Sri M Krishna Murthy

O.P.No. 70 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

JUDGE, NALGONDA

Wednesday, the 18th day of May, 2022

Present: M. Krishna Murthy,

Judge, Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge,

Nalgonda

O.P.No. 70 of 2016

Between:

****************************** … Petitioner/Wife

And

****************************** … Respondent/Husband

This petition is coming on 16-05-2022 for disposal before me in the presence of Sri M. Rama Chandra Rao, Advocate for the petitioner, Sri K. Kalidas, Advocate for the respondent, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:-

:: ORDER ::

1.This petition is filed by wife against husband for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the Act).

2. It is not in dispute between the parties that they are Hindus and their marriage took place on 05-11-2000 at Nalgonda as per Hindu rites and customs prevailing in their community and they have no children.

3.01. The case of the petitioner in brief as per petition is as follows:-

Rs.3,00,000/- cash, 10 tulas gold ornaments, household articles and furniture

Page 1 of 18

O.P.No. 70 of 2016 worth Rs.1,00,000/- were given by the parents of the petitioner to the respondent at the time of marriage as dowry. They lived together at Nalgonda in the house of respondent. After two months after marriage the petitioner was selected as staff nurse and posted to Government Civil Hospital, Bodh of Adilabad District. She used to visit and join the respondent at Nalgonda once in a month from Bodh.

After six months of the marriage the respondent started harassing the petitioner physically and mentally and subjected her to cruelty by demanding money from her.

3.02. He used to beat her mercilessly to handover the entire salary to him. On her refusal he used to threaten her with dire consequences if she visits her parental house. After 8 months of the marriage he demanded dowry of

Rs.2,00,000/- but the parents of the petitioner could not provide the same with financial constraints as they were middle class people. The respondent was also addicted to liquor and all sorts of vices. The respondent subjected the petitioner to cruelty at Nalgonda and Bodh also as he used to visit there frequently and demand money day in and day out. On refusal of the petitioner he used to beat her being drunk in fit of anger stating that he would kill her with a sword. He also used to threaten that he would pour acid on her face and body.

3.03. He used to entertain suspicion on the character of the petitioner casting aspersion whenever any needy person visits her. He beat her several times with sticks, belt or with any other material available on hand in drunken condition.

Several times he put on the gas stove for little leakage of gas and used to force

Page 2 of 18

O.P.No. 70 of 2016 the petitioner to prepare tea so that the petitioner would be subjected to immolation with the burst of gas cylinder. He tried several times unnecessarily to strangulate the neck of the petitioner with towel with an intention to end her life.

He used to threaten her that he would end her life and marry another lady on the issue of non-begetting children.

3.04. He used to proclaim that he would get the benefits of life insurance policies of the petitioner in case of her death and appointment on compassionate grounds with benefit of pension and other benefits. On 21-06-2009 the respondent came to the house of parents of the petitioner and beat her mercilessly before her family members. The petitioner filed O.P.No.32 of 2009 on the file of this court for divorce and it was dismissed for default on 12-11-2009. The parties compromised the matter before the elders and started living together at Bodh in a rented house.

For two or three months the respondent behaved properly and thereafter he again started subjecting the petitioner to cruelty demanding dowry and monthly salary.

3.05. The petitioner was transferred to Warangal in 2009 and with great difficulty the parties lived together there up to 20-04-2014 in a rented house but there also the respondent continued his bad behaviour and subjected the petitioner to cruelty. He deserted the petitioner on 20-04-2014 having been addicted to liquor.

Having no other option the petitioner started living in the quarters in MGM

Hospital, Warangal. There also the respondent used to visit her in drunken condition and threaten her to give money to him. Hence, this petition.

Page 3 of 18

O.P.No. 70 of 2016 4.01. The respondent filed counter admitting his relationship with petitioner, denying other allegations of the petitioner and materially contending as follows:-

The respondent got government job as Health Assistant in Health Department and he was posted at Sonala village of Boath mandal in Adilabad district. The parties lived happily till the transfer of petitioner to Warangal in 2009. The respondent never tortured the petitioner at any point of time either at Nalgonda or at Bodh.

Both the parties were performing their official duties peacefully. The petitioner made false allegations to gain sympathy of the court for the purpose of this case.

When the parties are living at Bodh the respondent visiting the petitioner from

Nalgonda and demanding money day in and day out would not arise.

4.02. The respondent never suspected the character of the petitioner. He loved her much though she did not give birth to any child. The respondent did not receive notice or summons from the court in O.P.No.32 of 2009 and he had no knowledge of the same. There was no any compromise between the parties as averred in the petition. As the petitioner was transferred to Warangal the respondent resigned his job in Adilabad District and came to Warangal and he is in search of job. He used to visit the petitioner at Warangal from Nalgonda as the petitioner was provided with a residential quarter of MGM Hospital. The respondent never deserted the petitioner at any point of time. Both parties were living together happily in a rented house at Warangal.

4.03. In fact the main intention of the petitioner is for her security in future if she retires from service without begetting children. There is certain landed property on

Page 4 of 18

O.P.No. 70 of 2016 the name of father of respondent. The respondent has no any kind of property.

The demand of petitioner is to sell the share of the respondent in the said property and deposit the amount on her name in fixed deposit and then she would stop making allegations. The father of the respondent acquired the said property with his own funds. There is no cause of action for the petitioner. Since the parties were residing last 14 years outside the jurisdiction of Nalgonda District and they are residing at Warangal now this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

4.04. It is clear from the facts and circumstances that the petitioner is not at all willing to take divorce from the respondent and this petition is filed to threaten the respondent for providing some security with landed property or money on her name. The petitioner has much love and affection on the respondent and in the same way the respondent is also having love and affection on her to lead conjugal life but the respondent is willing to lead marital life with the petitioner with a fond hope that the petitioner may change her attitude in future as she is also having still love and affection on the respondent. Hence, the petition may be dismissed.

5. The petitioner got herself examined as P.W.1 and also examined her mother and maternal uncle as P.Ws.2 and 3 and got exhibited Exs.A-1 and A-2 which are marriage card for the marriage of the parties and certified copy of order in O.P.No.32 of 2009 on the file of this court. The respondent himself got examined as R.W.1 and also got examined his brother-in-law as R.W.2 and he did not adduce any documentary evidence.

6.01. Heard both sides and perused the record.

Page 5 of 18

O.P.No. 70 of 2016 6.02. Learned advocate for the petitioner while referring to pleadings and evidence on record on both sides mainly contended that the petitioner proved her case, that the respondent subjected her to cruelty, that the respondent is money minded person, that the respondent did not prove his case and that therefore, the petition may be allowed.

6.03. Learned advocate for the respondent while referring to pleadings and evidence on record on both sides mainly contended that the petitioner did not prove the alleged cruelty on the part of the respondent, that the respondent proved his case, that this court has no jurisdiction and that therefore, the petition may be dismissed.

7. The points for determination are:-

1) Whether the respondent subjected the petitioner to cruelty as alleged by the petitioner?

2) Whether the respondent deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years preceding the date of presentation of this petition without any reason as alleged by her?

3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to decree of divorce as prayed for?

4) To what relief?

8. Points No.1 to 3:- P.W.1 deposed in support of his case and further deposed about Exs.A-1 and A-2. P.Ws.2 and 3 supported the case of petitioner.

R.W.1 deposed in support of his case and R.W.2 supported the case of the respondent. It is elicited from P.W.1 that she is working in MGM Hospital since

Page 6 of 18

O.P.No. 70 of 2016 2009. She deposed that she completed Intermediate course and General Nursing and Midwife diploma course by the date of marriage. She denied the suggestion that dowry and other things were not given to the respondent as dowry as stated by her. She also denied that the respondent was employed by the date of marriage and according to her that the respondent was doing cable business as on the date of marriage.

9. She admitted that she did not mention details of days, dates and year of the occasions on which the respondent subjected her to mental and physical cruelty by demanding money from her in para 3 of her evidence affidavit. She denied the suggestion that she is a quarrelsome lady, that she quarreled with Dr. Swamy and his wife who is Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM) and that therefore, she was absent for long period. She also denied that she quarrelled with owner of the house situated at Mattevada and his wife where they resided for three years from 2009.

She also denied that at Kothawada she quarrelled with the respondent, beat him and necked him from out of the house before Dasara festival of 2015.

10. She also denied that she insulted the respondent and harassed him from the time of marriage stating that he was having a small shop. She next denied that her parents were not having financial condition to pay additional dowry of

Rs.2,00,000/- and that the respondent did not demand any additional dowry. She denied other suggestions put to her in support of the case of the respondent. A question was put to her as to whether she was willing to join the respondent and the respondent is ready to take back her to his company. She answered stating

Page 7 of 18

O.P.No. 70 of 2016 that she was not ready as he would harass her. She denied the suggestion that this court has no jurisdiction. Since the marriage of the parties took place at

Nalgonda it cannot be said that this court is not having jurisdiction. Under Section 19 of the Act the court where the marriage of the parties took place will be having jurisdiction to entertain the petition for divorce.

