05-2014 by decree of divorce by mutual consent. To substantiate their claim, both petitioners examined themselves as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked

Ex.P1 and P2 i.e., Ex.P1 is wedding card , Ex.P2 is Marriage photographs ( 2 in number) along with CD. As per the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with

SATYA NAGA BALA PRASAD

KANDREGULA

I am the author of this document Guntur 29.12.2021 12:33 4 the averments of the petition, the marriage of PW2 was performed with PW1 on 11-05-2014 according to Hindu Rites and Caste Customs at Tirumala

Tirupathi Devasthanam ( Purohitha Sangam , Tirumala) . PW2 joined with the 1st petitioner and their marriage was consummated, both P.Ws. 1 and 2 lived happily for a period to 16 days only after the marriage. Unfortunately, the 2nd petitioner is having in the habit of going to her parent’s house without consent of the 1st petitioner. On 9-9-2016, the 2nd petitioner without consent knowledge of the petitioner 1st petitioner left away the company of the 1st petitioner at his parents house till today she did not come back. As a result, they are not leading their marital life on 9-9-2016 and they have been unable to live together and there is no possibility of any reconciliation or reunion between PWs. 1 and 2 in future. The elders of the both sides tried to reunion PWs. 1 and 2, but all their attempt were proved futile. Even after giving six months statutory period also, there is no change in the attitude of both petitioners. In such circumstances, this court finds that the petitioners are entitled for decree of divorce dissolving their marriage by mutual consent. Accordingly, the point is answered.

8.In the result, the petition is allowed dissolving the marriage of the petitioners 1 and 2 held on 11-05-2014 by decree of divorce on mutual consent. No costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me, this the 29th day of December, 2021.

SATYA NAGA

Digitally signed by SATYA NAGA BALA PRASAD

KANDREGULA

BALA PRASAD DN: cn=SATYA NAGA BALA PRASAD KANDREGULA, serialNumber=CAFCF1DD5437C47C5ABBF4872974D 6FF7DBB815EA8617B5C495863DAB0569D6C, KANDREGULAst=Andhra Pradesh, postalCode=522004, o=AP JUDICIARY, ou=JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, c=IN

Date: 2021.12.29 12:35:12 +05'30'

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Guntur.

SATYA NAGA BALA PRASAD

KANDREGULA

I am the author of this document Guntur 29.12.2021 12:33 5

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioners:-

P.W.1: Madasu Veerla Ankama Rao P.W.2: Madasu Pavani @ Naga Pavani

Documents Marked

For Petitioners:-

Ex.P1/P.W.1 : Wedding Card

Ex.P2/P.W.1 : Marriage Photographs (2 in number) along with CD.

SATYA NAGA

BALA PRASAD

KANDREGULA

Digitally signed by SATYA NAGA BALA PRASAD

KANDREGULA

DN: cn=SATYA NAGA BALA PRASAD

KANDREGULA,

serialNumber=CAFCF1DD5437C47C5ABBF4872 974D6FF7DBB815EA8617B5C495863DAB0569 D6C, st=Andhra Pradesh, postalCode=522004, o=AP JUDICIARY, ou=JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, c=IN

Date: 2021.12.29 12:35:40 +05'30'

PSCJ.

SATYA NAGA BALA PRASAD

KANDREGULA

I am the author of this document Guntur 29.12.2021 12:33

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

Present: Sri K. Satya Naga Bala Prasad,

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Wednesday, this the 29th day of December, 2021

HMOP No. 101 of 2019

Between:-

1.Madasu Veerla Ankama Rao S/o.Subba Rao, Hindu, Aged 30 years, Coolie, R/o.D.No.15- 176, Mutluru Village, Vatticherukuru Mandal, Guntur District.

2.Madasu Pavani @ Naga Pavani W/o.Madasu Veerla Ankama Rao, D/o.Kandukuru Venkata Swamy (Late), Hindu, Aged 27 years, House- wife, C/o.Kandukuru Padmavathi, R/o.Near Ramanamma Ksethram, Guntur Town.

.. Petitioners

AND

NIL .. Respondent

This petition is filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to dissolve the marriage of the 2nd petitioner held with the 1st petitioner on 11-05-2014 by mutual consent.

