K. Vani

1 SC.1121/2022

 IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE: TENALI

Present: Smt.K.Vani

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Tenali

Friday, this the 21st day of April, 2023

S.C.NO.1121 of 2022

(Cr.No.18/2022 of Tenali III Town PS in PRC.No.13/2022 on the file of I

Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Tenali)

Between : The State : Inspector of Police, Tenali III P.S

...Complainant.

And

Shaik Imran, S/o.Mahaboob Basha @ Dubai Basha, 23 years, c/Muslim, Pinapadu, Tenali.

…..Accused

This case came before me for final hearing on 19.04.2023 in the presence of learned Additional Public Prosecutor for prosecution and of Sri M.V.Sambasiva Rao,Advocate for accused and the matter is having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.This Sessions case arises out of P.R.C.No.13/2022 on the file of I

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali, in Crime No.18/2022 of

Tenali III Town Police Station under Sections 307, 324 I.P.C., which has been committed to the Court of Sessions by virtue of an order dated 12.10.2022 by the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali.

2.The case of prosecution in brief is that :

LW1-Shaik Nazeer is residing near Ratna Sree Public School, Pinapadu,

Tenali Town. He is eking his livelihood by doing farming works. He had two male and one female progeny. He performed marriages to his elder son and daughter.

His younger son is doing software job in Hyderabad and staying there. At present he and his wife staying with his elder son. About three months back he diagonosed with heart disease and got stunt at CVR Hospitals, Guntur. Today i.e., on 17.01.2021 at about 4.30 PM in the evening while he is sitting in front of his house, his distant relative accused/Shaik Imran came in drunken state and abusing him vulgarly, then he questioned him why he is abusing him, then accused shouted “endira Nakodaka,

Neeku na chethilo eroju chavu thappadu raa, ee bazaar lo nee pettanam ekkuvaindi, chavu nakodaka” and pushed LW1 down and sat upon him and caught hold of his 2 SC.1121/2022 neck with both hands firmly and tried to kill him, then LW1 went to suffocation state and unable to talk, then his wife LW2 Karimoon observed him and tried to stop accused Shaik Imran, then accused attacked LW2 on her head with a brick stone, then his wife screemed loudly, on observing the screams LW3-Shaik Ismail, LW4-

Shaik Allabakshu came out from the house, on seeing them accused fleeing away from there and fell on an adjacent mound of rocks. Then accused received abrasion injuries on his right waist. L.Ws 3 and 4 tried to caught hold of accused, but he escaped from there. If L.W3 and 4 not came there in time accused my killed him.

As accused attacked LW2 with brick stone, LW2 received swelling injury on her head.

As LW1 went to suffocation state Lws 3 and 4 admitted LW1 in Health hospitals

Tenali by an auto. Doctor treated him. In the past so many times LW1 reprimanded accused while he is causing nuisance in drunken state. By keeping them in his mind accused caught hold of his neck firmly with an intention to kill him.

On receipt of the hospital intimation, LW11-K.Suman visited the Health

Hospitals, Tenali and secured the complainant Shaik Nazeer, S/o.Meera Saheb, 63 years, C/Muslim, near Ratna Sree Public School, Pinapadu, Tenali Town, and registered it as a case in Cr.No.18/2022 under Section 307, 324 IPC of Tenali III town

Police Station on 17.01.2022 at 6.45 PM and submitted copies of FIR to all concerned officers and originals to the Hon’ble court and took up investigation.

During the course of investigation LW11 visited the scene of offence, examined it, drafted a rough sketch and examined as many as four witnesses and recorded their 161 Cr.PC statements in Part II C.D.

On 18.01.2022 LW11 arrested the sole accused Shaik Imran and sent him for remand.

On 19.01.2022, LW11 secured Lws 5 to 8 i.e., Shaik Khatija @ Masthani,

Shaik Sabida, Shaik Khaja, Shaik Ahmad examined them recorded their 161 Cr.PC statements and embodied them in Part II C.D.

On 20.01.2022 LW11 obtained wound certificate of the injured LW1 in which LW-9-Dr.K.Surya Teja opining that the injuries received by LW1 are simple in nature.

On 29.01.2022 LW11 obtained wound certificate of the injured LW2 in which LW10 Dr.Ch.Pavan Kumar opining that the injuries received by LW2 are simple in nature.

3 SC.1121/2022

LW11 completed investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused.

Hence the charge.

3.On receipt of charge sheet, the case was taken on file by the learned I

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali, for the offences under

under Sections 307, 324 of the Indian Penal Code, against the accused, by assigning PRC No.13 of 2022.

4. After supply of copies to the accused and by following the procedure under Section 209 Cr.P.C., the learned I Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali, had committed the case to the

Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Guntur, along with committal order. Upon

which, the same is numbered as Sessions Case No.1121/2022, by the

Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Guntur at and made over to this Court for

disposal according to law. 

5.After receipt of record and after appearance of the accused, the contents of the charge under Sections307 and 324 of Indian Penal Code, against the accused was framed and read over and explained to them in Telugu language, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the charges under Sections 307 and 324 of Indian Penal Code, framed against the accused. The accused reported that he has sufficient means to engage an advocate at his choice.