11. It is elicited from P.W.2 that P.W.1 was given in marriage to respondent after enquiring about the details of respondent and the parties were not blessed with children and that there is no possibility of petitioner begetting children. She deposed that it might be that her daughter quarrelled with the Medical Officer at

Bodh and his wife. Then a question was put to her stating that after her daughter quarrelling with the medical officer and his wife at Bodh her daughter left the job and joined the job in MGM Hospital, Warangal. She answered to the same stating that as the respondent harassed the petitioner the petitioner came to her house at

Nalgonda and thereafter on the intervention of elders she went to Warangal and joined the job at MGM Hospital.

12. She next deposed that she does not know whether her daughter quarreled with the wife of the owner of the house at Warangal in which the parties resided as tenants at Warangal and whether the respondent also worked in the same hospital in which P.W.1 worked at Bodh. She denied the suggestion that the petitioner is a quarrelsome lady and as the respondent requested her not to quarrel with her superior she left the respondent and that she filed a false case to cover up her

Page 8 of 18

O.P.No. 70 of 2016 defect in not begetting children. She admitted that the father of the respondent is alive and he is a pensioner and that the respondent is only son to the parents.

13. But she denied the suggestion that herself and her husband cheated the respondent having knowledge that their daughter would not beget children, that herself, her husband and P.W.1 harassed the respondent and that the respondent did not harass P.W.1. She admitted that she did not file any document to show that the respondent is having a criminal record and that he was sent to jail in

Excise and Prohibition case. She also admitted that she did not file any document to show that elders conducted panchayat and that they filed criminal case against the respondent. She was also put a suggestion that the respondent is ready to take back P.W.1 to his conjugal society. She answered to the same stating that

P.W.1 cannot live with the respondent and she left his company after bearing harassment.

14. She denied the suggestion that the respondent did not harass P.W.1 and that this petition is filed due to false allegations. A question was put to her as to whether she went to Bodh or Warangal at any time when her daughter and respondent were living together at those places. She answered to the same stating that she sent her husband on one occasion to Bodh and he was not allowed into the house and she went to their house at Warangal on two occasions.

She also denied the suggestion that this petition is not maintainable as this court is not having jurisdiction and in view of filing of similar petition by P.W.1 on the same grounds.

Page 9 of 18

O.P.No. 70 of 2016

15. As per Ex.A-2 the earlier petition filed by the petitioner in 2009 i.e., in

O.P.No.32 of 2009 for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion was dismissed for default but on that ground itself it cannot be said that this present petition is not maintainable.

16. P.W.3 deposed that due to ill-health he did not attend to the marriage of the parties. He deposed that the respondent contracted loans by furnishing surety of petitioner. He admitted that the two brothers of petitioner were married and they are employees. He next deposed that the said discharging of loans was about 06 or 07 years back. He denied the suggestion that there was no any relationship between him and petitioner by the time of 2009 and that he saw respondent for the first time only in 2009. He admitted that in the year 2009 he got effected compromise between the parties in the year 2009 when the petitioner filed divorce petition. Therefore, from this suggestion it is very clear that due to compromise earlier divorce petition was not pursued by the petitioner and hence, its dismissal cannot be said to be having any adverse affect on this petition.

17. R.W.1 admitted that himself and petitioner lived together for 15 years i.e., from November, 2000 to October, 2015 and he did not take any steps under law till filing of this petition by the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights. He deposed that he left his job in December, 2009 and he was eking out his livelihood by doing private job in Bajaj showroom till 2013, that thereafter he did not do any job for two years and that later from 2016 he is working as Administration

Manager in Home Care Service Centre at Hyderabad. He also admitted that the

Page 10 of 18

O.P.No. 70 of 2016 application for maintenance under Section 24 of the Act from his wife filed by him was dismissed and he did not prefer any appeal against the said orders. He denied the suggestion that he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment in excise offence case.

18. He added that the said case was filed against him and it ended in acquittal.

He denied the suggestion that he gave undertaking in writing in police station at

Warangal that he would not take liquor and that he would not harass the petitioner. According to him that he went to police station for getting back his wife to his company. Therefore, it is clear that the respondent went to police station.

As argued for the petitioner the evidence of respondent that he went to police station only for getting back his wife to his company cannot be accepted as for getting back the conjugal society of wife the husband has to take steps under law by filing petition for restitution of conjugal rights. He clearly admitted that he signed document in the house of junior paternal uncle of petitioner at Nalgonda on 19-10-2009 in which it was mentioned that he would not harass the petitioner in intoxicated condition and he would behave properly.

19. Therefore, this admission of respondent clearly shows that he was harassing the petitioner in intoxicated condition and he was not behaving properly and hence, he gave such undertaking. He admitted that he is not having any receipt to show that purchase of 5.7 tulas gold for showing that he presented such gold chain to petitioner after marriage. He denied the suggestion that he always used to suspect the character of petitioner. He also denied that he used to cause

Page 11 of 18

O.P.No. 70 of 2016 invisible injuries to the petitioner on her person including private parts also. He further denied that he was subjecting the petitioner to cruelty and if the petitioner is made to live with him there is threat to her life and that therefore, the petitioner is entitled to divorce.

20. R.W.1 admitted that he did not attend to marriage of his brother-in-law

Srikanth. According to him as his mother died and as he should not attend such functions within 11 days of death of mother he did not attend to said marriage. He denied the suggestion that the marriage of said Srikanth was performed after 11 days after death of his mother and that he did not attend to marriage of Srikanth and did not allow his wife to attend to the same only as dowry was not paid to him.

He further denied that he attended the marriage of another brother-in-law

Krishnakanth only after payment of sister-in-law dowry (Aadabidda Katnam) of

Rs.1,00,000/-. He denied the suggestion that he intended to depend on the earnings his wife and that he used to harass the petitioner always physically and financially.

21. R.W.2 deposed that he was aged 18 years at the time of marriage of the parties, that the respondent was doing cable business at the time of marriage and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. He deposed that he does not know whether the respondent did not spend Rs.2,00,000/- as expenses in job of petitioner. He added that he was informed about the same and he does not have personal knowledge about the same. He next deposed that he came to know about the quarrel with one Dr. Swamy and other staff members by the petitioner referred to

Page 12 of 18

O.P.No. 70 of 2016 by him in para 2 of his evidence affidavit through respondent. He denied the suggestion that the respondent attempted to stab said Dr. Swamy, that the petitioner gave complaint against the respondent to police, that the police took the respondent into custody and that he got him release by standing surety.

22. He also denied the suggestion that the respondent did not spend

Rs.3,00,000/- for reposting of petitioner in Warangal MGM Hospital as stated by him. The respondent spending Rs.2,00,000/- for job of petitioner is not acceptable under law. So also the fact of respondent spending Rs.3,00,000/- for reposting of petitioner for Warangal MGM Hospital is also not acceptable under law. This is because a person has to get job as per procedure i.e., by qualifying in the exam concerned and a person has to get posting of a job at a particular place as per procedure i.e., as per the orders of the authority concerned and that for those purpose spending amount is unknown to law. He also denied the suggestion the respondent used to borrow amounts from the colleagues of petitioner and that unable to bear the harassment from the respondent the petitioner filed this petition for divorce. R.W.2 deposed that he does not know whether rowdy sheet was opened against the respondent by the police.

23. Learned advocate for the respondent/husband relied on the following judgments in support of his contentions:-

i) V. Usha Devi vs. G. Dayalanathan (C.M.A. No.3131 of 2013 and

M.P.Nos.1 of 2013 & 1 of 2014 decided by Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at

Madras on 13-12-2017):- In this judgment the appeal against granting of divorce

Page 13 of 18

O.P.No. 70 of 2016 was allowed depending on the facts and circumstances of the said case and also observing that the cruelty was not established.

ii) Sanjay Kumar vs. Srimati Suman Kumari (F.A. No. 47 of 2019 decided by Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi on 08-09-2020):- This case before

Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand was an appeal against the judgment dismissing

the suit for divorce. In the facts and circumstances of the said case Hon’ble High

Court of Jharkhand dismissed the said appeal observing that the grounds of cruelty and desertion and mental incapacity of the wife were not proved.

iii) Sanjay Chhanganlal Bhutada vs Rajni W/o Sanjay Bhutada (2006(3)

Bombay CR 829 decided by Hon’ble High Court of Bombay on 07-12-2005):- This case was second appeal filed against the judgment of the Additional District Judge concerned dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment of learned Civil

Judge, Senior Division, Khamgaon confirming the dismissal of the petition for

divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the said judgment depending on the facts and circumstances of the said case dismissed the said appeal.

iv) Savitri Pandey vs Prem Chandra Pandey (Appeal (civil) 20-21 of 1999 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 08-01-2002):- In the said case the

Family Court concerned granted divorce and Hon’ble High Court allowed the appeal against the decree of divorce. Hon’ble Supreme Court depending on the facts and circumstances of the case observed that the grounds for divorce were not proved.