Petition presented on: 26-11-2019 Petition filed on: 02-12-2019

Cause of action for the petition arose on 11-05-2014 when the marriage between the petitioners was performed on 11-05-2014 as per Hindu rites and caste customs at Tirumala Tirupathi devasthanam. Their marriage was consummated and out of their wed lock no issues were borne and since the beginning both the petitioners have no proper positive approach towards the family life. They have no trust on each other in their family life and lead a little span of time i.e., from the marriage day to 09-09-2016 and when the intervention of elders and mediators both the petitioners came to a compromise and agreed to take divorce by mutual consent. Even the relatives and the parents of the petitioners are in favour of divorce as it is the only solution; and when the above said reasons and due to some other reasons which are purely personal, marital tie between the petitioners was broken; petitioners are last resided together as wife and husband at their native place within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

Valuation:

This being a petition filed under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, a fixed court fee of Rs.10/- is paid under Schedule II of Article I (vii) of 1956.

SATYA NAGA BALA PRASAD

KANDREGULA

I am the author of this document Guntur 29.12.2021 12:33

This petition is coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Sri V.L.Krishnarjuna Rao, Advocate for the petitioners 1 and 2 and having stood over for consideration till this day, the matter is heard, this court made the following:-

I) That the petition be and the same is hereby allowed, dissolving the marriage of the petitioners 1 and 2 held on 11-05-2014 by decree of divorce on mutual consent;

II) That both parties do bear their own costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 29th day of December, 2021.

SATYA NAGA

Digitally signed by SATYA NAGA BALA PRASAD

KANDREGULA

BALA PRASAD DN: cn=SATYA NAGA BALA PRASAD KANDREGULA, serialNumber=CAFCF1DD5437C47C5ABBF4872974D 6FF7DBB815EA8617B5C495863DAB0569D6C, KANDREGULAst=Andhra Pradesh, postalCode=522004, o=AP JUDICIARY, ou=JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, c=IN

Date: 2021.12.29 12:36:12 +05'30'

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

SATYA NAGA BALA PRASAD

KANDREGULA

I am the author of this document Guntur 29.12.2021 12:33

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

Present: Sri K.Satya Naga Bala Prasad,

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Wednesday, this the 29th day of December, 2021

HMOP No. 39 of 2021

Between:-

1.Udayagiri Jwala Narasimha Swamy S/o.Late Udyagiri Biksham Dasu, Hindu, S.C.(Mala Dasu) Aged 48 years, R/o.Door No.15-133/B, Patha Reddy Palem Village, Chebrolu Mandal, Guntur District.

2.Udayagiri Sridevi W/o.Udayagiri Jwala Narasimha Swamy, D/o.Marthoti Malyadri, Hindu, S.C.(Mala Dasu), Aged 40 years, R/o.Door No.23-3, Karumuruvaripalem Village, Tchunduru Mandal, Guntur District.

.. Petitioners

AND

NIL .. Respondent

This petition is coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Sri C.D.Bhagavan, Advocate for the petitioners 1 and 2 and having stood over for consideration till this day, the matter is heard, this court made the following:-

O R D E R

This petition is filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to dissolve the marriage of the 2nd petitioner held with the 1st petitioner on 13-03-1998 by mutual consent.

2.The facts set out in the petition that the 2nd petitioner is the niece of the 1st petitioner. The parents of the 1st and 2nd petitioners were performed

SATYA NAGA BALA PRASAD

KANDREGULA

I am the author of this document Guntur 29.12.2021 12:34 2 the marriage of the 1st petitioner with the 2nd petitioner at the parents resident of the 1st petitioner at Pathareddyaplem Village of Chebrole Mandal,

Guntur District. On 13-03-1998 according to the Hindu Rites, Religious and

Customs. Immediately, after the marriage, it was consummated and the 2nd petitioner joined with the 1st petitioner at his residence at Patharedypalem

Village of Chebrole Mandal. During the course of their wedlock two female children viz. Udayagiri Sowmya and Udayagiri Bindu Komali were born and now both the children were married. The elder daughter of the petitioners

Sowmya married one Jonnalagadda Rajesh of Chebrole Village , in the year 2019 and the younger child Bindu Komali married one Thokala Prem Kumar of

Rebala Village of Butchi Mandla, Nellore District in the year 2020 and they have been leading their happy marital lives with their husband respectively.

