Sri M. Arjun

HMOP No.42/2020 Page 1 of 7

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-ASSISTANT

SESSIONS JUDGE, AT PEDDAPALLI

PRESENT: Sri M.Arjun,

Senior Civil Judge-cum-

Assistant Sessions Judge,

Peddapalli.

Thursday, on this the 18th day of April, 2024

H.M.O.P. No.42 OF 2020

Between:

Gopagani Kishan Das, S/o. Gattaiah, 43 years, Occ: Post Graduation Teacher, R/o. H.No.8-14, Kolanuoor Village of Odela Mandal in Peddapalli District. … Petitioner No.1 A N D

Gajula @ Gopagani Komala, W/o. Kishan Das, 33 years, Occ: B.Com., B.Ed. (D/o. Smt & Sri Laxmi – Late Ramaswamy), C/o. Gajula Rajender, R/o. H.No.8-14, Kolanuoor Village of Odela Mandal, now residing at Chinnakomire Village, Post: Peddakomire Village of Odela Mandal in Peddapalli District.

… Petitioner No.2

This petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri R.Suresh Babu, Advocate for Petitioner No.1 and Sri G.Bheema & Sri P.Srinivas, Advocates for Petitioner No.2 and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till today, this Court made the following:-

:: O R D E R ::

This is a petition filed under Section 13 (B) of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by both the petitioners herein seeking dissolution of their marriage dated 04.04.2016 and for divorce by mutual consent.

HMOP No.42/2020 Page 2 of 7

2. The contents of the petition filed by the petitioners are to the effect that, the petitioner No. 2 is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner No.1, and the said marriage was performed on 04.04.2016 at SR Gardens, Sultanabad as per

Hindu caste, custom and usage prevailing in the community.

The marriage between petitioners No.1 and 2 is consanguineous marriage, the father of the petitioner No.2 is natural brother of the mother of the petitioner No.1. After the marriage, both the petitioners carried their matrimonial life at the house of petitioner No.1 hardly for some period and the marriage between the petitioners was consummated and the same is still in subsistence. Out of the marital fold in between petitioner No.1 and 2, no issues born to them. Immediately, some disputes cropped up between the petitioners and same were reached to the line of divorce. By that reason, several panchayaths were held by the caste and village elders. A panchayath was also took place on 09.09.2023 at Kolanoor

Village of Odela Mandal in Peddapalli District, and both side elders have given advices them to maintain the family life amicably, but they did not heed and expressed their opinion to take divorce. Since 25.07.2017 onwards the petitioners are residing separately and there is no cohabitation between the parties from that day to till to date.

HMOP No.42/2020 Page 3 of 7

2(a)It is further averred by the petitioners that as per the advice of elders, the petitioner No.1 agreed to pay an of

Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs only) to the petitioner No.2 towards her past, present and future maintenance. The said amount is fixed in the joint account of the elders of both sides and the said amount will be paid to the petitioner No.2 on the day of order of this petition. The petitioner No.2 agreed to receive such amount in future course of proceedings of this case. The said amount would be the full and final settlement of permanent alimony to her, the parties already exchanged their articles which are presented to each other at the time of marriage, and a separate agreement executed to that effect.

Nothing is remained with the either parties and both of them have agreed that they have no right or claim against each other in any manner as there is no scope of the reunion. Further they submitted that the petitioners have not filed any similar petition in any other Court, except filing the present petition for dissolution of the marriage. Since there is no possibility to re-union in matrimonial life, both the petitioners are filing the present petition for grant of divorce mutually. Hence the petition.

3.Petitioners filed this petition under Section 13 (B) of

HMOP No.42/2020 Page 4 of 7

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of divorce by way of mutual consent. Both the parties appeared before this Court and stated that they voluntarily agreed for divorce on mutual consent and the reconciliation efforts made by this Court failed.

At request of both the petitioners, the matter was taken up for enquiry.

4.Both the parties filed their evidence affidavits in lieu of examinations in chief and are examined as Pws.1 and 2.

Exs.P1 to P4 are marked. Ex.P1 is Original Wedding Card, dated 04.04.2016, Ex.P2 is Photographs (2 Nos.) with C.D., Ex.P3 is

Copy of Aadhaar card of petitioner No.1 (compared with original) and Ex.P4 is Copy of Aadhaar card of petitioner No.2 (compared with original). In view of the affidavits filed by both the parties and on enquiry, this Court is satisfied that their marriage has been solemnized and that the averments in the petition are true.

5.Heard both the learned counsel and perused the material available on record.

6.Now the point that emerges for consideration is:

“Whether both the petitioners are entitled for decree of divorce on mutual consent, as prayed for?”

HMOP No.42/2020 Page 5 of 7

POINT:-

7. Originally, a petition under section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was filed by the petitioners herein in this Court and the same was numbered as H.M.O.P.No.42/2020.

Subsequently, section of law was altered from Section 13(1)(ia) (ib) to Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and petition was amended as per the Orders of this Court vide

I.A.No.91/2024, dated 20.03.2024, as both the parties sought for dissolution of their marriage on mutual consent.

8.As per the material placed on record, the marriage of the parties have taken place on 04.04.2016 at SR Gardens,

Sultanabad, as per Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, both the parties lived in the matrimonial society at the house of petitioner No.1 i. e., Kalanuoor Village of Odela

Mandal. Thereafter some disputes arose between the parties and several panchayaths were held between the parties by the elders, but in vain and the petitioners are willing to obtain divorce on mutual consent as per their agreement. The petitioner No.2 is now residing at her mother’s place at

Chinnakomire Village of Odela Mandal, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, this Court has

HMOP No.42/2020 Page 6 of 7

jurisdiction to pass the order in this matter. Exs.P1 to P4 are marked to prove the fact of marriage and identity of both the parties.