Page 14 of 18

O.P.No. 70 of 2016

v) Kalpana vs. Gorakhnath Govinda Dhone (Family Court Appeal No.333 of 2014 decided by Hon’ble Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Mumbai

Nagpur on 08-07-2015):- In this case before Hon’ble High Court of Mumbai

Nagpur the decree of divorce was set aside and the matter was remanded to

Family Court concerned for framing and deciding the issue of jurisdiction and then proceed to decide the Hindu Marriage Petition only if the issue was answered in favour of the husband. This judgment is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand as in the case on hand the marriage of the parties took place at Nalgonda and hence, this court is having jurisdiction to entertain this case in view of the provision i.e., under Section 19 of the Act.

24. The judgments cited (i) to (iv) supra are also not helpful to the respondent as the court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner proved her case from the evidence on record and the respondent did not prove his case.

25. On a careful analysis of the entire evidence on record it is clear that the respondent executed a document on 19-10-2009 in the house of junior paternal uncle of the petitioner at Nalgonda stating that he would not harass the petitioner in intoxicated condition and he would behave properly. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 clearly established that the respondent harassed the petitioner and subjected her to cruelty. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 also shows that the respondent also demanded dowry and he was addicted to bad habits. The evidence of P.W.1 clearly showed that the respondent deserted her from 20-04-2014 and this petition was filed on 09-09-2016. Therefore, the respondent deserted the petitioner since

Page 15 of 18

O.P.No. 70 of 2016 more than two years prior to filing of this petition and by his conduct of harassing her he made the petitioner to leave his company.

26. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is consistent to the effect that the respondent harassed the petitioner. The evidence on record shows that the parties earlier entered into compromise in 2009 and therefore, the dismissal of earlier O.P.No.32 of 2009 filed by the petitioner is not material. P.W.2 clearly deposed that P.W.1 cannot live with the respondent and she left his company after bearing harassment. The respondent admittedly did not take any steps for restitution of conjugal rights by the petitioner. The evidence on behalf of the respondent is not consistent.

27. As already referred to earlier the evidence of respondent itself shows that he did not behave properly with the petitioner and he undertook to behave properly in the year 2009 and evidence on record clearly shows that the respondent was addicted to drinking and he harassed the petitioner in intoxicated condition in view of the evidence on record, the court holds that the petitioner proved that the respondent subjected her to cruelty as alleged by her and deserted her for a continuous period of more than two years preceding the date of presentation of the petition and that therefore, the petitioner proved that she is entitled to decree of divorce and the respondent failed to prove his case. Points

No.1 to 3 are answered accordingly.

28. Point No.4:- In view of the findings of this court on points No.1 to 3 the court holds that this petition has to be allowed granting decree of divorce as

Page 16 of 18

O.P.No. 70 of 2016 prayed for. In the facts and circumstances of the case both parties can be directed to bear their own costs. Point No.4 is answered accordingly.

29. In the result, the petition is allowed and there shall be a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent that took place on 05-11-2000 at Nalgonda. In the facts and circumstances of the case both parties are directed to bear their own costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Gr-1), transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 18th day of May, 2022.

Judge,

Family Court-Cum-VI Additional

District Judge, Nalgonda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

PW-1: Shampally Latha @ Pulimamidi Latha (Petitioner)

PW-2: A. Anusuya (Mother of Petitioner)

PW-3: Decharaju Yadagiri (Maternal uncle of petitioner)

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:

RW-1: Shapally Naveen Kumar (Respondent) RW-2: Kalakota Ganesh Babu (Brother-in-law of respondent)

EXHIBITS MARKED

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

Ex.A-1: Dated 05-11-2000: Marriage card.

Page 17 of 18

O.P.No. 70 of 2016

Ex.A-2: Dated 12-11-2009: Certified copy of order in O.P.No.32 of 2009 on the file of this court.

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:

- Nil-

Judge,

Family Court-Cum-VI Additional

District Judge, Nalgonda.

Page 18 of 18

S.C.No. 110 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-VI ADDITIONAL

SESSIONS JUDGE: NALGONDA.

Thursday, the 19th day of May, 2022

Present: M. Krishna Murthy,

Judge, Family Court-cum-VI Additional

Sessions Judge, Nalgonda

SESSIONS CASE No. 110 of 2016

(P.R.C. No. 04 of 2016 on the file of the J.M.F.C. (Special Mobile Court), Nalgonda in Crime No.112 of 2015 of P.S. Munugode)

COMPLAINANT:The Sub-Inspector of Police, Munugode P.S.

ACCUSED:

1. Yarasani Nagesh S/o Mutyalu, age: 28 years, Caste: Yadav,

2. Yarasani Mutyalu S/o Ramaiah, age: 65 years, Caste: Yadav,

3. Yarasani Lingamma W/o Mutyalu, age: 60 years, Caste: Yadav,

4. Yarasani Nirmala W/o Nagesh, age: 25 years, Caste: Yadav,

5. Yarasani Saidulu S/o Mutyalu, age: 32 years, Caste: Yadav,

6. Yarasani Padma W/o Saidulu, age: 30 years, Caste: Yadav,

7. Naragoni Chandramma W/o Papaiah, age: 50 years, Caste: Mudiraj,

8. Naragoni Ganesh S/o Papaiah, age: 30 years, Caste: Mudiraj,

All are Occu: Agriculture and R/o Munugode village and mandal.

Offences Charged :u/Sec.306, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C.

Plea of the Accused:Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court:Found not guilty.

SENTENCE OR ORDER:

In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 8 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306, I.P.C., read with Section 34, I.P.C. and under Section 235(1), Cr.P.C. the accused Nos.1 to 8 are acquitted of the said offences. The bail bonds of accused Nos.1 to 8 shall stand cancelled after six months. M.O.1 pesticide bottle shall be destroyed after appeal time or after disposal of appeal if any. be destroyed after appeal period is over.

Prosecution conducted by:Sri N. Gopala Krishna, In-charge Addl. P.P.

Accused is defended by:Sri P. Radha Krishna, Advocate for A-1 to A-4, Sri P. Srinivas Reddy, Advocate for A-5 to A-8.

Page 1 of 14

S.C.No. 110 of 2016

This case coming before me for final hearing on18-05-2022 in the presence of Sri N. Gopala Krishna, Learned in-charge Additional Public Prosecutor, Sri P. Radha Krishna, Advocate for the accused No.1 to 4 and Sri P. Srinivas Reddy, Advocate for the accused No.5 to 8, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:- -:: J U D G M E N T::-

1. This sessions case arose out of charge sheet filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police (for short S.I. of Police), Munugode Police Station in Crime No.112 of 2015 of Munugode Police Station before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile Court), Nalgonda against the accused Nos.1 to 8 for the offences punishable under Section 306, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C.

2.01. The prosecution case in brief as per charge sheet is as follows:- The deceased who is husband of P.W.1 and father of P.W.4 was having Acres 4-00 guntas of land in Survey No.105 in the outskirts of Munugode and since 40 years his family is cultivating the same. The accused belong to one family and they are also having land in the outskirts of Munugode and there is a pathway beside their land. The deceased had to go to his land from the said pathway as his land is above the land of the accused. Since one year the accused were obstructing the deceased and creating hindrances when he was going to his land and abusing his family also. P.Ws.5, 9 and 10 conducted panchayat in that regard and admonished the accused stating that there is a pathway beside their land for the villagers. But they did not change their attitude and started harassing and abusing the deceased and his family intentionally to grab their land.

Page 2 of 14

S.C.No. 110 of 2016 2.02. On 03-09-2015 the deceased and P.Ws.1 to 4 went to the land of deceased at about 0700 hours with pesticide bags for sprinkling in the fields.

At about 8.00 a.m. A-1 who was already in his field obstructed the way of the deceased and abused him in filthy language. The deceased having been disgusted, fell on the legs of A-1 and requested to leave him and his family.

But the accused refused to heed to the same and gave pesticide poison tin and severely abetted to die. Vexed with his life the deceased consumed the poison by taking it from the hands of the accused.

2.03. P.Ws.1 to 4 who were in visible distance noticed the same and took the deceased to District Headquarters Hospital, Nalgonda for treatment but the deceased died.

2.04. P.W.1 gave complaint to police at 7.00 p.m. on the same day. Crime was registered and investigated into. Witnesses were examined and their statements were recorded. Scene of offence was observed and poison tin (M.O.1) recovered before mediators and panchanama and rough sketch were prepared. Inquest was held over the dead body of the deceased before the mediators.