3.It is further averred in the petitioner that both petitioners lead their marital life till the year 2006, thereafter, serious disputes and differences arose between both the petitioners, as a result they are not leading their marital life since June, 2008 and they have leading their lives independently according to their will and wish, they have not been able to live together and there is no possibility of any reconciliation or reunion between them in future. The elders of the both sides tried to reunion the petitioner, but all their attempts were proved futile. Therefore, both the elders suggested the petitioners to take divorce by way of mutual consent.

According to the understanding between the petitioners, the 1st petitioner has agreed to pay an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to the 2nd petitioner towards her past, present, future permanent alimony and the 2nd petitioner has agreed to receive the same. Besides, the 1st petitioner is paying Rs.4,00,000/- each to their children also. Accordingly, the 1st petitioner has paid an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- on 01-05-2021 to the 2nd petitioner and the 2nd petitioner has

SATYA NAGA BALA PRASAD

KANDREGULA

I am the author of this document Guntur 29.12.2021 12:34 3 received the said amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards part payment out of

Rs.4,00,000/-. Further, the 1st petitioner has agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the 2nd petitioner either by the time adducing evidence by both petitioners or before obtain the decree of divorce from this

Court. The petitioners 1 and 2 with the intervention of the mediators and elders, their marriage should be get dissolved through Court of law by way of mutual consent. Hence, this petition.

4.After registration of petition, the matter was posted after six months for appearance of petitioners and both petitioners appeared before this court and the 1st petitioner himself examined as PW.1 and got marked

Ex.P1 and P2. The 2nd petitioner examined herself as PW.2. Ex.P1 is wedding card, dated 13-03-1998, and Ex.P2 is marriage photographs of the petitioners (2 in number) along with CD.

5.Heard the counsel for petitioners.

6.Now the point for determination is :

"Whether the petitioners are entitled for

decree of divorce to dissolve their marriage

that was held on 13-03-1998 by mutual

consent?

P O I N T :

7.On perusal of the record, this petition is filed by petitioners under

Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act to dissolve their marriage that was held on 13-03-1998 by decree of divorce by mutual consent. To substantiate their claim, both petitioners examined themselves as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked

Ex.P1 and P2 i.e., Ex.P1 is wedding card , dated 13-3-1998; Ex.P2 is Marriage photographs of the petitioners ( 2 in number) along with CD. As per the

SATYA NAGA BALA PRASAD

KANDREGULA

I am the author of this document Guntur 29.12.2021 12:34 4 evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with the averments of the petition, the marriage of PW2 was performed with PW1 on 13-03-1998 according to Hindu

Rites, Religious and Customs at the parents of the residence of the 1st petitioner at Pathareddypalem Village of Chebrole Mandal, Guntur District.

Immediately after the marriage, PW2 joined with PW1 at his residence at

Pathareddypalem Village of Chebrole Mandal for leading marital life and out of their wedlock two female children viz. Udayagiri Sowmya and Udayagiri

Bindu Komali were born . Both the PWs 1 and 2 lead their marital life till the year 2006, thereafter serious disputes and difference arose between PWs. 1 and 2. As a result, they are not leading their marital life since June, 2008 and they have been able to live together and there is no possibility of any reconciliation or reunion between PWs. 1 and 2 in future. The elders of the both sides tried to reunion PWs. 1 and 2, but all their attempt were proved futile. Even after giving six months statutory period also, there is no change in the attitude of both petitioners. In such circumstances, this court finds that the petitioners are entitled for decree of divorce dissolving their marriage by mutual consent. Accordingly, the point is answered.

8.In the result, the petition is allowed dissolving the marriage of the petitioners 1 and 2 held on 13-03-1998 by decree of divorce on mutual consent. No costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me, this the 29th day of December, 2021.

SATYA NAGA

Digitally signed by SATYA NAGA BALA PRASAD

KANDREGULA

BALA PRASAD DN: cn=SATYA NAGA BALA PRASAD KANDREGULA, serialNumber=CAFCF1DD5437C47C5ABBF4872974 D6FF7DBB815EA8617B5C495863DAB0569D6C, st=Andhra Pradesh, postalCode=522004, o=AP

KANDREGULA

JUDICIARY, ou=JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, c=IN

Date: 2021.12.29 12:37:41 +05'30'

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Guntur.