9.After hearing both the petitioners and upon conducting enquiry, this Court is satisfied to hold that their marriage was solemnized and the averments made in the petition are true. Their mutual consent for divorce still subsist even after allowing the interregnum period. However, it also appears clear from the petitioners that their marital tie is irretrievably broken and there is no chance of reunion between the petitioners. Further, both the petitioners have been living separately since 25.07.2017. The couple out of wedlock are not having children in this case. As they have not been able to live together and they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved by way of decree of divorce. Therefore, I am satisfied that the averments in the petition are true and they have consented for dissolution of marriage on their own volition and it appears that their consent to the petition is free.

10.From the discussion supra and appreciating the facts and circumstances, this Court is of view that the petitioners are entitled for divorce as prayed for. Accordingly, this point is

HMOP No.42/2020 Page 7 of 7

answered, in favour of the petitioners.

11.IN THE RESULT, petition is allowed, granting decree of divorce by mutual consent declaring the marriage of petitioners Sri Gopagani Kishan Das (Petitioner No.1) and Smt.

Gajula @ Gopagani Komala (Petitioner No.2) that was solemnized on 04.04.2016, as dissolved with effect from 18.04.2024.

Dictated to the Stenographer directly on Computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 18 th day of April, 2024.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

PEDDAPALLI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PETITIONER NO.1: FOR THE PETITIONER NO.2:

PW.1Gopagani Kishan Das PW.2 Gajula @ Gopagani Komala

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PETITIONER NO.1:

Ex.P1 is Original Wedding Card, dated 04.04.2016

Ex.P2 is Photographs (2 Nos.) with C.D.

Ex.P3 is Copy of Aadhaar card of petitioner No.1 (compared with original)

FOR THE PETITIONER NO.2:

Ex.P4 is Copy of Aadhaar card of petitioner No.2 (compared with original)

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

PEDDAPALLI.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE, AT PEDDAPALLI

PRESENT: Sri M.ARJUN,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PEDDAPALLI .

HMOP. NO.23 OF 2023

Between:

Thotla Ashok Address - R/o.H.No.6-121, Venampalli, Village in Srirampur Mandal of Peddapalli District.

…...Petitioner

// A n d //

Thotla Samatha @ Pearugu Samatha Address - R/o.H.No.6-121, Venampalli, Village in Srirampur Mandal of Peddapalli District apresently residing at Mirjampet Village of Srirampur Mandal in Peddapalli District.

…...Respondent

DOCKET ORDER

Petitioner called absent, no representation till 4.30 pm. Respondent called present. On perusal of docket proceedings, it appears petitioner is continuously absent without there being a representation for last several adjournments. It is evident that the petitioner is not interested to proceed with the matter. Hence, this O.P is dismissed for default for non appearance and non prosecution.

Pronounced by me in the open court on 19.04.2024

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

PEDDAPALLI.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE, AT PEDDAPALLI

PRESENT: Sri M.ARJUN,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PEDDAPALLI .

HMOP. NO.111 OF 2023

Between:

Bejjala Ramesh Address - R/o.H.No.6-14, Vennampalli village, Peddapalli Mandal and Dist. now residing at Narayanaswamy nagar, Peddapalli town

…...Petitioner

// A n d //

Bejjala @ Irugurala Soujanya Address - R/o.Dhoolikatta village, Julapalli Mandal, Peddapalli Dist.

…...Respondent

DOCKET ORDER

Petitioner called absent, no representation till 4.30 pm. On perusal of docket proceedings, it appears petitioner is continuously absent without there being a representation for last several adjournments. It is evident that the petitioner is not interested to proceed with the matter.

Hence, this O.P is dismissed for default for non appearance and non prosecution.

Pronounced by me in the open court on 23.04.2024

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

PEDDAPALLI.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE, AT PEDDAPALLI

PRESENT: Sri M.ARJUN,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PEDDAPALLI .

HMOP. NO.18 OF 2024

Between:

1) Madupu Vamshi Krishna Address - R/o.H.No.1-145/11/G, Shivaparvathi nagar, Flat NO.301, Sri Sai Narsimha Residency, Appannapet V/o.Peddapalli Mandal.

…...Petitioner

// A n d //

1) Mulukala @ Madupu Lahari Address - R/o.H.No.1-145/11/G, Shivaparvathinagar, Appannapet V/o.PeddapalliMandal now residing Flat No.402, Maruthi Apartments, Phase-II, Dubai gate, Old Bowenpally, Hyderabad.

…...Respondent

DOCKET ORDER

Both parties called absent.Counsel for petitioner No.1 filed not press memo and the same is recorded. Hence this O.P. is dismissed.

Pronounced by me in the open court on 16.04.2024

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

PEDDAPALLI.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE, AT PEDDAPALLI

PRESENT: Sri M.ARJUN,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PEDDAPALLI .

SC. NO.74 OF 2023

Between:

State of Telangana (PS Peddapalli) Address - PS Peddapalli

…...Complainant

// A n d //

Koyyada Rakesh Address - R/o.Shivajinagar, Godavarikhani

…...Accused

DOCKET ORDER

D.C. of accused filed and same is recorded. Hence this case is abated.

Pronounced by me in the open court on 16.04.2024.

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

PEDDAPALLI.