2.05. The doctor who conducted post mortem examination (for short P.M.E.) gave certificate on the basis of Forensic Science Laboratory (for short F.S.L.) report opining that the cause of death of the deceased was organophosphate poisoning. A-1 was arrested on 11-09-2015 and sent to court for remand. The other accused obtained anticipatory bail. Hence, the charge.

Page 3 of 14

S.C.No. 110 of 2016

3. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile Court),

Nalgonda took cognizance for the offence alleged against the accused, furnished copies of relevant documents under Sec.207, Cr.P.C. and committed the case under Section 209(a), Cr.P.C. to the Hon’ble Principal Court of

Session, Sessions Division, Nalgonda as the offence alleged is exclusively triable by a Court of Session.

4. Hon’ble Principal Sessions Judge, Nalgonda registered the case and made over the same to this court for disposal according to law.

5. My learned predecessor after hearing both sides framed charge for the offence punishable under Section 306, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C.

against all the accused, read over and explained to them accused in Telugu.

The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. P.Ws.1 to 15 were got examined and Exs.P-1 to P-23 and M.O.1 were got exhibited on behalf of the prosecution.

7. After closure of the prosecution side evidence the accused were examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. They denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution side evidence. They reported no witnesses in defence. However, Ex.D-1 was got exhibited in the cross-examination of P.W.14.

8.01. Heard both sides and perused the record.

8.02. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed elaborate written arguments and submitted oral arguments referring to prosecution case and evidence on

Page 4 of 14

S.C.No. 110 of 2016 record and he mainly submitted that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt from the evidence on record and hence, the accused may be punished under law.

8.03. Learned advocate for A-1 to A-4 while referring to prosecution case and evidence on record vehemently contended that except the evidence of P.W.1 and evidence of official witnesses there is no any independent evidence on record, that other material witnesses did not support the prosecution case, that the evidence of P.W.1 is inconsistent and unbelievable and against ordinary course of human conduct and cannot be accepted and hence, the accused may be acquitted.

8.04. Learned advocate for A-5 to A-8 while referring to prosecution case and evidence on record mainly submitted that there is absolutely no iota of evidence on record against A-5 to A-8 and hence, they may be acquitted.

9.The point for determination is whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 306, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C.

10. Point:- P.W.1 is the wife of deceased and de facto complainant.

P.Ws.2 and 3 are relations to P.W.1. P.W.4 is daughter of P.W.1 and the deceased. P.Ws.5, 9 and 10 are alleged panchayat elders. P.Ws.6 to 8 are circumstantial witnesses as per the charge sheet. P.Ws.11 and 12 are witnesses for observation of scene of offence and seizure of M.O.1 tin and also for inquest.

Page 5 of 14

S.C.No. 110 of 2016

11. P.W.1 supported the prosecution case. She further deposed that Ex.P-1 was the report given by her to police. P.Ws.2 to 12 did not support the prosecution case. They were cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution with the permission of the court after treating them hostile. In such cross- examination P.Ws.2 to 10 denied to have stated to police under Section 161 (3), Cr.P.C. as in Exs.P-2 to P-10 i.e., in support of prosecution case and against the accused. P.Ws.11 and 12 only admitted their signatures Exs.P-11 to P-13 and Exs.P-14 to P-16 on inquest panchanama, panchanama for observation of scene of offence and recovery of M.O.1 and rough sketch. But they deposed that police did not hold inquest and did not observe scene of offence and did not seize anything before them. They denied that police observed scene of offence and seized M.O.1 and held inquest in their presence.

12. P.W.13 the doctor deposed that he conducted P.M.E. over the body of deceased and issued Ex.P-17 report and Ex.P-18 is the F.S.L. report. On behalf of A-1 to A-4 P.W.14 was cross-examined at length but no circumstance is elicited to discredit his testimony. P.W.14 the S.I. of Police, Munugode

Police Station at the relevant point of time deposed that on the basis of Ex.P-1 he registered the crime and issued Ex.P-19 F.I.R. He further deposed about his investigation. He deposed that Ex.P-20 is scene of offence panchanama that Ex.P-21 is rough sketch, that M.O.1 is pesticide bottle and that Ex.P-22 is inquest panchanama.

13. P.W.14 further deposed that as per Ex.P-23 letter of Tahsildar,

Munugode family of accused was owning Acres 5-11 guntas in Survey No.106

Page 6 of 14

S.C.No. 110 of 2016 and the deceased was owning Acres 4-00 guntas in Survey No.105 and the said lands were adjacent to each others. P.W.15 another S.I. of Police deposed about his filing of charge sheet.

14. From the above evidence now discussed it is clear that the deceased died by consuming poison i.e., organophosphate about 24 to 48 years prior to

P.M.E. and P.M.E. was conducted between 1.45 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. on 04-09-2015. Now it has to be seen whether the accused abetted commission of such suicide. For proving the offence punishable under Section 306, I.P.C.

the prosecution has to prove the ingredients of Section 107, I.P.C. i.e., instigation or encouraging in conspiracy or intentional aiding by any act or illegal omission on the part of the accused.

15. The prosecution also has to prove that there was way to go to the land of the deceased by the side of land of the accused. Against A-2 to A-8 there is absolutely no evidence at all as argued on behalf of the accused. Even against A-1 there is only the evidence of P.W.1 who is naturally interested in result of the case as she is wife of the deceased. However, under Section 134, Evidence Act quality of evidence is important and not quantity of evidence. If the evidence of P.W.1 is consistent and reliable it can be relied upon. In view of the disputes between the family of the deceased and accused the evidence of P.W.1 has to be analyzed and scrutinized carefully.

16. According to P.W.1 that they are having Acres 5-00 guntas of land in

Survey No.105 but as per Ex.P-23 there is only Acres 4-00 guntas of land to the family of the deceased. The prosecution did not adduce any independent

Page 7 of 14

S.C.No. 110 of 2016 evidence to show that there was way to the land of the deceased beside the land of accused from a long time. P.Ws.2 to 10 deposed that they do not know as to how the deceased died. P.W.4 is none other than the daughter of

P.W.1 and the deceased. She clearly deposed that she does not know A-1 to

A-8, that she does not know the reason for the death of her father and that she does not know anything about this case and she went to school on the date of incident.

17. P.Ws.2 and 3 deposed that they were at home on the date of incident.

If really P.Ws.2 to 4 accompanied P.W.1 and deceased to the field of deceased on the date of incident they should have corroborated the evidence of P.W.1. This is because P.Ws.2 and 3 are relations to P.W.1 and P.W.4 is her daughter. P.Ws.5, 9 and 10 deposed that they never conducted any panchayat. P.Ws.6 to 8 deposed that they do not know anything. A suggestion was put to P.Ws.2 to 10 that they compromised the matter and took money from the accused and that hence, they were deposing falsely. They denied the same. There is no cogent evidence to show that P.Ws.2 to 10 were really deposing falsely.

18. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon the judgment of

Hon’ble Supreme Court in C. Muniappan and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu

(Criminal Appeal Nos.127-130 of 2008 decided on 30-08-2010) to contend that evidence of hostile witness also can be taken into consideration. But in this case P.Ws.2 to 10 did not speak anything against the accused. If they spoke something against the accused and if they did not support the prosecution case to some extent against the accused then the part of their evidence which

Page 8 of 14

S.C.No. 110 of 2016 is against the accused can be taken into consideration in view of the said judgment. But as they did not state anything against the accused the above said judgment is not helpful to the prosecution case.

19. The evidence of P.W.14 shows that there was pathway dispute between the deceased and A-7 and A-8 and there is no iota of evidence against A-2 to

A-8. The only evidence is against A-1 and i.e., of P.W.1 to the effect that he offered pesticide bottle and asked him to drink and die and the deceased took it and consumed it and fell down. Basing only on this part of evidence of

P.W.1 it cannot be said that A-1 abetted commission of suicide. This is because no other witnesses spoke anything against A-1.

20. Simply because the accused quarrelled with the deceased regarding boundary dispute it cannot be said that they instigated the deceased to commit suicide. For boundary dispute the deceased can as well file a civil suit and can take other legal steps. It is suggested to P.W.1 that the deceased committed suicide due to dispute between him and P.W.8 regarding consideration of sale of land. P.W.1 admitted that the deceased purchased 100 square yards from

P.W.8 for Rs.9,00,000/-. But she denied that they paid only Rs.50,000/- and did not pay balance and hence, there were disputes between them and P.W.8.

21. P.W.14 admitted that P.W.1 did not state before him the names of elders. P.W.14 does not know whether there was dispute between P.W.8 and deceased regarding payment of sale consideration by the deceased.

Therefore, it is clear that P.W.14 did not conduct investigation in detail.