SATYA NAGA BALA PRASAD

KANDREGULA

I am the author of this document Guntur 29.12.2021 12:34 5

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioners:-

P.W.1: Udayagiri Jwala Narasimha Swamy

P.W.2: Udayagiri Sridevi

Documents Marked

For Petitioners:-

Ex.P1/P.W.1 : Wedding Card , dated 13-3-1998

Ex.P2/P.W.1 : Marriage Photographs of the petitioners (2 in number) along with CD.

SATYA NAGA Digitally signed by SATYA NAGA BALA

PRASAD KANDREGULA

DN: cn=SATYA NAGA BALA PRASAD

BALA PRASAD KANDREGULA,

serialNumber=CAFCF1DD5437C47C5AB BF4872974D6FF7DBB815EA8617B5C495 KANDREGULA863DAB0569D6C, st=Andhra Pradesh, postalCode=522004, o=AP JUDICIARY, ou=JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, c=IN

Date: 2021.12.29 12:38:06 +05'30'

PSCJ.

SATYA NAGA BALA PRASAD

KANDREGULA

I am the author of this document Guntur 29.12.2021 12:34

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

Present: Sri K. Satya Naga Bala Prasad,

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Wednesday, this the 29th day of December, 2021

HMOP No. 39 of 2021

Between:-

1.Udayagiri Jwala Narasimha Swamy S/o.Late Udyagiri Biksham Dasu, Hindu, S.C.(Mala Dasu) Aged 48 years, R/o.Door No.15-133/B, Patha Reddy Palem Village, Chebrolu Mandal, Guntur District.

2.Udayagiri Sridevi W/o.Udayagiri Jwala Narasimha Swamy, D/o.Marthoti Malyadri, Hindu, S.C.(Mala Dasu), Aged 40 years, R/o.Door No.23-3, Karumuruvaripalem Village, Tchunduru Mandal, Guntur District.

.. Petitioners

AND

NIL .. Respondent

This petition is filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to dissolve the marriage of the 2nd petitioner held with the 1st petitioner on 13-03-1998 by mutual consent.

Petition presented on: 23-06-2021 Petition filed on: 24-06-2021

Cause of action for the petition arose on 13-03-1998 according to Hindu rites, religious and customs and when the marriage was consummated and when the 2nd petitioner joined with the 1st petitioner at his residence at Pathareddypalem village of Chebrole Mandal and thereafter, when serious disputes and differences arose between them and as a result, they began to live separately since June 2008 to till today and when the elders of both sides tried to reunion the petitioners proved futile and when there is no possibility of the reunion of the petitioners and where the marriage of the Petitioners were performed and where the 1st petitioner is residing and where the petitioners were lastly resided all at Pathareddypalem village of Chebrole Mandal, within the Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

Valuation:

This being a petition filed under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, a fixed court fee of Rs.10/- is paid under Schedule II of Article I (vii) of 1956.

SATYA NAGA BALA PRASAD

KANDREGULA

I am the author of this document Guntur 29.12.2021 12:34

This petition is coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Sri C.D. Bhagavan, Advocate for the petitioners 1 and 2 and having stood over for consideration till this day, the matter is heard, this court made doth order and decree as follows:-

I)that the petition be and the same is hereby allowed, dissolving the marriage of the petitioners 1 and 2 held on 13-03-1998 by decree of divorce on mutual consent;

II) that both parties do bear their own costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 29th day of December, 2021. SATYA NAGA Digitally signed by SATYA NAGA BALA

PRASAD KANDREGULA

DN: cn=SATYA NAGA BALA PRASAD

BALA PRASAD KANDREGULA,

serialNumber=CAFCF1DD5437C47C5ABBF 4872974D6FF7DBB815EA8617B5C495863D AB0569D6C, st=Andhra Pradesh,

KANDREGULA

postalCode=522004, o=AP JUDICIARY, ou=JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, c=IN

Date: 2021.12.29 12:38:40 +05'30'

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

SATYA NAGA BALA PRASAD

KANDREGULA

I am the author of this document Guntur 29.12.2021 12:34

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

Present: Sri K.Satya Naga Bala Prasad,

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Tuesday, this the 21st day of December, 2021.