6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution examined PW1 to PW5 and marked Exs.P1 to P11.

7.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC explaining the incriminating evidence levelled against him, for which, he denied and reported no defence evidence on his behalf, hence closed.

8.After having heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for prosecution and learned counsel for accused, the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the 4 SC.1121/2022

accused for the charge under Sections 307 and 324 I.P.C., beyond all

reasonable doubt ?

Point :

9. The learned Addl.Public Prosecutor argued that accused is the distant relative of the injured complainant and the accused came in drunken state and abusing him vulgarly and try to kill the injured with brick stone and caused injuries and when injured complainant’s wife tried to rescue the complainant, the accused also injured her and the accused is liable for punishment of abetment of murder and causing hurt by brick stone under section 307 and 324 of Indian Penal Code and to prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution examined P.Ws 1 to 5. P.Ws 1 to 4 not supported the case of the prosecution.

Prosecution examined PW5 who is the investigating officer and basing on the evidence of P.W.5, learned Additional Public Prosecutor prays to convict the accused.

10.Per contra, the counsel for accused submitted that all prosecution witnesses including PW1 who is injured, did not support the case of the prosecution and he turned hostile and deposed that he do not know anything about this case, police did not examine him and recorded his statement. In this case except the evidence of Investigating Officer, there is no other evidence to connect the accused to the guilt. The prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and prays to acquit the accused.

11.Prosecution examined PW1­complainant, who is the injured. He deposed that accused is son of his cousin brother and on 17.01.2022 at about 4 PM while, he was sitting infront of his house, accused came there in a drunken condition, he requested the accused to go away from there as PW1 underwent heart operation, then PW1 slipped and fell down and PW1 got suffocation because of Asthma. LW3­Shaik Ismail shifted PW1 to the hospital and police obtained his signature on white paper and he do not know its 5 SC.1121/2022 contents and police did not examine him and recorded his statement in this case. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor sought permission to declare the witness as hostile and did the cross examination of PW1, but nothing could be elicited in support of his case except marking his Section 161 Cr.PC statement as Ex.P2 and Ex.P1 his signature on report.

12.Prosecution examined Pws 2 to 4, they all with one voice deposed that they do not know anything about this case and Police did not examine them and recorded their statements. As per the case of prosecution, they know the accused and he came to know that the injured sustained bleeding injuries, but they deposed that they do not know about the case and police did not examine them. The learned Addl.Public Prosecutor sought permission to declare the witnesses as hostile and did the cross examination of PW2 and 4 but nothing could be elicited from them in support of the case of prosecution except marking their Section 161 Cr.P.C statements as Exs.P3 to P5. So, the evidence of Pws 2 and 4 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution.

13.Prosecution examined PW5­K.Suman deposed that he is working as S.I of police, Balaji Nagar PS, Nellore. Previously he worked as S.I of police, III Town P.S,

Tenali from 06.11.2019 to 19.03.2022. On 17.01.2022, at 6.00 PM, they received a phone call from the Health Hospital on the alleged offfence. On the same day, at about 6.10 PM, he went to Health Hospital and he recorded the statement of PW1.

Basing on the same, he registered the present case as in Cr.No.18/2022 under

Section 307, 324 IPC and issued FIR to all concerned. Ex.P6 is report. Ex.P7 is FIR.

On the same day, he went to scene of offence situated at Ratna Sri School, Pinapadu i.e., to the house of PW1 there he examined PW1, PW2, LW2 and 3 and recorded their statements. On 20.01.2022, he received wound certificate of PW1 from LW9.

He received wound certificate of LW2 from LW10 on 29.01.2022. After completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet. Ex.P8 is rough sketch. Ex.P9 is wound certificate of PW1. Ex.P10 is wound certificate of LW2. Ex.P11 is the Health Hospital intimation dated 17.01.2022. Pws 2 to 4 stated before him as in Ex.P2 to P4.

14. As per the evidence of PW6, Accused confessed his guilt in the presence of police. As per Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, a confession 6 SC.1121/2022 in the custody of police cannot be proved against accused. Though the recording is admissible under the law but it is not safe to give conviction when entire witnesses of prosecution deposed otherwise including the injured i.e.,

P.W1. So, the evidence of PW5 is also not helpful to the case of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused.

15.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of

LW2­Shaik Karimoon, LW3­Shaik Ismail, LW5­Shaik Khathija @ Masthani,

LW6­Shaik Sabida, LW9­Dr.K.Surya Teja, LW10­Dr.Ch.Pavan Kumar.

16.Though the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW5, but nothing could be elicited from them that the accused tried to murder PW1 and caused injuries PW1 and PW2. As discussed supra, the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused under Sections 307 and 324 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and it is a fit case to acquit the accused. 

17.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the charged offence under Sections 307, 324 IPC and he is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of accused shall be cancelled after expiry of 6 months period.

Sureties of accused shall be discharged after expiry of appeal time. 

(Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced the operating portion of the judgment by me in the open Court,

this the 21st day of April, 2023.)