P.W.14 deposed that he collected M.O.1 by wearing gloves and did not send it

Page 9 of 14

S.C.No. 110 of 2016 to fingerprint expert. If A-1 handed over M.O.1 to deceased it should have contained fingerprints of A-1. But P.W.14 did not conduct investigation in the direction of sending M.O.1 to fingerprint expert to know whether fingerprints of

A-1 were available on M.O.1 or not.

22. Ex.D-1 is certified copy of F.I.R. registered on the complaint of A-4 against P.W.1 and others alleging that they were made galata by keeping dead body of deceased in their house and committed mischief. That is not at all relevant as the point is whether suicide is abetted by the accused or not.

Simply because the relations of deceased made galata it cannot be said that the accused abetted the suicide. The evidence on record is not sufficient to say that the accused abetted the suicide by the deceased. Moreover, P.W.1 deposed that she filed two reports to police. Therefore, her evidence is not consistent. She clearly admitted that she did not file any document to show that there is way since 40 years to her field.

23. In the absence of clinching evidence in support of prosecution case regarding existence of such a way since such a long time the sole testimony of

P.W.1 cannot be made basis to come to conclusion against the accused particularly in the wake of disputes between the families of deceased and accused from considerable time.

24. Admittedly P.W.1 did not file any complaint with police regarding disputes raised by A-1 prior to this incident. P.W.14 clearly deposed that only

A-1 obstructed the deceased. Then why other accused were arrayed is not explained by prosecution agency or investigating agency. In Ex.P-1 it was

Page 10 of 14

S.C.No. 110 of 2016 clearly mentioned that P.Ws.1 and 4 were at distance when the deceased consumed pesticide poison. P.W.4 deposed that she went to school on that day. Therefore, it is highly difficult to accept the testimony of P.W.1.

25. As already stated P.W.1 clearly stated that she filed two reports to police. Therefore, the genuineness of prosecution case and its genesis are very much doubtful. P.W.1 was examined on 03-02-2020 and P.Ws.2 to 8 were examined on 05-02-2020 and P.Ws.9 and 10 were examined on 06-02-2020. But on that ground itself it cannot be said in the absence of any cogent supporting evidence that they were won over by the accused and hence, they did not support the prosecution case. Moreover, P.Ws.2 and 3 are related to P.W.1 and the deceased and P.W.4 is daughter of P.W.1 and deceased.

26. There is no definite and clinching evidence regarding existence of pathway of the land of deceased by the side of land of accused since 40 years.

There is also delay of about 11 hours in giving complaint to police. The reason given for the same was waiting for relations. According to P.W.1 that one of her relations scribed Ex.P-1 in front of Munugode Police Station but she does not remember the name of the person who scribed Ex.P-1. Therefore, her evidence is not convincing. If really her relation scribed Ex.P-1 she should have stated his name.

27. In the judgment cited on behalf of the prosecution and referred to above it was also held that even if there are omissions and contradictions and discrepancies the entire evidence cannot be disregarded. But in the present

Page 11 of 14

S.C.No. 110 of 2016 case on hand the evidence of P.W.1 is not consistent and convincing and as already stated the genuineness of the prosecution is also doubtful as P.W.1 gave two reports to police and there is considerable delay of nearly 11 hours in giving report to police. The main material witnesses who are in the ordinary course of events expected to support prosecution case did not support the prosecution case. Hence, the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be made basis to come to conclusion against the accused.

28. For all the above said reasons, the court holds that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. and that they are entitled to acquittal. Point is answered accordingly.

29. In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 8 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. and under

Section 235(1), Cr.P.C. the accused Nos.1 to 8 are acquitted of the said offence. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after six months.

M.O.1 pesticide bottle shall be destroyed after appeal time or after disposal of appeal if any.

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

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 19th day of May, 2022.

Judge,

Family Court-cum-VI Addl.

Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.

Page 12 of 14

S.C.No. 110 of 2016

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

P.W.1Tirupari Nirmala is complainant and wife of deceased.

P.W.2Karnari Narshima is eyewitness.

P.W.3Yerasani Krishna is eyewitness.

P.W.4T. Shivani is eyewitness and daughter of deceased.

P.W.5Sagarla Linga Swamy is panchayat elder and circumstantial witness.

P.W.6Naragoni Mutyalu is circumstantial witness.

P.W.7Dham Radamma is circumstantial witness.

P.W.8Dham Khasim is circumstantial witness.

P.W.9Dubba Gopal is panchayat elder and circumstantial witness.

P.W.10Perumalla Kanakaiah is panchayat elder and circumstantial witness.

P.W.11Jakkala Mallaiah is panch for scene and seizure and inquest.

P.W.12Kommu Narshimha is panch for scene and seizure and inquest.

P.W.13 Dr. G. Srikanth Reddy who conducted autopsy.

P.W.14 B. Daniel Kumar, S.I. of Police, Munugode P.S. is the 1st investigation officer.

P.W.15 D. Mahipal Reddy, S.I. of Police who is I.O. and filed charge sheet.

FOR DEFENCE : - NONE - : EXHIBITS MARKED :

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1Dt.03-09-2015 Complaint given by P.W.1.

Ex.P.2Dt.04-09-2015 Statement under Section 161(3), Cr.P.C. of P.W.2

Ex.P.3Dt. -- Statement under Section 161(3), Cr.P.C. of P.W.3

Ex.P.4Dt.04-09-2015 Statement under Section 161(3), Cr.P.C. of P.W.4

Ex.P.5Dt. -- Statement under Section 161(3), Cr.P.C. of P.W.5

Ex.P.6Dt.05-09-2015 Statement under Section 161(3), Cr.P.C. of P.W.6

Ex.P.7Dt.05-09-2015 Statement under Section 161(3), Cr.P.C. of P.W.7

Ex.P.8Dt.05-09-2015 Statement under Section 161(3), Cr.P.C. of P.W.8

Page 13 of 14

S.C.No. 110 of 2016

Ex.P.9Dt. -- Statement under Section 161(3), Cr.P.C. of P.W.9

Ex.P.10Dt. -- Statement under Section 161(3), Cr.P.C. of P.W.10

Ex.P.11Dt.04-09-2015 Signature of P.W.11 on inquest panchanama

Ex.P.12Dt.04-09-2015 Signature of P.W.11 on scene cum seizure panchanama

Ex.P.13Dt.04-09-2015 Signature of P.W.11 on rough sketch

Ex.P.14Dt.04-09-2015 Signature of P.W.12 on inquest panchanama

Ex.P.15Dt.04-09-2015 Signature of P.W.12 on scene cum seizure panchanama

Ex.P.16Dt.04-09-2015 Signature of P.W.12 on rough sketch

Ex.P.17 Dt.04-09-2015 P.M.E. Report.

Ex.P.18 Dt.18-11-2015 F.S.L. Report.

Ex.P.19 Dt.03-09-2015 First Information Report in Crime No.112 of 2015 of P.S. Munugode.

Ex.P.20 Dt.04-09-2015 Scene of offence cum seizure panchanama

Ex.P.21 Dt.04-09-2015 Rough sketch

Ex.P.22 Dt.04-09-2015 Inquest panchanama

Ex.P.23 Dt.28-12-2015 Letter issued by Tahsildar, Munugode Mandal.

FOR DEFENCE :

Ex.D.1Dt.04-09-2015 C.C. of First Information Report in Crime No.113 of 2015 of P.S. Munugode with complaint.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:-

M.O.1Pesticide bottle.

Judge,

Family Court-cum-VI Addl.

Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.

Page 14 of 14

M.C.No. 16 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-VI ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE: NALGONDA.

Thursday, the 19th day of May, 2022

Present: M. Krishna Murthy,

Judge, Family Court-cum-VI Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Nalgonda

M.C. No. 16 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

Sana Afreen W/o Syed Majid D/o Osman Ali Khalid, age: 25 years, Occu: Household, R/o H.No.5-3-25/A, Plot No.81, Bhongir Road, Ramannapet village and Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District.

… Petitioner A N D

Syed Majid @ Irfan S/o Syed, Ahmed @ Saber, age: 28 years, Occu: Pvt. Employee, R/o Minority Colony, Plot No.81, Bhongir Road, Ramannapet village and Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District.

…Respondent.

This case is coming on 16-05-2022 for disposal before me in the presence of Sri S. Srinivas Reddy Advocate for the petitioner, Sri N. Prasanna Kumar, Advocate for the respondent, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

:: O R D E R ::

1. This petition is filed by wife against husband under Section 125 of

Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month and

Rs.50,000/- towards litigation expenses. It is not in dispute between the parties that they are wife and husband, that they are Muslims, that their marriage took place on 19-05-2017 at Nalgonda and that they have no children.

