sri. M. Krishanappa

O.P.52 of 2014 1 S.C.J. Court, Hindupur

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: HINDUPUR

Present: Sri M.Krishnappa, Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur

Wednesday, the 17 th day of June, 2015

O.P.No.52 of 2014

Between:

1. N.H.Lakshminarayana, s/o Late Siddappa, aged about 25 years, Hindu, Cultivation, Resident of A.R.Roppam, H/o Amidalagondi, Madakasira Mandal, Anantapuram Dist.

2. Suseelamma, @ Leelavathi, w/o N.H.Lakshminarayana, d/o Lakshmaiah, aged 23 years, Hindu, Housewife, Resident of Lakshmipura, H/o Midigesi, Madhugiri Taluk,

Tumkur Dist., Karnataka State ... Petitioners

And

NIL ... Respondent

Thispetition is coming on 16-6-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Sreenivasa Reddy, Advocate for the petitioners and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1. This is the petition filed by the petitioners who are husband and wife seeking dissolution of their marriage dt. 1-10-2009 by granting divorce on mutual consent u/s.13 (B) of Hindu Marriage Act.

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

The marriage of the petitioners was held on 4-11-2011 at Sree

Mahalakshmi Temple, Goravanahalli, Koratagere Taluk, Tumkur Dist.,

Karnataka State according to Hindu Dharma Sastras and as per their religious customs in the presence of elders. After the marriage, the 2nd petitioner joined the company of 1st petitioner at A.R.Roppam where both were lived for a period of couple of months. There was no sexual intercourse among the petitioner and the petitioner left for her parents’ house and since then she is living there and there is desertion between them.

O.P.52 of 2014 2 S.C.J. Court, Hindupur

The 2nd petitioner bluntly refused in discharging her marital obligation towards her husband and 1st petitioner and his family members. Whenever the 2nd petitioner was asked by her husband, she used to reply that she has no interest in her husband from the beginning and she blindly consented for the marriage at the instance of her parents. The 1st petitioner waited till time expecting that she may change in her attitude and on one day or other she can change her mood and co-operate with the copulation.

Though the 1st petitioner waited till this time and all his sincere efforts to lead happy marital life were proved futile and he conveyed number of panchayats on eight occasions in the presence of elders namely Kantharaju,

Hanumantharayappa, Rangappa, Sanjeevappa, Venkatesh, Mallesappa,

Aswarthappa, Sateesh, Dasanna and Ramappa in which also the 2nd petitioner bluntly refused to stay in the company of 1st petitioner and to discharge her part of marital obligation. Finally the elders advised them to approach the court for mutual divorce. Hence, this petition is filed by the petitioners for the above said relief.

3. During the pendency of the petition, both parties i.e. petitioners attended the court and openly requested the court to dissolve their marriage stating that there are no chances for reunion between them. In spite of best efforts made by this court to get the petitioners united, the petitioners did not come forward for reunion and to lead happy marital life.

4. As per the reported Judgment in 2013 (1) ALD 145 (SC), when petition for divorce on mutual consent is filed, there is no need to wait till completion of statutory relief period of six months. As seen from the provision u/s.13-B of Hindu Marriage Act : Divorce by mutual consent – (1) Subject to the

provisions of this Act a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree

of divorce may be presented to the district Court by both the parties to

a marriage together, whether such marriage was solemnized before or

after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act,

O.P.52 of 2014 3 S.C.J. Court, Hindupur

1976, on the ground that they have been living separately for a period

of one year or more, that they have not been able to live together and

that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be

dissolved”.

5. As seen from the averments in the petition, the petitioners are living separately for more than one year and further they openly stated that they do not want to join together to lead happy marital life and they are seeking divorce on mutual consent. The 1st petitioner filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his evidence and marked Ex.P.1 marriage wedding card and Ex.P.2 marriage photo of the petitioners. The 2nd petitioner also filed her affidavit in lieu of her evidence. As such, the petitioners are examined as PWs.1 and 2. In the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 they categorically stated that they are not interested to live together and they are residing separately for more than one year after the marriage and mutually consented for dissolution of their marriage.

Considering the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, averments in the petition, basic provision u/s.13-B of Hindu Marriage Act and Judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court reported in 2013 (1) ALD 145 (SC), this court felt that there is no chances for reunion between the parties and their marriage tie is broken irretrievably when there are no chances for reunion between the petitioners to lead happy married life, it is just and necessary to dissolve their marriage

dt. 4-11-2011 to meet the ends of Justice.

6. In the result, the petition is allowed and the marriage between the petitioners dt. 4-11-2011 is hereby dissolved and divorce granted accordingly.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 17th day of June, 2015.

Senior Civil Judge,

Hindupur

O.P.52 of 2014 4 S.C.J. Court, Hindupur

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for

PETITIONERS RESPONDENT

PW.1 : N.H.Lakshminarayana - NIL - PW.2 : Suseelamma @ Leelavathi

Exhibits Marked For Petitioners

Ex.A.1 : Marriage Wedding Card of the petitioners Ex.A.2 : Marriage Photo of the petitioners

Exhibits marked for Respondent

- NIL -

S.C.J.