H.M.O.P.No.19/2021

Between:-

Vasa Rajeswari, W/o Vasa Venkateswara Rao, D/oGopisetty Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged about 34 years, House wife, R/o D.No.14-87, Kattempudi village, Ponnuru mandal, Guntur District. … Petitioner.

And

Vasa Venkateswara Rao, S/o Sivaiah, Hindu, aged about 40 years, Private Employee and business, R/o D.No.12-37, Nambur village, Pedakakani mandal, Guntur District. … Respondent.

This petition coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Rayana Satya Vedam, Legal Aid Counsel for the

Petitioner and respondent remained exparte and the petition having stood over for consideration till this date, this court made the following:-

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the petitioner against the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for directing the respondent to get back the petitioner to his house under a decree of restitution of conjugal rights and other reliefs.

2.The facts set out in the petition that both petitioner and respondent are Hindus and their marriage was solemnized on 09-12-2010 at Sri Bramarambha Samnetha Malleswara Swamy Temple, Pedakakani,

Guntur District as per the Hindu rites and customs in the presence of relatives and caste elders and after the marriage petitioner joined with the respondent, the marriage was consummated. The respondent from

SATYA NAGA BALA PRASAD

KANDREGULA

I am the author of this document Guntur 21.12.2021 16:36 2 the first day of the marriage has showed his true nature of Chameleon aspects, he is womanizer and used to maintain concubines and harassed her for want of additional dowry and he is a psycho and not looked after the petitioner well. The respondent came to house in drunken state and abused the petitioner and beat her indiscriminately. She informed the same to his parents, but they also supported the respondent and instigated him for want of additional dowry. She informed the same to her parents, mediations held but in vain. Petitioner agreed to give additional dowry and changed their family to Namburu. In Namburu also respondent did not change his attitude and after mediations respondent voluntarily deserted the petitioner without out any cause and excuse without informing the petitioner and married one Lalitham Mounica. The respondent harassed the said Mounica also and she lodged a complaint against him and it was registered as Cr.No.253/2014 U/Sec. 498 of IPC and said Mounica also filed FCOP.No.249/14 before Family court, Guntur and also field OP.No.534/16 seeking divorce and all the above cases were disposed by the Hon’ble Judge, Family Court, Guntur. By suppressing the above facts, respondent intentionally got filed HMOP.28/2012 before this court seeking divorce which is against the principles of natural justice and got an exparte orders from this court. After filing set aside petition by the petitioner it was reopened and same is pending before this court. The petitioner is not willing to take divorce from the respondent. The petitioner expressed her willingness to lead conjugal life with the respondent but he outrately refused. Hence, the petitioner is constrained to file this petition for restitution of conjugal life.

3.On the other hand, the respondent refused to take notice.

Service held sufficient. On 14-12-2021 respondent called absent and set exparte.

4.During the course of trial, the petitioner herself examined as

SATYA NAGA BALA PRASAD

KANDREGULA

I am the author of this document Guntur 21.12.2021 16:36 3

P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2., Ex.P1 is certified copy of the wedding card and photos and Ex.P2 is copy of judgment dt. 11-09-2012 in

HMOP.No.28/2012 filed by the respondent against the petitioner.

5.Heard both sides and perused the record.

6.Now the point for determination is :

"Whether the petitioner is entitled to get

relief as prayed for?"

7. P O I N T :

On perusal of the record, this petition is filed under Section 9 of of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to direct the respondent to take her back to his house under a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. The marriage of the petitioner and respondent was performed on 09-12-2010 at Sri Bramarambha Samnetha Malleswara Swamy Temple, Pedakakani,

Guntur District as per the Hindu rites and customs and after marriage she joined with the respondent and marriage was consummated and respondent is tortured the petitioner by consuming alcohol and used to keep concubines and harassed the petitioner for want of additional dowry with the support of his parents and mediations held but in vain and the respondent married another women by name Lalitham Mnounica and she also filed criminal case, divorce petition and also maintenance and all the cases were disposed off. The petitioner by suppressing the said facts filed

HMOP.No.28/2012 before this court seeking divorce and obtained exparte

orders and the petitioner filed set aside petition and the same was allowed and said petition is pending. Even though she is interested to join with the respondent but he did not turn up to take back her. Though P.W.1 examined in chief, but the respondent did not appear before the court and did not file counter and did not cross examine him, as such the evidence of P.W.1 remained unchallenged and unrebutted. In such circumstances, this court is constrained to believe the version of P.W1. Hence, the

SATYA NAGA BALA PRASAD

KANDREGULA

I am the author of this document Guntur 21.12.2021 16:36 4 petitioner is entitled to claim restitution of conjugal right against the respondent. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of petitioner.