Page 1 of 12

M.C.No. 16 of 2018

2.01. The case of the petitioner in brief as per petition is as follows:- Cash of Rs.5,00,000/-, 10 tulas of gold and Rs.1,00,000/- for purchasing motorcycle of Honda Unicorn and household articles worth Rs.6,00,000/- were given by the parents of the petitioner at the time of marriage. They lived happily for two months. Thereafter the respondent used to harass the petitioner by coming to house in late nights in drunken condition and he used misbehave with her by abusing her in filthy language. The respondent and his family members used to demand additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- stating that the father of the petitioner was working in Muscat City, Oman Country and earning huge amount.

2.02. The other close relations of the respondent also used to visit house of the respondent and instigate the respondent to demand additional dowry. The respondent and his family members threatened the petitioner several times that they would arrange another marriage to the respondent if additional dowry was not paid. The family members of the respondent advised the respondent to pronounce “Triple Thalaq”. They did not provide even proper food to the petitioner and they did not allow to talk to her parents even if her family members called her on phone she should talk to them in the presence of respondent and his family members and the petitioner was not allowed to inform about the ill-treatment.

2.03. They threatened that they would confine her in a room and killed her by pouring kerosene. In spite of mediation through family members of the petitioner and elders named in para 3 of the petition there was no change in

Page 2 of 12

M.C.No. 16 of 2018

the attitude of the respondent and his family members. The petitioner gave complaint to police and they registered crime for the offence punishable under

Section 498-A, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act on 24-04-2018. Thereafter, the respondent got issued a legal notice on 30-04-2018 with false allegations and petitioner gave reply on 12-05-2018 denying the allegations. The petitioner is not having any sort of income and her parents were also unable to provide maintenance.

2.04. The respondent neglected and refused to maintain the petitioner. The respondent is a private employee and he completed B.Tech. Degree and earning Rs.60,000/- per month towards salary. He is also having movable and immovable properties and earning Rs.20,000/- per month by way of rents and other source of income. The petitioner is not having any properties and she is depending on the parents and they expressed their inability to maintain her and she is also facing starvation often. She was driven out from the house of respondent on 15-10-2017 and he refused to take back her and he bluntly refused to take her back. Hence, the petition.

3.01. The respondent filed a counter admitting the marriage with the petitioner, denying other allegations of the petitioner and materially contending as follows:- The respondent is against dowry system and there is no dowry system in Muslim religion. The respondent himself presented 3.5 tulas gold to the petitioner out of love and affection. They started living at

Ramannapet as respondent is working at Ramannapet and his parents also used to stay with him. The petitioner used to behave in capricious manner

Page 3 of 12

M.C.No. 16 of 2018

and she never gave respect to the parents of the respondent and other elders.

She used to comment that her father was working at abroad and earning handsome amount and she used to behave with superiority complex.

3.02. The petitioner was not tolerating even any guest or relation of respondent visiting the house. She was always in a mood to pick up quarrel either with the respondent or with his family members on petty domestic issues. She used to live the company of the respondent keeping the same in mind. The respondent never habituated to consume alcohol. He was working in a noble profession as lecturer and used to act as role model to his students.

The petitioner maintained hate and love relations. She used to leave the company of the respondent frequently without intimation either to him or his parents. The respondent used to bring her back to his company. The petitioner was in the company of the respondent was hardly three months.

3.03. The respondent and his parents several times requested the petitioner to join him but she did not accept. The father of the petitioner abused the respondent in most filthy language in the presence of one Muslim community elder at Nalgonda by name Sri Moulana Ather Sab. The petitioner approached police several times and the police had enquiry and came to know that the allegations on the respondent are false and hence, they did nto register crime. The criminal case was filed by the petitioner only to harass the respondent. The respondent is working in Sri Hindu Degree College,

Ramannapet and working as Lecturer in Computer Sciences and getting

Rs.7,000/- p.m.

Page 4 of 12

M.C.No. 16 of 2018

3.04. If the petitioner joined the respondent he is ready to maintain her.

There is no cause of action. The petition may be dismissed and the petitioner may be directed to join the company of the respondent.

4. The petitioner got herself examined as P.W.1 and got exhibited

Exs.A-1 to A-6. The respondent got himself examined s R.W.1. He did not adduce any documentary evidence. Both sides filed Affidavits of Assets and

Liabilities (for short A.A.L.) as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Anr., in Criminal Appeal No.730/2020 decided on

04-11-2020.

5.01.Heard both sides and perused the record.

5.02. Learned advocate for the petitioner while referring to contentions of both sides and evidence on record and mainly contended that the petitioner proved her case, that the respondent neglected and refused to maintain her having sufficient means and she is unable to maintain herself and hence, the petition may be allowed.

5.03. On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondent while referring to pleadings and evidence on both sides mainly contended that the petitioner did prove her case and respondent proved his case and hence, the petition may be dismissed.

6. The point for determination is whether the petitioner is entitled to maintenance and litigation expenses and, if so, at what rate.

Page 5 of 12

M.C.No. 16 of 2018

7. Point:- P.W.1 deposed in support of her case and further deposed about Exs.A-1 to A-6. Ex.A-1 is marriage certificate showing that the petitioner and respondent were married as per Muslim customs on 19-05-2017. Ex.A-2 is certified copy (for short C.C.) of First Information Report (for short F.I.R.) in the criminal case filed by the petitioner against the respondent and his family members and relations. Ex.A-3 is C.C. of complaint filed by the petitioner against the respondent and his relations and on the basis of the same the crime was registered under the original of Ex.A-2. Ex.A-4 is C.C. of charge sheet in the said crime. Ex.A-5 is document said to have been list of articles presented at the time of marriage. Ex.A-6 is copy of legal notice got issued by the respondent to the petitioner on 30-04-2018 asking her to join the respondent.

8. It is elicited from P.W.1 that she approximately stayed about 4 or 5 months in the house of her in-laws. She admitted that after the elders on her side and on the side of respondent advised her to join the conjugal society of the respondent. She refused for the same stating that she would obtain divorce. She admitted that she filed Domestic Violence Case (for short

D.V.C.) No. 58 of 2018 on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile Court), Nalgonda against the respondent and his parents and brothers and others and criminal case before Women Police Station,

Nalgonda and in C.C.No.1063 of 2019 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First

Class (Prohibition and Excise offences), Nalgonda and the said case is covered by Exs.A-2 to A-4.

Page 6 of 12

M.C.No. 16 of 2018

9. A suggestion was put to her that respondent is ready to take her back to him to his conjugal society and whether she was ready to join him. She answered stating that she was not ready as he contracted second marriage and begot one female child through his second wife and prior to her marriage itself he had extra marital relationship and he married her only for money.

She denied the suggestion that the respondent did not contract any second marriage and did not beget any female child. She admitted that as on the date of marriage the respondent is not having any job. She added that he did job as lecturer at Ramannapet after one month after the marriage.

10. She denied the suggestion that the respondent lost the said job due to lockdown due to Corona disease. She also denied the suggestion that the respondent is not having any means as stated by her. The evidence of P.W.1 shows that she studied M.Sc. B.Ed. but she is not doing any job. She deposed that the respondent is studied M.Tech. She denied the suggestion that the parents and grandmother of respondent are depending on the sole earning of the respondent.

11. The respondent as R.W.1 admitted that he studied M.Tech. He denied the suggestion that bike worth Rs.1,00,000/- was given to him at the time of marriage. He adds that only Rs.85,000/- cash was given to purchase bike. He admitted that household articles were given to him at the time of marriage but he does not know whether their worth was Rs.6,00,000/-. He denied the suggestion that Ex.A-5 list was prepared at the time of his marriage between him and P.W.1. He added that his signatures on the same do not belong to

Page 7 of 12

M.C.No. 16 of 2018

their relations and the said list was not accepted by them. He deposed that his parents are living in the same house in which himself and P.W.1 were living.

12. He added that they were living in one room in the first floor of their parents were residing in the ground floor. He deposed that he is having two younger brothers and he is not having sisters that one of his brothers was living at Nalgonda and another brother was residing in their house at

Ramannapet at the time of his marriage. He denied that he was addicted to taking alcohol after sometime after marriage and that he harassed the petitioner for additional dowry of Rs.10,000,00/-. He admitted about filing of criminal case by the petitioner referred to earlier and stated that it is a false case.

13. He also denied that P.W.1 filed criminal case as he refused to look after her even though elders advised him to look after her properly and as he insisted for additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/-. He deposed that they were

B.Sc., B.Com., B.A. courses in Sri Hindu Degree College, Ramannapet referred to by him when he worked there. He added that at present he is not working in the said college. He denied the suggestion that as he is M.Tech.

he never worked in Sri Hindu Degree College and that he is working in private company as Software Engineer at Hyderabad and earning Rs.60,000/- per month. He also denied that he worked in private company even during Covid- 2019 also, that he worked from home and that now he is deposing falsely. He

Page 8 of 12

M.C.No. 16 of 2018

also denied that he can easily pay Rs.30,000/- to the petitioner as maintenance.