E.P.14 of 2015 in A.A.5 of 2012 1 S.C.J. Court, Hindupur

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: HINDUPUR

Present: Sri M.Krishnappa, Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur

Wednesday, the 17 th day of June, 2015

E.P.No.14/2015 in A.A.5/2012

Between:

M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Limited, D.No.17-3-645, S.L.V. Buildings, Hindupur Represented by its Authorized Holder and Asst. Manager N.Papanna,

s/o N.C.Narayanappa, Hindupur ... Petitioner/D.Hr.

And

1. T.Thippanna, s/o Subbarayudu, # 10-2, Gangalavaripalyam, Govindapuram

2. K.Nagi Reddy, s/o Adi Reddy,

Maruthi Nagar, Somandepalli ... Respondents/J.Drs.

Thispetition is coming on 16-6-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri H.Nageswara Rao, Advocate for the petitioner/D.Hr. and the respondent/J.Dr. No.1 remained exparte and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following :-

O R D E R

1. This is the E.P. filed by the D.Hr. Finance company against the J.Drs.

1 and 2 u/o.21, Rules.37 and 38 C.P.C. requesting the court to order arrest of the J.Dr.No.1 to realize the E.P. amount.

2. The brief facts of the affidavit in support of the petition are as follows :

The D.Hr. company obtained decree on 6-4-2013 and in spite of demands made by the D.Hr. company, the J.Drs. are not paying the Decretal amount to the D.Hr. company and not complied with the terms of the decree.

The J.Dr. No.1 is doing agriculture and business and earning an amount of

Rs.15,000/- per month and also got movable and immovable properties. The

J.Dr. No.1 is earning an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month excluding expenses incurred by him for family and he got ready means to pay the decree amount

E.P.14 of 2015 in A.A.5 of 2012 2 S.C.J. Court, Hindupur

and intentionally evading the payment. If the Hon’ble Court ordered for arrest of J.Dr.No.1 he will pay the E.P. amount. Hence, this petition is filed.

3. During the pendency of the E.P., when notices were served on J.Dr.No.1, he did not attend the court to contest matter and so he was set-exparte.

4. The D.Hr. Company, in order to prove its case against the J.Dr., filed the affidavit of Sri N.Papanna, who is working as Office Assistant of D.Hr. Company as PW.1 and marked Ex.P.1 award copy and Ex.P.2 true copy of authorization and closed his side evidence. As J.Dr. No.1 already set-exparte, there is no evidence on his behalf.

5. After closing the evidence, arguments advanced by the learned

Advocate for D.Hr. are heard.

6. After hearing the arguments, it is to be seen whether J.Dr.No.1 is having sufficient income and having capacity to pay the E.P. amount, failed to pay the same intentionally to the D.Hr. As seen from the evidence of PW.1, he just reiterated the averments in the petition in support of the petition, stating that the D.Hr. Company obtained decree against the J.Dr.No.1 and after obtaining the decree in spite of repeated demands, J.Dr.No.1 did not pay the amount due to the D.Hr. Company. PW.1 further stated that J.Dr.No.1 is doing agriculture and business and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. The J.Dr.No.1 is earning an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month excluding expenses incurred by him for the family and he has got ready means to pay the decree amount and intentionally evading payment. Hence, PW.1 requested the court to order arrest of the J.Dr.No.1. The J.Dr.No.1 was already set-exparte and in the said circumstances, the evidence of PW.1 stood unchallenged. The evidence of

PW.1 clearly goes to show that J.Dr.No.1 is doing agriculture and business and getting an income of Rs.15,000/- per month and apart from the said income, he got both movable and immovable properties. In fact, no documentary evidence is produced to prove that J.Dr.No.1 is an agriculturist and doing

E.P.14 of 2015 in A.A.5 of 2012 3 S.C.J. Court, Hindupur

business and he has got monthly income of Rs.15,000/- and apart from it he got both movable and immovable properties. But, the evidence of PW.1 stood unchallenged as J.Dr.No.1 is not contesting the matter. When J.Dr.No.1 is not contesting the matter, the evidence of PW.1 cannot be pushed aside for any reason which clearly goes to show that though J.Dr.No.1 got sufficient means to pay the E.P. amount, he is intentionally evading to pay the same to the

D.Hr. Company. In the said circumstances, it is just and necessary to issue arrest warrant against the J.Dr.No.1 to realize the E.P. amount. Accordingly, the petition is to be allowed.

7. In the result, the petition is allowed and in the circumstances with costs and the means of J.Dr.No.1 is proved. Issue arrest warrant against J.Dr.No.1.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 17th day of June, 2015.

Senior Civil Judge,

Hindupur

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for

PETITIONER RESPONDENT

PW.1 : N.Papanna - NIL -

Exhibits Marked For Petitioner

Ex.P.1 : Award Copy Ex.P.2 : True copy of authorization

Exhibits marked for Respondent

- NIL -

S.C.J.

In the Court of :Senior Civil Judge

Case No. :OS/0000129/2012 T.Siva Kumar Vs H.Thippeswamy

Date : 16-06-2015

Business: P.N.R. Advocate for plaintiff reported no instructions. Plaintiff called absent and no representation. Defendant present. The suit is dismissed and in the circumstances with costs of Rs.5,000/- - Rupees five thousands only - payable by plaintiff to defendant. Nature of Disposal: DISMISSED WITH COSTS Disposal Date: 16-06-2015

Senior Civil Judge