8.In the result, the petition is allowed with costs, directing the respondent to get back the petitioner to his house and restore the restitution of conjugal rites within one month from the date of this order.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 21st day of December, 2021.

Digitally signed by SATYA NAGA BALA PRASAD KANDREGULA

SATYA NAGA BALA

DN: cn=SATYA NAGA BALA PRASAD KANDREGULA, serialNumber=CAFCF1DD5437C47C5ABBF4872974D6FF7DBB81 PRASAD KANDREGULA5EA8617B5C495863DAB0569D6C, st=Andhra Pradesh, postalCode=522004, o=AP JUDICIARY, ou=JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, c=IN

Date: 2021.12.21 16:38:53 +05'30'

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

G U N T U R.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner: For Respondent: Exparte

PW1 : Vasa Rajeswari

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Petitioner:

Ex.P1: Certified copy of the wedding card and photos.

Ex.P2: Copy of judgment dt. 11-09-2012 in HMOP.No.28/2012 filed by the respondent against the petitioner

For Respondent: Nil.

SATYA NAGA Digitally signed by SATYA NAGA BALA

PRASAD KANDREGULA

DN: cn=SATYA NAGA BALA PRASAD

BALA PRASAD KANDREGULA,

serialNumber=CAFCF1DD5437C47C5AB BF4872974D6FF7DBB815EA8617B5C49 KANDREGULA5863DAB0569D6C, st=Andhra Pradesh, postalCode=522004, o=AP JUDICIARY, ou=JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, c=IN

Date: 2021.12.21 16:39:20 +05'30'

P.S.C.J.

SATYA NAGA BALA PRASAD

KANDREGULA

I am the author of this document Guntur 21.12.2021 16:36

1

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: GUNTUR

Present: Sri K.Satya Naga Bala Prasad, I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, FAC IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Thursday, this the 19th day of April, 2018.

Original Suit No. 421 of 2014

Between:

Chilaka Krupadanam, S/o.Atchaiah, Hindu, aged about 46 yrs, R/o.6th lane,

Peda Ramanamma colony, Guntur.... Plaintiff

And

1. Palepogu Kumari (Died)

2. Palepogu Devadanam, S/o.Lazar, aged about 46 yrs, Hindu,

3. Palepogu Lazar Babu, S/o.Devadanam, 26 yrs,

4. Palepogu David, S/o.Devadanam, 24 yrs,

5. Palepogu Mary, D/o.Devadanam, 22 yrs, (Defendants 2 to 5 are R/o.7-6-846/175/72, 6th lane, Peda Ramanamma colony, Guntur.) (D2 to D5 are added as LRs of D1 as per

orders in I.A.753/2016 dt.20.4.2017)... Defendants

This suit has come before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Sri Kalluri Hari Babu, Advocate for plaintiff, and defendants remained exparte, and upon perusing the material on record and having considered the matter till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,50,346/- with subsequent interest and costs basing on the promissory note.

2

2.The facts set out in the plaint that the 1st defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 25.5.2013 for the purpose of family expenses and executed promissory note on the even date agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff personally and through mediators, no amount is paid. The defendants failed to discharge the debt. Moreover the 1st defendant is trying to alienate the property. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit for recovery of the same. Meanwhile 1st defendant died, D2 to D5 are added as legal representatives to the 1st defendant. Hence, seeking decree against the estate of deceased 1st defendant which is lying in the hands of defendants 2 to 5.

3.During the life time of 1st defendant, she filed written statement, denying all the averments in the plaint and contended that she borrowed only a sum of Rs.20,000/- in the year 2012 and put her signature on blank promissory note agreeing to pay the same with interest @ Rs.5/- per Rs.100/- per month. Plaintiff used to collect the amounts periodically. After discharging the entire debt, the 1st defendant asked to return the blank pronote and prepared herself to pay the balance amount of Rs.28,000/-. The suit pronote is brought into existence with false date and false amount with false signature which is not binding in the plaintiff.