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,

Tenali. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For Prosecution: For Defence: PW1 – Shaik Nazeer ­Nil­ PW2 – Shaik Allabakshu PW3 – Shaik Khaja PW4 – Shaik Ahamad PW5 – K.Suman

Exhibits Marked For Prosecution: Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1. Ex.P2 is the contents of under Section 161 Cr.PC statement of PW1. Ex.P3 is the contents of under Section 161 Cr.PC statement of PW2. Ex.P4 is the contents of under Section 161 Cr.PC statement of PW3. Ex.P5 is the contents of under Section 161 Cr.PC statement of PW4.

7 SC.1121/2022

Ex.P6 is the report given by PW1. Ex.P7 is the FIR. Ex.P8 is rough sketch. Ex.P9 is wound certificate of PW1. Ex.P10 is wound certificate of LW2. Ex.P11 is HealthHospital intimation dated 17.01.2022.

Material Objects Marked Nil

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,

Tenali.

Copies submitted to:

1. The Hon'ble High Court, Amaravathi through the Hon'ble District Court, Guntur in CD.,

2. The Hon'ble District Judge, Guntur. Copies to:

1. The I Addl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tenali.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Urban District,

3. The Addl. Public Prosecutor, Tenali.

* 8 SC.1121/2022

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE: TENALI

01. Number of the Sessions Case: S.C. No.1121 of 2022

02. Name of the Committal Court: I Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First 

Class, Tenali and number of it’s file PRC.No.13 of 2022

03. Name of the complainant and: Inspector of Police, Tenali III Town PS

Number. In Cr. No.18/2022

04. Name of the accused: Shaik Imran, S/o.Mahaboob Basha @ Dubai Basha, 23 years, c/Muslim, Pinapadu, Tenali.

05. Date of committal: 12.10.2022

06. Date of receipt of record: 22.10.2022

07. Date of appearance of accused: 09.12.2022

08. Date of commencement of trial: 28.02.2023

09. Date of closure of trial : 24.03.2023

10. Date of Judgment: 21.04.2023

11. Nature of offence : U/s.307 and 324 IPC

12. Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty 

13. Finding of the Court: Found not guilty

14. Sentence or order : In the result, accused is found not guilty for the charged offence under Sections 307, 324 IPC and he is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be cancelled after expiry of 6 months period. Sureties of accused shall be discharged after expiry of appeal time.

15. Explanation for the delay : Record received on 22.10.2022 and later this case underwent adjournments for appearance of accused and for hearing on charge. On 28.02.2023, charges framed against the accused for the offence

U/s. 307 and 324 IPC, for which he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The case underwent adjournments for fixation of schedule.

On 21.03.2023, PW1 to PW4 were examined and marked Ex.P1 to P5. On 9 SC.1121/2022 01.03.2023, PW4 and PW5 were examined and marked Ex.P5. On 02.03.2023,

PW6 examined and Exs.P6 to P11 and M.O.1 to M.O.5 were marked. On 24.03.2023, PW5 was examined and Exs.P6 to P11 were marked and further evidence closed. On 17.04.2023, the accused was examined under Section 313

Cr.PC, explaining the incriminating evidence levelled against him, for which, he denied and reported no defence evidence on his behalf, hence closed. Heard both sides on 19.04.2023. Judgment was delivered on 21.04.2023.

Addl.Asst. Sessions Judge,Tenali * 10 SC.1121/2022 11 SC.1121/2022

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: TENALI

PRESENT: Smt. K. VANI

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali

FAC. Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali

Monday, this the 29th day of August, 2022

HMOP No.159 of 2022

Between:

Yemineni Sai Chandana @ Mamidala Sai Chandana, W/o. Yemineni Phani Sridhar, aged 22 years, Hindu, D/o. Mamidala Raju (Late), R/o. Jampani village,

Vemuru mandal, Bapatla district. ..Petitioner.

And

Yemineni Phani Sridhar, S/o. Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, aged about 21 years, R/o. Vemuru village, Vemuru mandal,

Bapatla district. ..Respondent.

This petition coming on 24.8.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri I. Raja Ram, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Respondent was set exparte, and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the petitioner/wife under Section 13 (1) (ia) of Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 seeking the Court to grant decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of the petitioner which took place with the respondent/husband, and costs of the petition.

The averments of the petition in brief are as follows:

2.The love cum arranged marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place on 20.02.2021 at Vemuru village, Vemuru mandal of

Bapatla District as per Hindu rites, customs and heritage, the marriage was consummated and the petitioner joined with the respondent to lead family life at

Vemuru. Since the day of marriage the respondent is having vices like drinking and gambling and the respondent and his parents started harassing the petitioner physically and mentally, demanding to bring money from her parental house for his bad vices. Further they did not provide food and daily livelihood needs to the petitioner. They further used to say that if the respondent married another girl, he 2 would get lumpsum money in the form of dowry. Then the petitioner informed the same to her mother and the mother of the petitioner along with elders went to the house of the respondent and expressed their inability to give any money or valuable things towards dowry and requested the respondent not to harass the petitioner. Then the respondent and his parents looked-after the petitioner well for some time and again started harassing the petitioner demanding to bring money of Rs.2,00,000/- from her mother and beat the petitioner indiscriminately and necked out the petitioner from the matrimonial house. In the said circumstances the mother of the petitioner along with elders went to the house of the respondent and gave Rs.50,000/- to the respondent and requested the respondent and his family members not to harass the petitioner and not to demand for further amount or things as additional dowry. Then the respondent allowed the petitioner to lead marital life with him. They were not blessed with any children during their wedlock.