14. It is all the evidence adduced by both the parties on a careful analysis of the evidence on record it is clear from the evidence that the respondent harassed her for additional dowry and neglected her and refused to maintain her and necked her away from the house. Her evidence also shows that he contracted another marriage and begot one female child and he had extramarital relationship prior to her marriage. Therefore, there is a justifiable ground for the petitioner to live separately from the respondent as the evidence of P.W.1 shows that the respondent contracted another marriage.

15. Though the respondent got issued legal notice to the petitioner asking her to join him she is not expected to join him as the respondent is living with another lady. Hence, the issuing of legal notice by the respondent to the petitioner asking her to join him is not helpful to him in any way. It is not in dispute between the parties that in Crl.M.P.No.261 of 2018 my learned predecessor granted interim maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to the petitioner on 28-10-2019. In view of the evidence on record the court holds that the respondent neglected and refused to maintain the petitioner. The evidence on record also shows that the petitioner is not having any independent source of income and the respondent is M. Tech. Hence, the court holds that the petitioner is entitled to maintenance.

16. Now the quantum of maintenance has to be decided. The petitioner claimed Rs.30,000/- as maintenance but she did not file any document to

Page 9 of 12

M.C.No. 16 of 2018

show that the respondent is having movable and immovable properties and earning Rs.60,000/- per month by working in a private company. In the A.A.L.

filed by the petitioner she did not give any particulars of the properties of the respondent specifically. From the A.A.L. and from the evidence of P.W.1 it is clear that she is M.Sc. B.Ed. The respondent in his A.A.L. mentioned that he studied M.Tech. and working as Lecturer and got salary of Rs.8,000/-. Though he mentioned that salary certificate was enclosed he did not file such salary certificate.

17. He also mentioned that he is having parents and his father is suffering from hypertension and cardiac disorder and mother is suffering from dermatological problem and they need medical treatment continuously. He also mentioned that the petitioner is working as private teacher and earning

Rs.8,000/- per month but he did not file any document to prove the same.

18. On a consideration of the entire material on record as the petitioner is

M.Sc. B.Ed. and as respondent is M.Tech., the court is of the considered opinion that an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month would be reasonable amount of maintenance that can be directed to be paid by the respondent to the petitioner from the date of petition. The interim maintenance already paid as referred to above shall be given due credit by the petitioner. The respondent has to pay the arrears of maintenance now granted after excluding interim maintenance already paid within three months from today. The respondent should pay regular maintenance and arrears of maintenance by directly crediting into the account of petitioner which has to be furnished by her

Page 10 of 12

M.C.No. 16 of 2018

without delay. The respondent can be directed to pay the maintenance regularly on or before 10th of every succeeding month. Regarding litigation expenses in the facts and circumstances of the case the court holds that the petitioner can be granted Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses payable by the respondent. Point is answered accordingly.

19. In the result, the petition is allowed in part. The respondent is directed to pay maintenance of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four thousand only) per month to the petitioner from the date of this petition. The interim maintenance already paid shall be given due credit by the petitioner. The respondent is directed to pay the arrears of maintenance now granted after excluding interim maintenance already paid within three months from today. The maintenance has to be paid by the respondent on or before 10th of every succeeding month. The petitioner shall furnish particulars of her bank account and the respondent has to credit the arrears of maintenance and the regular maintenance directly to such bank account. The respondent is further directed to pay to the petitioner Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) only towards litigation expenses.

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

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19th day of May, 2022.

Judge, Family Court-cum-

VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda

Page 11 of 12

M.C.No. 16 of 2018

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PETITIONER:

P.W.1: Sana Afreen (Petitioner)

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

R.W.1: Syed Majid (Respondent)

EXHIBITS MARKED

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

Ex.A-1: Dated 01-06-2017: Marriage certificate

Ex.A-2: Dated 24-04-2018: C.C. of F.I.R. in Crime No.34 of 2018 of Women Police Station, Nalgonda.

Ex.A-3: Dated 15-03-2018: C.C. of Complaint under Section 200, Cr.P.C.

Ex.A-4: Dated 14-06-2019: C.C. of charge sheet in Crime No.34 of 2018.

Ex.A-5: Dated 15-03-2017: Document said to have been list of articles presented at the time of marriage.

Ex.A-6: Dated 30-04-2018: Copy of legal notice.

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:

- NIL -

Judge, Family Court-cum-

VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda

Page 12 of 12

O.P.No.31 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-VI ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT JUDGE: NALGONDA.

Thursday, the 19th day of May, 2022

Present: M. Krishna Murthy,

Judge, Family Court-cum-VI Additional

District Judge, Nalgonda

O.P. No. 31 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

Nimmala Srilatha W/o Bhukya Pedda Babu, (D/o Sreenu) aged: 27 years, Occ: Government Teacher, R/o C/o Ch. Venkateshwarlu, H.No.

8-1-961, Sathish Nagar, Nalgonda Town and District.

… Petitioner A N D

Bhukya Pedda Babu, S/o Saidulu, aged: 31 years, Occ: Government

Teacher, N/o Yerragattu Thanda village, Mellacheruvu Mandal,

Suryapet District, presently is working at Government High School, beside Court premises at Miryalaguda town and Nalgonda District.

…Respondent.

This case is coming today for hearing before me in the presence of Sri J. Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri M. Yadagiri Reddy, advocate for the respondent having not been present and respondent present and reported no evidence and no objection for granting divorce, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:-

:: O R D E R ::

1. This petition is filed by wife against husband for divorce under Section 13 (1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the Act) on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

Page 1 of 8

O.P.No.31 of 2018 2.01. The case of the petitioner in brief as per petition is as follows:- The marriage between parties took place on 19.04.2013 at Yadagirigutta as per

Hindu rites and customs prevailing in their community. For five months they lived happily. The petitioner conceived pregnancy and doctors advised bed rest. The mother of the respondent stayed with petitioner and respondent for 10 days at Chinthabhavi. The respondent and his mother harassed the petitioner in one way or the other stating that the petitioner did not bring any dowry and pregnancy was not conceived with the respondent and started suspecting fidelity of the petitioner. The respondent used to suspect the petitioner even if she talks to female colleagues and neighbours.

2.02 The petitioner gave complaint to police, Deverakonda and crime was registered. On 03-11-2013 at Chendupatla the elders conducted panchayat was found with the respondent and advised the respondent to live with the petitioner properly. The petitioner joined the respondent and lived happily at

Deverakonda. But there was no change in the attitude of respondent and harassed her stating that she did not conceive pregnancy with respondent.

The petitioner gave birth to one male child by name Aashrith on 01-03-2014.

The respondent on seeing the child started demanding the petitioner to whom the child was born and there were no features of him on the child and so saying beat the petitioner with water bottle in the abdomen.

2.03 The respondent did not celebrate any function to the child. He kept the A.T.M, bank passbook and certificates and pusthalathadu of petitioner with him. He used to draw monthly salary of the petitioner and give to his parents. He harassed the petitioner to withdraw the criminal case. He used

Page 2 of 8

O.P.No.31 of 2018 to lock the doors keeping the petitioner in the room while going out from the house and he did not allow the petitioner to talk to anybody. The criminal case ended in compromise in Lok-adalat on 22-11-2014. The respondent used to beat the petitioner on hearing words of his mother when she was brought to the house of the parties after she was beaten by some others due to land disputes. The petitioner conceived for the second time in April, 2015 and she was transferred to M.P.P.S Pulicherla, Peddavoora Mandal.

2.04 The respondent got transferred to Government High School,

Miryalaguda. The petitioner joined at new station on 22-07-2015 and the parties lived at Pulicherla. The petitioner used to return from job by 3.30 P.M.

The respondent used to make up and down for his duties and he used to return by 6:00 or 7:00 P.M and used to enquiry with the house owner as to how many persons came to his house and started suspecting the petitioners and questioning her as to what she was doing from 3.30 P.M till he came to house. He used to harass the petitioner mentally and physically. The respondent harassed the petitioner in Jyothi hospital, Deverakonda when he took her there for treatment stating that the lab technician was seeing her constantly and questioned what was the relationship between the petitioner and lab technician.

2.05 When the petitioner was leaving that place on hearing their words the respondent dragged the infant child and made him stand in the middle of the road under sun rise. The respondent took the petitioner on bike forcibly to cross roads of Ameerpeta and questioned her whether she likes him or house owner and harassed the petitioner and made the child without food upto

Page 3 of 8

O.P.No.31 of 2018 8.30 P.M on repeated request the respondent took the petitioner with child.

On the next day when the petitioner was going to house of her parents the respondent took away the luggage and child and harassed the petitioner. The petitioner went to her parents house and respondent came after one hour and the parents of the petitioners asked the respondent to stay there the respondent abused the petitioner and her parents alleging that parents of the petitioner tried to kill him with poison in the meals (Mandhu).