4.Though defendants 2 to 5 appeared before the court through their counsel, but did not file any written statement even conditional 3 order is passed, as such they were set exparte and remained exparte throughout the proceedings.

5.The following issues are framed for the purpose of trial after filing of written statement by 1st defendant.

1. Whether the suit pronote is true, valid and binding on the defendant ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount ?

3. To what relief ?

6.As subsequently defendants 2 to 5 did not appear before the court, did file any written statement, did not participate in trial, as such they were set exparte and remained exparte throughout the proceedings.

7.To substantiate his case, the plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1 i.e., promissory note dt. 25.5.2013 executed by the 1st defendant.

8.Heard for plaintiff.

9 . Issue Nos. 1 & 2 :

It is contended by the plaintiff that during the life time of 1st defendant, she borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 25.5.2013 and executed promissory on the same day at Guntur agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his 4 order on demand, but failed to pay the same. Subsequently suit is filed.

Though written statement is filed, issues are settled, subsequently the 1st defendant died, as such the defendants 2 to 5 are added as legal representatives of D1, they remained exparte and did not file any written statement or did not continue the suit. In such circumstances, it is contended that defendants are liable to pay the amount from the estate of deceased 1st defendant.

10.On perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 who reiterated all the averments of the plaint and his evidence is corroborating with Ex.A1 promissory note. Though the 1st defendant took a plea that she borrowed only Rs.20,000/- and signed on blank pronote was handed over to the plaintiff. This admission is sufficient that Ex.A1 contains the signature of deceased 1st defendant. In such circumstances, it is the duty of the defendants to pay the amount from the estate of deceased 1st defendant devolved to them as legal heirs. In such circumstances, this court finds that the evidence of P.W.1 remained unchallenged and unrebutted. Hence, this court is constrained to believe the version of plaintiff. In such circumstances, this court finds that the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as prayed for. Hence, these issues are answered in favour of plaintiff against the defendants.

11. Issue No.3 :

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendants 2 to 5 to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,346/- with subsequent interest @ 24% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till its realization on 5 the principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the estate of deceased 1st defendant by name Palepogu Kumari laid in the hands of defendants 2 to 5.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 19th day of April, 2018.

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, FAC IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Guntur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff : For Defendants :

P.W.1 : Chilaka Krupadanam. Exparte.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A1 : Promissory note dt. 25.5.2013 executed by 1st defendant.

For Defendants : NIL.

I A.S.C.J.,

FAC IV A.S.C.J.,

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: GUNTUR

Present: Sri K.Satya Naga Bala Prasad, I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Guntur

Wednesday this the 6th day of November, 2019

Original Suit No.661 of 2017

Between:

N. Mala, Propritrix of M/s. Sri Sakthi Cotton Traders, rep. by her GPA Holder cum Authorized Signatory Sri SRM Nagappan S/o Ramanadhan, Hindu, aged about 60 years, R/o Door No.4-15-34, Bharat Bhavan, 5th lane, Bharatpet Main Road, Guntur.

... Plaintiff

AND

M/s. Valliammaal Spinning Mills (P) Ltd., rep.by its Managing Director D.V. Vijay Anand, Hindu, aged about 42 years, 4/151, Srivalliputhur Road, M.P. Karisal Kulam, Rajapalayam, Virudhu Nagar District, Tamilnadu State.

... Defendant

This suit has come before me on 5-11-2019 for hearing in the presence of Sri R. K. Srinivasa Murthy, Advocate for plaintiff, and defendant remained exparte, and upon perusing the material on record and having considered the matter till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed for recovery of suit amount of

Rs.8,77,627/- with subsequent interest and costs due on the khata.

2. The facts set out in the plaint that the plaintiff is N. Mala,

Proprietrix of M/s. Sri Sakthi Cotton Traders being represented by her 2

GPA Holder SRM Nagappan, no other than the husband of proprietrix

N. Mala, who is looking after the entire transactions and affairs of the proprietary concern doing business in cotton and cotton products situated at Guntur. The plaintiff is doing business in cotton merchants and ginners under the name and style of Sri Sakthi Cotton

Traders. The defendant is a company represented by its Managing

Director and approached the plaintiff at Guntur and purchased cotton from the plaintiff on credit basis. At the request of the defendant on 8-6-2011 the plaintiff supplied cotton under an invoice dated 8-6- 2011 on credit basis and the same was received by the defendant and also opened a khata in the name of his company with the plaintiff concern. The defendant has agreed the terms and conditions on the invoice and promise to abide the same. As per the invoice the defendant has to pay 18% interest for the delayed payments.