3.The petitioner further averred that though the mother of the petitioner gave

Rs.50,000/- the respondent did not satisfy with that amount and again beat the petitioner to bring money from her mother and necked out the petitioner from the matrimonial house. Then on 14.6.2022 the petitioner came to her paternal house. After two days the parents of the petitioner went to the house of the respondent in Vemuru along with petitioner and elders and asked about the cruel harassment of the respondent. Then the respondent grew wild against the petitioner and her mother and beat the petitioner and her mother with legs and hands. Then the elders intervened and said to the respondent and his parents that the petitioner and her mother have no capacity to give the additional dowry as demanded by the respondent and his family members and requested to allow the petitioner to rejoin with the respondent. But the respondent did not heed the request of the mother and elders of the petitioner and refused to take back the petitioner to lead marital life and also stated that if the parents of the petitioner failed to give the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, the respondent and his family members will not allow the petitioner for marital life and demanded to give divorce.

4.The petitioner further averred that there are no hopes for reunion of marital tie between the petitioner and the respondent in future also. The petitioner is apprehending danger to her life and limbs if she joins with the respondent.

3

Hence the petitioner is constrained to file this petition. This petition is not presented in collusion with the respondent. There is no necessary or improper delay in institution of this proceedings. Except this petitioner there is no other similar petition was filed or is pending or disposed in any other court. Hence the petition.

5.The notice to respondent sent through court and RP was served. But the respondent did not attend the court. Hence he was set exparte.

6.In support of the case of the petitioner, the petitioner examined herself as

PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3.

7. Heard for petitioner. Perused entire material on record.

8. On the strength of the above pleadings, the points for consideration are:

1.Whether the petitioner is entitled to decree of divorce by dissolving her marriage with the respondent as prayed for?

2. To what relief ?

9.POINT No.1:- In support of the case of the petitioner, the petitioner filed affidavit in lieu of her chief examination as PW.1 by reiterating the averments of the petition. In support of her oral evidence she got marked Exs.P1 to P3 i.e.,

Ex.P1 is Wedding Card, Ex.P2 is Marriage Photos along with CD and Ex.P3 is

Lagna Patrika.

10.Here, the case and evidence of Petitioner as PW.1 is that her marriage with the respondent was a love cum arranged marriage and it took place on 20.02.2021 at Vemuru village as per Hindu rites and customs. After consummation of the marriage she joined with the respondent to lead family life at Vemuru and since the day of marriage the respondent is having vices like drinking and gambling, and used to harass the petitioner to bring money for his bad vices. Further the parents of the respondent used to scold the petitioner stating that she did not bring any dowry or valuable things from her parental house and also harassed her physically and mentally stating that if the respondent married another girl, he would have get lumpsum money in the form of dowry. They also not provided food and daily livelihood needs to the petitioner.

4

Then the petitioner informed the same to her mother. The mother along with elders came to the respondent’s house, expressed their inability to give any money or valuable things towards dowry and requested him not to harass the petitioner. Then the respondent and his parents looked-after the petitioner well for some time.

11.It is also the case and evidence of petitioner that later again they started harassing the petitioner to bring money of Rs.2,00,000/- from her mother, beat the petitioner and necked out her from the matrimonial house. As such, the petitioner reached to her parental house. At that time the mother of the petitioner along with the petitioner and elders went and gave Rs.50,000/- to the respondent and requested the respondent and his family members not to harass the petitioner and not to demand for further amount or things as additional dowry.

Then the respondent allowed the petitioner to lead marital life with him.

12.The petitioner further deposed in her evidence that though the mother of the petitioner gave Rs.50,000/-, the respondent did not satisfy and again beat the petitioner to bring money from her mother and necked out the petitioner from the matrimonial house. Then on 14.6.2022 the petitioner came to her parental house. Two days thereafter the mother of the petitioner along with the petitioner and elders went to the house of the respondent and asked about the cruel harassment of the respondent towards the petitioner. Then the respondent grew wild and beat the petitioner and her mother with legs and hands. Then elders of the petitioner requested the respondent and his parents not to demand for

additional dowry as the petitioner and her mother have no capacity to give the

additional dowry and also requested them to allow the petitioner to rejoin with the

respondent. But the respondent bluntly refused to take back the petitioner to lead marital life, by stating that if the mother of the petitioner failed to give the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, the respondent and his family members will not allow the petitioner for marital life and he also demanded to give divorce. As such there is no hope for reunion between the petitioner and the respondent in future also.

Further the petitioner is apprehending danger to her life and limb if she joins with the respondent. Hence she filed this petition for divorce.

13.On the other hand though respondent received the notice sent through court, he did not attend before court to contest the case and to deny the case and 5 evidence of the petitioner, and remained exparte. Hence the evidence of petitioner remained unchallenged.

14.So, here, the unchallenged evidence of the petitioner proved that the respondent and his parents harassed the petitioner physically and mentally by demanding the petitioner to bring additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- from her mother. Demanding to bring additional dowry would amounts to cruelty. Further the respondent withdrew from the society of the petitioner without any reasonable cause. The ingredients u/sec.13(1)(ia) are attracted. So, the petitioner is entitled to decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. Hence this point is answered accordingly.