2.06. After one week the petitioner wen to pulicherla for duties on the advice of the respondent his brother Ramu followed her and at Nidamanoor the said

Ramu took the minor child and made nuisance in the bus. The respondent also came and made galatta. The police Nidamanoor requite the petitioner and later she gave complaint to police Mothe and crime No. 137 of 2015 was registered on 09-09-2015 under Section 498-A, I.P.C against respondent and his brother. The parties are living separately from 09-09-2015. The petitioner gave birth to female child on 03-01-2016 by name Rithwika. The respondent took a house on rent just opposite to house of petitioner and started creating nuisance.

2.07. When the villagers rescued petitioner the respondent gave complaint to police, Peddavoora against the petitioner and village elders in crime No.

121 of 2016. As the police did not arrest the petitioner and village elders the respondent filed writ petition No. 46834 of 2016 and notice before admission was ordered. The petitioner approached District Collector on 31-07-2017 as the respondent harassed her. Basing on the same the petitioner got deputation orders deputing her M.P.P.S Kathalguda of Nalgonda Town on

Page 4 of 8

O.P.No.31 of 2018 01-08-2017. The respondent created nuisance in the Kathalguda school. On application of head master of Kathalguda and village elders the M.E.O got deputed Vidyadanam programme in District Jail Nalgonda due to threat from the respondent. The respondent did not change his attitude. Hence, the petition.

3.01. The respondent filed a counter admitting his marriage with the petitioner, denying her other allegations and materially contending as follows:-

The petitioner married one Pullaiah, tailor, Nayakangudem and did not obtain legal divorce from him and suppressed the said fact and married the respondent. The petitioner left the company of the respondent when started living with her first husband. The petitioner manhandled the respondent with instigation of home guards named in the counter in para 05 and another person who beat the respondent severely. A criminal case was registered in that connection and it is pending. The petitioner again beat the respondent with the support of one Chinna Venkateshwarl. C.C.No.566 of 2018 is pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise offences) in that connection.

3.02. The petitioner being government employee nominated her paramour

Pullaiah as nominee and she married the respondent to extract money and the children of the petitioner were not born out of wedlock of the parties and her paramour was responsible for the birth of said children. The petitioner used to wander with Pullaiah and he is residing with the petitioner in her house. She filed false criminal case for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, I.P.C at the instigation of said Pullaiah. The parties have to undergo

Page 5 of 8

O.P.No.31 of 2018

Narco analysis test to bring the real facts to light. The petitioner have been suffering from herpes simplex virus. There is no cause of action. Hence, the petition may be dismissed with costs.

4. The reconciliation efforts made by the court failed. The matter was referred to mediation centre. There also the mediation efforts failed. The petitioner got examined herself as P.W.1 and she did not adduce any documentary evidence. The respondent did not adduce any evidence and reported no evidence and he also prayed for divorce.

5. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner. Heard the respondent as his advocate is not present and as he in writing reported no evidence and prayed for divorce. Perused the record.

6. On the above pleading the following points were framed for enquiry: -

1. Whether the respondent substituted the petitioner to cruelty as alleged by him?

2. Whether the respondent withdrawn from conjugal society of petitioner without any reasonable caused?

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to decree of divorce as prayed to ?

4. To what to relief?

7. Points 1 to 3:- P.W.1 deposed in support of her case by filing evidence affidavit in detail about her case. she was not cross examined by the respondent. Her cross-examination was recorded as nil as the respondent was not ready and costs were not paid. Even then the respondent did not take steps to recall P.W.1 to cross examine her. The respondent reported in writing that he does not want to lead evidence and he also prayed for divorce.

Page 6 of 8

O.P.No.31 of 2018

The evidence of P.W.1 is unrebutted as she was not cross examined. Such unrebutted evidence of P.W.1 proved her case that the respondent subjected her to cruelty and deserted her for a continuous period of not less than two years preceding the date of presentation of the petition. The respondent did not adduce any evidence to prove his case. Hence, the court holds that the petitioner proved that the respondent subjected her to cruelty and deserted her for a continuous period of not less than two years preceding the date of presentation of the petition and that she is entitled to decree of divorce.

Points 1 to 3 are answered accordingly.

8. Point No.4:- In view of the findings of this court on points 1 to 3 the court holds that this petition has to be allowed granting decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent that took place on 19-04- 2013 at Yadagirigutta and directing the parties to bear their own costs in the facts and circumstances of the case. Point No.4 is answered accordingly.

9. In the result, the petition is allowed and there shall be a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent that took place on 19-04-2013 at Yadagiri gutta. In the facts and circumstances of the case both parties are directed to bear their own costs.

Dictated to the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open

Court on this the 19th day of May, 2022.

Judge,

Family Court-cum-VI

Additional District, Judge,

Nalgonda

Page 7 of 8

O.P.No.31 of 2018

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PETITIONER:

P.W.1: Nimmala Srilatha

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

-Nil-

EXHIBITS MARKED

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: -Nil-

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:

- Nil-

Judge,

Family Court-cum-VI

Additional District, Judge,

Nalgonda

Page 8 of 8

O.P.No. 89 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-VI

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, NALGONDA

Wednesday, the 18th day of May, 2022

Present: M. Krishna Murthy,

Judge, Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge,

Nalgonda

O.P.No. 89 of 2020

Between:

************************************* … Petitioner No.1/Wife

And

************************************* … Petitioner No.2/Husband

This petition is coming on 18-05-2022 for disposal before me in the presence of Sri Ananthula Shankaraiah, Advocate for the petitioner No.1 and Sri S.R. Tagore, Advocate for the petitioner No.2, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:-

:: ORDER ::

1.This petition was originally filed by wife against the husband for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the Act) and later it was amended to petition under

Section 13-B of the Act.

2. There is no dispute between the parties that their marriage took place on 18-02-2016 at Sri Siddeshwara Swamy Devalyam, Suddulagutta, Korvaturi village

Page 1 of 4

O.P.No. 89 of 2020 of Bachannapet Mandal, Warangal district as per Hindu rites and caste customs prevailing in their community and they were blessed with male child on 25.02.2018. The wife attributed cruelty and desertion on the part of husband in the original petition making certain allegations.

3. The husband filed counter denying the allegations of petitioner and agreeing for divorce with some conditions.

4. The mediation efforts made by this court failed and case was referred to mediation center for mediation and there also the reconciliation efforts failed.

5. Thereafter both parties filed petition for amendment of the petition into a petition under Section 13-B of the Act and it was allowed on 14.05.2022. The petition was amended stating that due to disputes the petitioners were living separately from 20.12.2017 and they have not been able to live together and they mutually agreed that their marriage should be dissolved.

6. The petitioners got examined themselves as P.Ws.1 and 2 and got exhibited Exs. A-1 and A-2 which are wedding card and photo.

7. Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and perused the record.

8. The point for determination is whether the petitioners are entitled to decree of divorce by mutual consent as prayed for.

Page 2 of 4

O.P.No. 89 of 2020

9. Point:- P.Ws.1 and 2 deposed in support of their case. P.W.1 further deposed that Ex.A-1 is wedding card and Ex. A-2 is Joint photo of herself and respondent. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 shows that due to disputes the petitioners are living separately from 20.12.2017 and they have not been able to live together and there is no possibility of their living together. The entire material on record shows that no useful purpose will be served by asking the petitioners to live together and in view of the judgment of Hon’ble High Court for the State of

Telangana in I.A.No.1 and 3 of 2019 in F.C.A.No.155 of 2017 decided on 16-10- 2019 six months statutory period need not be observed. It was an appeal filed

before the Hon’ble High Court against the judgment of Family Court dismissing the

divorce petition in the said appeal.

10. The parties in the said appeal filed an application for amendment of the petition as a petition for divorce by mutual consent and it was allowed by Hon’ble

High Court and divorce was granted waiving the six months period considering the fact that the parties settled their dispute. As the petitioners are living separately since considerable period and as original petition for divorce was filed on 05.12.2020 the court is of the considered opinion that the mandatory statutory period can be waived and divorce by mutual consent can be granted. The point is answered accordingly.

11. In the result, the petition is allowed and there shall be a decree of divorce by mutual consent of petitioners dissolving the marriage of the petitioners which

Page 3 of 4

O.P.No. 89 of 2020 took place on 18-02-2016 at Sri Siddeshwara Swamy Devalyam, Suddulagutta,

Korvaturi village of Bachannapet Mandal, Warangal district.

Dictated to the Junior Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open court this the 18th day of May, 2022.

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT

NALGONDA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:

P.W.1: Aleti @ Pakshula Manisha (Petitioner No.1)

P.W.2: Aleti Kalyan (Petitioner No.2)

EXHIBITS MARKED

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:

Ex.A-1: Marriage wedding card.

Ex.A-2: Joint photograph.

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT

NALGONDA.

Page 4 of 4