Towards part payment of legally enforceable debt due under the khata, the defendant has issued post dated cheques, upon dishonor of the cheques, the plaintiff filed cases U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act, then the defendant has paid the amount covered under the respective cheques and acknowledged the debt. There is a case pending against the defendant U/Sec.138 of N.I.Act, in which NBW was pending. The defendant company paid Rs.2,00,000/- by way of two separate DDs with bearing Nos.533284 and 533285 for Rs.1,00,000/- each and were presented in the bank on 20-9-2014 and were en-cahsed.

3

In spite of several demands made by the plaintiff for the repayment of the above said amount, the defendant did not pay the suit amount. There is an amount of Rs.2,12,885/- towards principal, besides an amount of Rs.6,64,742/- towards interest making total an amount of Rs.8,77,627/- due to the plaintiff as on 15-7-2017. The plaintiff got issued legal notice dated 22-7-2017 to the defendant.

But the defendant returned the same on 29-7-2017. The defendant did not pay the due amount under khata. Hence, the suit.

3. Service held sufficient, as such, the defendant was set exparte and remained exparte throughout proceedings of the suit.

4. To substantiate the claim of the plaintiff, the GPA Holder- cum- Authorized Signatory got examined as P.W.1 and got marked

Exs.A1 to A8. Ex.P1 is the Certified copy of General Power of

Attorney, dt.27-5-2013, Ex.P2 is the original copy of invoice, dt.8-6- 2011, Ex.P3 is the original copy of true computer extracted account copy, Ex.P4 is the attested copy of DD.533284, for Rs.1,00,000/- issued by defendant dt.30-8-2014, Ex.P5 is the attested copy of

DD.533284, for Rs.1,00,000/- issued by defendant dt.30-8-2014,

Ex.P6 is the original copy of deposit memo of DDs, dt.20-9-2014,

Ex.P7 is the original copy of registered legal notice sent to the defendant, dt.22-7-2017 and Ex.P8 is the original copy of returned regd. Legal notice, dt.29-7-2017.

4

5. Heard for plaintiff.

6. Now the point for determination is :

"Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount as prayed for ?"

7. P O I N T :

On perusal of the record, this suit is based on Khata. The defendant failed to attend before court and remained exparte. The plaintiff company examined GPA Holder cum Authorized signatory as

P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P8 were marked. The evidence of P.W.1 is corroborating with the documentary evidence. As the defendant did not appear before the court, did not file written statement, did not participate in trial, as such the evidence of P.W.1 is remained unchallenged and unrebutted. In such circumstances, this court constrained to believe the version of P.W.1. Hence, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as prayed. Hence, this point is answered in favour of plaintiff.

8. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant-company to pay Rs. Rs.8,77,627/- with subsequent 5 interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till its realization on the Principal amount of

Rs.2,12,885/- due under the khata.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr-I, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 6th day of

November, 2019. Sd/- K. Satya Naga Bala Prasad

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Guntur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff : For Defendant :

P.W.1 : SRM Nagappan Exparte.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff :

Ex.P1 : Certified copy of General Power of Attorney, dt.27-5-2013,

Ex.P2 : Original copy of invoice, dt.8-6-2011,

Ex.P3 : Original copy of true computer extracted account copy, Ex.P4 is the attested copy of DD.533284, for Rs.1,00,000/- issued by defendant dt.30-8-2014,

Ex.P5 : Attested copy of DD.533284, for Rs.1,00,000/- issued by defendant dt.30-8-2014,

Ex.P6 : Original copy of deposit memo of DDs, dt.20-9-2014, Ex.P7 is the original copy of registered legal notice sent to the defendant, dt.22-7-2017 and

Ex.P8 : Original copy of returned regd. Legal notice, dt.29-7-2017.

For Defendant : NIL.

Sd/- K. Satya Naga Bala Prasad

I A.S.C.J., Guntur.