15.Point No.2 :- In the result, this petition is allowed without costs by granting decree of divorce in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent by dissolving the petitioner’s marriage which took place with the respondent on 20.02.2021, from the date of this order.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 29th day of August, 2022.

Sd/-xx

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, FAC.Principal Senior Civil Judg,Tenali.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner:

PW1 : Yemineni Sai Chandana @ Mamidala Sai Chandrana.

For Respondent:

--None--

Exhibits Marked

For Petitioner:

Ex.P1 : Wedding Card. Ex.P2 : Marriage photos long with CD. Ex.P3 : Lagna Patrika.

For Respondent:

--Nil--

Sd/-xx

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, FAC. Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: TENALI

PRESENT: SMT K.VANI

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TENALI

Friday, this the 21st day of April, 2023

HMOP No.248 of 2022

Between:

Mathi Venkateswara Rao, S/o.naga Malleswara Rao, aged about 29 years, Hindu, Car Driver, r/o.H.No.1-45-20, Puttavari Street, Nazerpet, Tenali, Tenali JCJC.

...Petitioner

And

Mathi Sudharani W/o.Venkateswara Rao, aged about 26 years, Hindu, House wife, residing at NTR Centre, Nandulapet, Tenali, Tenali JCJC.

...Respondent

This petition came before me on 10.04.2023 for hearing in the presence of Sri S.Maruthi Prasad, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri M.P.Bhimeswar, Advocate for the respondent and upon hearing and considering the material on record, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

: : O R D E R : :

1.This petition is filed under Section 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the petitioner/husband seeking the Court to grant decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of the petitioner/husband with the respondent/wife, which was held on 25.02.2016 and costs of the petition.

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

i) The respondent is legally wedded wife of the petitioner. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place on 25.02.2016 at

Vykuntapuram Devasthanam, Tenali as per Hindu rites and customs. As a principle, no lanchanams were exchanged between the parties. Immediately after the marriage, the marriage was consummated and she joined the petitioner for leading marital life, at his parents house in Turpupalem, Cherukupalli Mandal. Both of them lived together happily for a period of three months and subsequently they 2 put up separate family at Tenali. Out of their wed-lock, they blessed with a male issue on 03.02.2017 namely Lacky Akeer.

ii)From the beginning of the marriage, the respondent did not lookafter the family affairs in the house and did not cook food also even to her husband and child. The respondent used to comment that she will marry him with the pressure of her parents. The respondent picked up petty quarrels with petitioner and to give his earnings for her luxurious life. Whenever the petitioner did not give such amounts, the respondent ill treated him both physically and mentally. The respondent also commented that she has no interest to lead family life with him.

The respondent also did not lookafter the child well. The petitioner informed her ill treatment to her parents and inspite of their advise also, respondent did not change her attitude.

Iii)The respondent used to go to her parents house and reside there days together and whenever she wants to return, she return to petitioner’s house. But all of sudden on 10.05.2019 in the absence of petitioner, respondent went away to her parents house with their son with her baggage without informing to the petitioner.

The petitioner went to her parents house and requested her but the respondent and her parents bluntly refused for the same and threatened him with dire consequences.

iv) The respondent is living separately from the petitioner more than two years.

The efforts made by the petitioner and his family members proved futile. There is no hope of reconciliation. Hence, the petitioner constrained to file this petition on ground of cruelty and desertion. Hence, this petition.

3. The respondent filed counter denying all the allegations mentioned in the petition. The respondent in her counter further stated that she is not at all interested 3 to be with the petitioner due to many reasons and she expressed that she has no objection to grant divorce.

4. In support of the case of the petitioner, the petitioner examined himself as

PW1 and Ex.P1 and P2 are marked.The respondent herself examined as RW1 and no documents were marked on her behalf.

5. Heard both sides. Perused entire material on hand.

6. On the strength of the above pleadings, the point to be determined is:

Whether the petitioner is entitled to decree of divorce by dissolving his marriage with the respondent held on 25.02.2016 as prayed for?

7.POINT:

(i)The contention of the counsel for petitioner is that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place on 25.02.2016 as per Hindu rites and customs and out of their wedlock, they blessed with a baby boy and due to misunderstandings, the respondent left the company of the petitioner and since more than two years they are living separately and elders compromised the matter for dissolution of marriage now and prays to dissolve the marriage by way of decree of divorce.

ii) To substantiate the contention of the petitioner, the petitioner examined himself as PW1 by filing affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief wherein he reiterated the petition averments and as such, examination-in-chief of PW1 is nothing but replica of the petition. In addition to that, he also produced Ex.P1 and P2. On perusal of

Exs.P1 and P2, it is seen that Ex.P1 is wedding invitation. Ex.P3 is marriage photos (2 in number) along with CD. PW1 in his cross examination stated that the matter is compromised before elders and the petitioner paid Rs.2,20,000/- to respondent towards permanent alimony. Respondent agreed not to file civil or 4 criminal cases against each other and the respondent agreed to grant divorce in her favour.

Iii)The respondent herself examined as RW1, who filed her affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief and no documents were marked on her behalf.

iv)As per the evidence of PW1 and RW1 coupled with the averments of the petition and counter, the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent took place on 25.02.2016 as per Hindu rites and customs. Elders compromised the matter and the respondent received an amount of Rs.2,20,000/- from the petitioner towards permanent alimony respondent has no objection to grant divorce to the petitioner and they both agreed not to file any civil or criminal cases against each other in future. Hence, this point is answered accordingly.

(iv) In the result, the petition is allowed, without costs, by granting a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent took place on 25.02.2016, from the date of this order.

(Typed to my dictation to the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced the operating portion of this order by me in open Court, this the 21st day of April, 2023.)

Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Tenali.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner:

PW1- Mathi Venkateswara Rao

For Respondent:

RW1 – Mathi Sudharani

Exhibits Marked

For Petitioner:

Ex.P1 is wedding invitation.

5

Ex.P3 is marriage photos (2 in number) along with CD.

For Respondent:

Nil

Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Tenali.

* 6

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: TENALI

PRESENT: SMT K.VANI

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TENALI

Friday, this the 21st day of April, 2023

HMOP No.248 of 2022

Between:

Mathi Venkateswara Rao, S/o.naga Malleswara Rao, aged about 29 years, Hindu, Car Driver, r/o.H.No.1-45-20, Puttavari Street, Nazerpet, Tenali, Tenali JCJC.

...Petitioner

And

Mathi Sudharani W/o.Venkateswara Rao, aged about 26 years, Hindu, House wife, residing at NTR Centre, Nandulapet, Tenali, Tenali JCJC.

...Respondent

This petition is filed under Section 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the petitioner/husband seeking the Court to grant decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of the petitioner/husband with the respondent/wife, which was held on 25.02.2016 and costs of the petition.

Petition presented on:31.10.2022

Petition filed on:04.11.2022

Cause of action :

Cause of action for the petition arose when the petitioner put up separate family with respondent at Tenali after their marriage and out of their wedlock, they blessed with a son on 03.02.2017 and when respondent ill treated the petitioner both physically and mentally as she likes by abusing him in filthy language and out of the family prestige petitioner bore all her ill treatment and on 10.05.2019 when respondent went to her parents house without informing the petitioner with her bag and baggage and the child and when respondent failed to come and live with him for leading family life inspite of personal requests and mediations made by petitioner and at Tenali where the marriage took place and where both of them lived together - which is within the jurisdiction of this Court.

Particulars of Valuation :

This being a petition filed under the provisions U/s.13 (1) (ia)(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on which, a fixed Court fee of Rs.10/- is herewith paid Under Sch.II Art.I of A.P.C.F and S.V Act.

This petition came before me on 10.04.2023 for hearing in the presence of Sri S.Maruthi Prasad, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri M.P.Bhimeswar, Advocate for the respondent and upon hearing and considering the material on record, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made doth order and decree as follows:

7

1)That the petition be and the same is hereby allowed.

2)that the marriage dated 25.02.2016 between the petitioner and the respondent be and the same is hereby dissolved by way of a decree of divorce from the date of this order ; and

3)that the petitioner do bear his own institutional costs of Rs.12/- and the respondent do bear his own costs of Rs.Nil (CM and FC not filed).

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 21st day of April, 2023.

Addl.Senior Civil Judge,

Tenali

Table of costs

DescriptionPetitionerRespondent

CM and FC not filedCM and FC not filed

Vakalat2=00-

Stamps on petition10=00-

Total12=00Nil

Addl.Senior Civil Judge,

Tenali *

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: TENALI

PRESENT: SMT. K. VANI,

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TENALI

Friday, this the 21st day of April, 2023

HMOP.No.228/2022

Between:

1. Nalajala Siva Prasad S/o.Sivanarayana, aged about 38 years, Occ : Private Job, 4-64, Angalakuduru, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh-522211.

2. Nalajala Prabhadevi Siva Prasad W/o.Nalajala Siva Prasad, aged about 23 years,

Occ : Private Job, Ivanagi Road, Haralayya Kaloni Basavan Bagewadi,

Vijayapura, Karnataka-586203.… Petitioners

And

NIL… Respondent

This petition has come up for hearing before me on 12.04.2023 in the presence of Sri S. Ram Mohan Rao, Advocate for Petitioners and this matter has been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the Petitioners/Husband/Wife to pass a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the Petitioners 1 and 2 on mutual consent under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act and for costs.

2]The averments of the petition-affidavit in brief are that:

The Petitioners are legally wedded Husband and Wife. The marriage of the petitioners was solemnized on 23.03.2016 at Kowada Paramdhamaiah Tulsamma

Garla Function Hall at Angalakuduru, Tenali, Guntur District as per Hindu, Rites and

Customs. The marriage was arranged marriage. Immediately after the marriage, the 2nd petitioner was joined with the 1st petitioner to lead their matrimonial life. During their wedlock they blessed two daughters namely N. Pranathi, aged about 6 years and N. Lavanya, aged about 2 years. The petitioners submitted that the petitioner

No.1 and 2 are lived together happily for about 3 years, thereafter some disputes have been arised in between them with regard to status, customs, traditions, habits, income etc., ultimately they disputed with each other and they lost love and affection among them and they developed aversion against each other, thereafter the petitioner No.2 left company of petitioner No.1 and she went to her parents house,

Vijyapura, Karnataka State. On 04.01.2020 onwards the petitioner No.2 living with their parents, both sides parents tried their level best to settle the matter amicably but in vain, finally petitioner No.1 and 2 decided themselves to take mutual divorce with their mutual consent, according to legal process from the competent court. The petitioner further submits that basing on their decision they both entered in to memo of understanding on 02.08.2022 in Angalakuduru, Guntur District under the below terms and conditions. According to Memo of understanding petitioner No.2 assured to the petitioner No.1 that she will not claim any maintenance, alimony, etc., at any point of time. The petitioner No.1 voluntarily agreed to pay an amount of

Rs.4,00,000/- to the petitioner No.2 and her childrens towards permanent alimony as full and final settlement, the petitioner No.2 agreed and assured to the petitioner

No.1 that she cannot claim any maintenance or alimony in future. In the above said

Rs.4,00,000/-, at first Rs.1,00,000/- will be paid by the petitioner No.1 to the petitioner No.2 in two installments. The first installment of Rs.25,000/- will be paid at the time of filing mutual divorce petition in the above said court, Tenali and second installment of Rs.75,000/- will be paid at the time of declaring mutual divorce in the court. The remaining balance of Rs.3,00,000/- will be paid by petitioner No.1 to his two children in the form of postal saving certificate of each Rs.1,50,000/-, they can withdraw only when they are major and that postal saving certificate petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 will be nominees. The postal saving certificates handed over to childrens at the time of declaring mutual divorce in the court. The petitioner No.2 assured to the petitioner No.1 that she will not claim any movable or immovable properties of petitioner No.1 and his family or his self earned properties etc., at any point of time, she is voluntarily relinquished her rights over the movable and immovable properties such as gold, silver, household articles, utensils kind or cash.

The petitioner No.1 voluntarily agreed and assured to petitioner No.2 and handed over the responsibility of their two childrens to provide education, medical and marriages ect., and voluntarily relinquished her rights over her childrens at the same time, the complete responsibility of the two children was handed over to the petitioner No.2. The petitioners are in desertion since 04.01.2020 till today more than 2 ½ years and petitioner No.1 and 2 agreed and assured with each other that they will not interfere in their individual personal life in future in any manner i.e., forwarding of messages through whatsapp, face book or mails etc., and also handed over all the marriage photos etc., to the elders on the day of declaring divorce in the court, the same will be destroyed and also agreed and assured with each other that one should not abused others in any manner and cannot spread any kind of gossips, rumours etc., either directly or indirectly in any manner. The petitioner No.1 willfully relinquished her rights over the two children at the same time the petitioner No.2 had taken the responsibility of the children and their education, marriages etc., as natural mother. There is no collusion between the petitioners in filing this petition. No similar application was filed or pending before any other Court. Hence, this petition.

3]To substantiate their respective claims, as the matter was not settled for reunion. Hence, proceedings are commenced. The first petitioner is examined as

P.W.1 and the second petitioner is examined as P.W.2. Both expressed that they does not want to live together and seeking divorce. Exs.P1 and P2 are marked i.e., Ex.P1 is

Marriage card and Ex. P2 is Memorandum of understanding deed.

4]Heard the counsel for the petitioners.

5]Now the point for determination is:

Whether the petitioners 1 and 2 are entitled for dissolution of marriage for decree of divorce on mutual consent?

6]POINT:

In order to prove the case of petitioners, the petitioners 1 and 2 were examined as P.WS 1 and 2. The petitioners in their chief examination affidavits reiterated the contents of the petition. Basing on the evidence of P.WS 1 and 2, it is clear that the marriage of P.WS 1 and 2 was solemnized as per Hindu Rites and Customs on 23.03.2016. During their wedlock they blessed two female children. P.W.1 and 2 have no issues. There are serious disputes arose between PWS 1 and 2. P.W.1 gave an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to P.W.2 and her children towards her life time maintenance under full and final satisfaction and towards her permanent life time alimony the same was received by P.W.2. P.W.2 relinquished her rights over the movable and immovable properties such a gold, silver, household articles, utensils kind or cash. P.W.2 also assured and agreed that she will not claim any rights from

P.W.1 either from movable or immovable properties including maintenance by relinquishing all her rights. Basing on the evidence of P.WS 1 and 2 coupled with

Ex.P1 and P2, this court is of the considered opinion that P.WS 1 and 2 have no interest to lead conjugal life and hence there is no chance for reunion to lead marital life in future. Hence it is a fit case to grant decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of P.WS 1 and 2 on mutual consent. Therefore the petitioners/P.WS 1 and 2 are entitled for divorce on mutual consent. Accordingly, this point is answered.

7]In the result, the petition is allowed without costs by granting a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage held on 23-03-2016 between the petitioners 1 and 2 on their mutual consent.

Typed to my dictation on computer by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the21st day of April, 2023.

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Tenali

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS: FOR RESPONDENT:

P.W.1: Nalajala Siva Prasad--- None --- P.W.2: Nalajala Prabhadevi Siva Prasad

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS: FOR RESPONDENT:

Ex.P1: is Marriage card,--- Nil --- Ex. P2 is Memorandum of understanding deed.

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Tenali

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: TENALI

PRESENT: Smt. K. VANI

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali

FAC. Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali

Wednesday, this the 24th day of August, 2022

HMOP No.157 of 2022

Between:

Naga Bhairava Sankara Rao, S/o. Sundara Rao, Hindu, aged about 42 years, Private Employee, R/o. Satya Apartment,

Nandulapet, Tenali, Guntur district. ..Petitioner.

And

Nagabhairava Durga Kalyani, W/o. Sankara Rao, Hindu, aged about 39 years, House-wife, C/o. Simhadri Ranga Rao, Door No.5-269, Kothapet street, Chagallu village and mandal,

West Godavari district. ..Respondent.

This petition coming on 22.8.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.K. Rambabu, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Respondent was set exparte, and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the petitioner/husband under Section 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking the Court to grant decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of the petitioner which took place with the respondent/wife, and costs of the petition.

The averments of the petition in brief are as follows:

2.The respondent is the legally wedded wife of petitioner their marriage solemnized on 08.4.2010 at Dwaraka Tirumala Temple, as per Hindu Rites and customs, immediately they put up their family at Rajolu and later they shifted family to Tenali.

3.The petitioner further averred that the respondent did not accept the version of the petitioner, used to insult the petitioner before elders and not co- operated with the petitioner as dutiful wife and harassed the petitioner in every moment. Then the elders came to rescue and told the resopndent it is not proper 2 way to insult the petitioner before elders, but the respondent did not give any reply. Then the elders also advised the petitioner to adjust with the respondent and lead their marital duties. But the respondent did not listen the words of the petitioner, and demanded the petitioner to come to Chagallu for Illarikam and she left Tenali, in the month of December, 2014 and went to her parents house at

Chagalli.

4.The petitioner further averred that then the attempts and requests of the petitioner along with elders namely Nagabhauirava Subbarao, Nagabhairava

Venkateswara Rao, Alapati Nagabhushanam, to convince the respondent to come to Tenali for leading happy marital life, were proved futile as the respondent bluntly refused to come to Tenali and openly proclaimed that she has no interest to lead marital life with the petitioner. There is no scope of reunion. There is no collusion between the petitioner and the respondent in filing this petition. No such petition is filed by either party under the Hindu Marriage Act. Hence this petition.

5.The notice to respondent sent through through RP was served. But the respondent did not attend the court. Hence she was set exparte.

6.In support of the case of the petitioner, the petitioner examined himself as

PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 and Ex.P2.

7. Heard for petitioner. Perused entire material on record.

8. On the strength of the above pleadings, the points for consideration are:

1.Whether the petitioner is entitled to decree of divorce by dissolving his marriage with the respondent as prayed for?

2. To what relief ?

9.POINT No.1:- In support of the case of the petitioner, the petitioner filed affidavit in lieu of his chief examination as PW.1 by reiterating the averments of the petition. In support of his oral evidence he got marked Exs.P1 and P2 i.e.,

Ex.P1 is Marriage Card, and Ex.P2 is Marriage Photo and CD.

10.Here, the case and evidence of Petitioner as PW.1 is that his marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 08.4.2010 at Dwaraka Tirumala Temple, as 3 per Hindu rites and customs, and immediately they put up family at Rajolu and later they shifted family to Tenali. It is also the case and evidence of the petitioner that the respondent did not co-operate with the petitioner as a dutiful wife, demanded the petitioner to come to Chagallu for Illarikam and left Tenali in the month of December, 2014, and went to her parents house at Chagallu and the mediations made by parents of the petitioner and elders proved futile, and as such they have been living separately from the last 7 ½ years. They were not blessed with any children during their wedlock. Hence the petitioner filed this petition for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent.

11.On the other hand though respondent received the notice sent through RP, she did not attend before court to contest the case and to deny the case and evidence of the petitioner, and remained exparte. Hence the evidence of petitioner remained unchallenged.

12.So, here, the unchallenged evidence of the petitioner proved that the respondent harassed the petitioner physically and mentally by her behaviour and without cooperating with the petitioner as a dutiful wife and also harassed him by insulting him before elders and by pressurizing him to come to Chagallu for

Illarikam, which amounts to cruelty, and finally in the month of December, 2014, she left the company of the petitioner at Tenali and reached to her parents house at chagallu, and thus she deserted the petitioner without any reasonable cause, and residing separately from the petitioner from the last 7 ½ years. The ingredients u/sec.13(1)(ia)(ib) are attracted. So, the petitioner is entitled to decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Hence this point is answered accordingly.

13.Point No.2 :- In the result, this petition is allowed without costs by granting decree of divorce in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent by dissolving the petitioner’s marriage which took place with the respondent on 08.4.2010, from the date of this order.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 24th day of August, 2022.

Sd/-xx

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, FAC.Principal Senior Civil Judg,Tenali.

4

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner:

PW1 : Naga Bhairava Sankara Rao.

For Respondent:

--None--

Exhibits Marked

For Petitioner:

Ex.P1 : Marriage Card.

Ex.P2 : Marriage photo and CD.

For Respondent:

--Nil--

Sd/-xx

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, FAC.Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali.