Sri M RadhakrishnaChahvan

SC.No. 187 of 2021 1 of 15

TSSN020001982021

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

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE SANGAREDDY

PRESENT : Sri. Dr. M. Radha Krishna Chahavan,

Principal Senior Civil Judge-Cum-

Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangareddy.

MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025

SESSIONS CASE NO. 187 of 2021

(PRC No. 14/2020 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, SPECIAL MOBILE COURT:: SANGAREDDY)

1.Name and description of the :The State of Telangana through complainant Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Patancheru.

2Name and description of the Talari Srikanth S/o. Sivaiah, age: 21 years, accused Occ: Tractor driver, R/o. Bhanur village, Patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy District. N/o. H.No. 3-31, Damasthapur village, Marpally Mandal, Vikarabad District.

3Offence with which charged: Under Section 304-II of IPC, Section 181, 185 (A) of MV Act. 4Plea of the accused:Not guilty 5Finding of the Judge:Not guilty

ASJ

SC.No. 187 of 2021 2 of 15

6Sentence or order:In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable Under Section 304 (II) of IPC, Section 181, 185 (A) of MV Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted Under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months. 7Prosecution conducted by :Sri. G.B. Aravind Kiran, Additional Public Prosecutor.

8Accused defended by:Sri. P. Vinod Reddy, Advocate.

This case came before me on 21.03.2025 for final hearing for disposal in the presence of Sri. G.B. Aravind Kiran, Additional Public Prosecutor and Sri. P. Vinod Reddy, Learned counsel for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a case of causing death having knowledge in drunken condition, wherein the facts of the case as per the charge sheet filed by PW9 are as follows:

a) On 18.12.2019 in the midnight, PW1 who is the Assistant Sub-

Inspector of Police was in patrolling duty and at about 11:45 pm, he received information that there happened an accident on NH 65 road near Dwaraka Weigh Bridge. Immediately PW1 went there, where he noticed one person to be died having head injuries and another person to be sitting with injuries. When PW1 inquired the

ASJ

SC.No. 187 of 2021 3 of 15

said person with injuries, he disclosed his name to be Srikanth and informed that he was driving the two wheeler vehicle i.e. Hero

Passion Plus Bike Bearing No. TS34 C 3397 and one Balaraj (deceased) was sitting as pillion rider. At about 11:30 pm, they had an accident where Balaraj hit to the sign board due to which he sustained severe head injuries which lead to spot death. Srikanth sustained injuries. PW1 took Srikanth to Police Station and on doubt he made breath analyzing test in which the machine shown the reading as 191 mg /100 ml. Accordingly, they concluded that the accused drove the two wheeler in drunken condition and caused accident.

2. As such, basing on the said statement of PW1, LW11/CH. Prasad

Rao/Sub-Inspector of Police, Patancheru Police Station, registered a case in Crime No. 584/2019, for the offence punishable Under Section 304 (II) of IPC, Section 185-A of MV Act by issuing First Information

Report (Ex.P7) and took up the investigation.

3. During the course of investigation, LW11/CH. Prasad Rao examined

PW1 and recorded his statement. Since the case is to be investigated by not less than the rank of Inspector of Police, PW9 took up further investigation and verified the investigation done by LW11 is found on

ASJ

SC.No. 187 of 2021 4 of 15

correct lines. Then PW9 conducted the scene of offence panchanama and also drawn rough sketch in the presence of panch witnesses and brought the crime vehicle to Police Station for inspection. Thereafter,

PW9 proceeded to Government Area Hospital, Patancheru and examined the dead body and relatives of deceased and witnesses LW2 to 6. Then conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of deceased/Balaraj. Subsequently, the dead body was subjected to autopsy and the corpse was handed over to the family members.

Later, he produced the accused for judicial remand before the

Magistrate. Thereafter, he gave a request to PW8 for inspecting the

crime vehicle i.e. Hero Honda Passion Pro who gave his report.

Thereafter, he collected PME report and MVI report, after completion of investigation, PW8 filed charge sheet against the accused persons.

4. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court,

Sangareddy, took cognizance of the offence under Section 304 (II) of

IPC, Section 181, 185-A of MV Act against the accused vide PRC No.

14 of 2020, and after compliance of Sec. 209 (a) Cr.P.C., as the offence is exclusively triable by court of sessions, the case was committed to the Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions Court,

ASJ

SC.No. 187 of 2021 5 of 15

Sangareddy and the same is taken on file as S.C.No. 187/2021 and made over to this court.

5. After hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor and accused, charge was framed Under Section 304 (II) of IPC, Section 181, 185-A of MV

Act, read over and explained to accused in vernacular language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. Then, the schedule for commencement of trial has been issued, witnesses PW.1 to PW10 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P19, as indicated in the appendix of evidence. No defence evidence was adduced by accused however, Ex.D1 & Ex.D2 are marked through prosecution witnesses.

7. Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence was closed.

8. Heard arguments of both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for

the offence Under Section 304 (II) IPC, Section 181, 185 (A) of MV

Act, beyond reasonable doubt ?”

ASJ

SC.No. 187 of 2021 6 of 15

10.POINT: PW1 is the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police who stated categorically that on information he went to the scene of offence where he saw the accused along with the deceased and a motorcycle. He stated that the accused informed him that he was driving the two wheeler on the date of accident and the deceased was sitting as pillion rider. They had accident due to a pipe in the divider and the deceased hit to the said sign board and died on the spot. The accused sustained injuries whom he took to police station where they got to know that the accused consumed alcohol. He marked Ex.P1 which is the report lodged by him. In the cross examination he stated as follows: he did not file any proof of document to show that he was on patrolling duty on 18.12.2019 and that he did not mention as to how many persons were on patrolling duty. He admitted that there was no rush on the road as it was night. He stated that the accused also sustained injuries in the said accident. He took the accused to the Police Station as he was having minor injuries and thereby, performed breath analyzing test. All the other suggestions put to him were denied.

11.PW2 is the father of deceased, who stated that he received information that his son died in the road accident and he was told that

Srikanth caused the accident in intoxicated condition. In the cross

ASJ

SC.No. 187 of 2021 7 of 15

examination he admitted that he know all the facts only through police and his son can ride the motorcycle and however, his son had no driving license. He admitted that the said motorcycle belongs to him.

12.PW3 is the mother of deceased, who also stated in the same lines stating that she know the facts about the accident through police and her son knows driving of two wheeler.

13.PW4 is the relative of deceased who stated that he was informed that the accused caused accident in which his nephew i.e. Balraju died.

Ex.D1 is marked through him in which he stated that he came to know about the accident through PW5. He denied to have stated the said statement to police. He admitted that the crime vehicle i.e. motorcycle belong to deceased and it was registered on his name.

14.PW5 is the brother-in-law of deceased who also stated that the accused took the deceased with him by insisting him to come along with him and on the next day he came to know about the accident where Balraj died. According to PW5, he came to know that the accused caused accident in drunken condition. In the cross examination Ex.D2 is marked which is the statement said to have spoken by PW5 before police that he informed about the accident to

PW2. He denied the said statement to have spoken by him. He too

ASJ

SC.No. 187 of 2021 8 of 15

admitted that the crime vehicle was registered on the name of deceased and deceased knows driving of two wheeler. Admittedly, he is a hear-say witness.

15.PW6 is the panch witness for scene of ofence panchanama. He marked Exs.P2 & P3 which are the scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch. Ex.P4 is also marked by him which is the inquest panchanama. He categorically stated that all the said panchanama proceedings were prepared in his presence and accordingly, he signed on them. In the cross examination he admitted that the deceased is his cousin.

16.PW7 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased. He stated to have found the following ante mortem injuries:

1. Grazing abrasions over left thigh, right dorsum of hand, left elbow and left hand.

2. Head injury involving the whole face from chin extending to the back of occiput with opened cranium with absent brain matter and right half of the face be opened as a flap attached with only scalp skin over the lower occiputal area.

According to him, the cause of death was head injury and he specifically stated that the said injuries are possible in a massive accident that too if a heavy vehicle passes through the body. Ex.P5 is the Post Mortem Examination report issued by PW7.

ASJ

SC.No. 187 of 2021 9 of 15

17.PW8 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector who testified that he examined the crime vehicle bearing Registration No. TS34C3397 and found that there were no mechanical defects in the said vehicle. Ex.P6 is the Accident Inspection report. He categorically stated that when he asked the accused to produce driving license, he failed to do so. He admitted that he mentioned the name of driver as T. Srikanth only basing on the letter of police.

18.PW9 is the Investigating Officer, who nevertheless deposed the chronological order of events occurred, during the course of investigation. He specifically stated that as per breath analyzing test report/Ex.P8, the accused found to be intoxicated and on his interrogation the accused said to have confessed his guilt. He narrated the entire chronological incidents occurred during the investigation.

19.In the cross examination he stated that he do not know whether there were CCTV camaras fixed in various places. He admitted that there are eight (8) junctions between Bhanoor village and scene of offence and he do not know whether every junction has CCTV camaras. He also stated that he do not know whether the petrol pumps on the national high way and the SVR Function Hall which is on the national highway has various CCTV camaras facing the national

ASJ

SC.No. 187 of 2021 10 of 15

highway. He marked Exs.P10 to P18 which are the photographs.

Ex.P19 which is the certificate Under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence

Act. He admitted that Exs.P10 to P18 does not confront the accused to be driver of the motorcycle. He denied the suggestion that he intentionally omitted to get the recordings of CCTV camaras though available at various places on the national highway.

20.PW10 is a circumstantial witness who stated that he got the information about the accident on which he went to the scene of offence where he saw the deceased and accused with injuries and noticed the deceased to be died on the spot. He did not speak anything as against the accused as such, he was declared hostile and in the cross examination by the prosecution, Ex.P9 is marked which is the contradictory statement about the involvement of accused in the crime which he denied. He admitted that there are seven (7) junctions between Nandigama to Muthangi on the national highway and there are

CCTV camaras at all the junctions. He also stated that there are CCTV camaras in petrol pump facing the road. He categorically stated that

Srikanth was pillion rider and Balraj(deceased) was riding the vehicle.

21.On thoroughly sifting the evidence of all the witness it can be perceived that the prime contention of the prosecution is that the

ASJ

SC.No. 187 of 2021 11 of 15

accident occurred due to the accused herein. The incident has been established and it is proved that there was an accident in which the deceased died and the accused sustained injuries. As per prosecution the deceased died due to the injuries sustained by him by hitting the sign board. The medical evidence in the form of PW7 and Ex.P5, it is to be noted that such injuries are possible, if a heavy vehicle passes through the body, admittedly, the incident happened on the national highway and there is no specific evidence from prosecution as to why such severe injuries were there on the body of deceased. As per Ex.P3 the blood stains are shown at three (3) different places i.e. on the sign board and on the two sides of the road. This particular evidence show that after hitting sign board, the deceased might have fallen on the road and there is a possibility of passing of heavy vehicles through the body.

This particular aspect was not established by prosecution. The death was however, not disputed and whether the accident itself caused the death or the death was a result of passing of vehicle through the body of deceased is a unanswered question.

22.The entire evidence of prosecution is revolving about the confession of accused which he said to have made to PW1. Admittedly,

PW1 is a Police Officer. There is no direct eye witness proving that the

ASJ

SC.No. 187 of 2021 12 of 15

accused was driving the vehicle on the date of incident. The breath analyzing test report as in Ex.P8 is though in favour of prosecution, merely consuming alcohol is not an offence.

23.The contention of the prosecution is that the accused caused the accident in intoxicated condition. All the witnesses in this case are hear say witnesses and circumstantial. There is no specific eye witness who saw the accused driving the crime vehicle. The defense could establish that there were CCTV camaras through out the road and admittedly the accused and deceased have come on their two wheeler for a considerable distance passing through various junctions.

24.The prosecution could not file the said CCTV camara footage to establish that the accused was riding the vehicle on the date of accident. Merely because the accused was in drunken condition and survived from the accident, it cannot be attributed that the accused was driving the vehicle on the date of accident. There is no concrete material to emphatically hold that the accused was riding the vehicle on the date of incident. When the prosecution could not establish the said fact the offence Under Section 304 (ii) could not be said to be proven.

Admittedly, the vehicle is on the name of deceased and the other two offences which are Under Section 181 and 185 (A) of Motor Vehicle Act

ASJ

SC.No. 187 of 2021 13 of 15

could not be even to be said to be proven and are irrelevant at this juncture.

25.The prosecution has failed to establish its case against the accused holding him to be responsible in the said accident, as such the accused is entitled for an acquittal.

26.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable Under Section 304 (II) of IPC, Section 181, 185 (A) of MV

Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted Under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the

open court on this the 21 st day of April, 2025.

SD/-

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangareddy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR DEFENCE: FOR PROSECUTION : Pw1 :G. Bajya Naik. Nil

Pw2 :Ch. Narsimulu.

Pw3 :Ch. Anjamma.

Pw4 :CH. Yellama.

Pw5 :P. Shekar.

ASJ

SC.No. 187 of 2021 14 of 15

Pw6 :Ch. Ananthaiah.

Pw7 :G. Gnaneshwari.

Pw8 :Shaik Raja Mohammed.

Pw9 :P. Naresh.

Pw10 : K. Srinivas.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION :FOR DEFENCE Ex P1: Report.Ex.D1: Relevant portion of PW4 in 161 Cr.P.C. statement. Ex P2: Signature of PW6 on scene ofEx.D2: Relevant panchanama.portion of PW5 in 161 Cr.P.C. statement. Ex.P3: Signature of PW6 on rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P4: Signature of PW6 on inquest panchamama (2 pages). Ex.P5: PME report (2 papers) issued by PW7. Ex.P6: Accident Inspection report issued by PW8. Ex P7: FIR. Ex P8: Breath Analyzing test report of accused. Ex.P9: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW10. Ex.P10 : Photographs. Ex.P11 : Photographs. Ex.P12 : Photographs. Ex.P13 : Photographs. Ex.P14 : Photographs. Ex.P15 : Photographs. Ex.P16 : Photographs. Ex.P17 : Photographs.

ASJ

SC.No. 187 of 2021 15 of 15

Ex.P18 : Photographs. Ex.P19 : Under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence.

Material objects marked: -NIL-

SD/-

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangareddy.

ASJ

1 of 10HMOP No.34 of 2023

TSSN020001032023

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT SANGAREDDY

Present: Sri. Dr. M. Radha Krishna Chahavan,

Principal Senior Civil Judge

Sangareddy. FAC Additional Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.

TUESDAY, THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

HMOP No. 34 of 2023

Between:

Peddapalli Durga Prasad S/o. Ramulu, Aged about 36 years Occ- Safety Executive at Arabindo Pharma Company Hyderabad, Sangareddy Proper and District R/o. Plot No. 53, Indus Valley, Beeramguda, Narregudem, Ameenpur, Sangareddy District.

...Petitioner

AND Smt. Ambati Shruthija @ Peddapalli Padmaja W/o. Peddapalli Durga Prasad D/o. Ambati Venukumar Aged about 29 years, Occ – Private Employee, R/o. Plot No. 53, Indus Valley, Beeramguda, Presently residing at H.No. 2-10-226, Jyothinagar, Karimnager, Telangana State, Now residing at 3-76/18, Vidhyanagar, Hariharanagar, Road No. 7, Karimnagar Town and District. Pin No. 505 001.

...Respondent

This petition came for hearing before me on 30-09-2024 in the presence of Sri. V. Raja Shekar Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri.E. Kishan Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides, having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court made the following:-

ASCJ 2 of 10HMOP No.34 of 2023

ORDER

1.This petition is filed by the petitioner Under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking decree of divorce by dissolution of marriage. The brief averments of the petition are that:

(a) The petitioner and respondent were married on 03-02-2012 at Warangal Temple as per Hindu rites and customs. They are blessed with one daughter by name Kumari Peddapalli

Sudiksha, aged about 8 years old.

(b) After the marriage, petitioner with his own expenses got education of respondent and respondent prosecuted

M.Tech, then she got I.T job. They lived happily for 5 years, thereafter respondent insulted the petitioner before the relatives. On 08.09.2018 the Respondent went to her parents house without intimation to the petitioner.

(c)Later the petitioner approached the respondent and requested her to come and join in the company of petitioner and also save the career of the daughter and also sent legal notice on 03.01.2023. Even after receipt of legal notice, the respondent did not co-operate with the petitioner and requested to come and joined the company of petitioner.

ASCJ 3 of 10HMOP No.34 of 2023

(d) The respondent filed false baseless cases vide M.C. No. 15 of 2019 DVC No. 77 of 2022, CC. no. 36 of 2018 at

Karimnagar, due to abundant attitude of the respondent, the petitioner suffered much mental pain and agony.

(e) Petitioner approached the respondent but the respondent did not join the company of the petitioner. Finally, petitioner is having no other alternative filed the present petition for

Restitution of Conjugal Rights.

2.Notice was served to respondent and respondent made her appearance through counsel. She filed her counter denying all the allegations and stated categorically that:

a) The respondent has categorically stated that on several occasions, the petitioner and his family members demanded dowry, including 5 lakhs in cash, 20 tolas of gold jewelry,₹ household articles, furniture, a refrigerator, a television, and a motorcycle. Furthermore, it is alleged that the petitioner’s parents subjected the respondent and her parents to severe mental harassment, driving them to the brink of contemplating suicide.

b) The respondent further stated that three months after the marriage, the petitioner began harassing her to bring an

ASCJ 4 of 10HMOP No.34 of 2023

additional dowry amount of 5 lakhs. When the respondent₹

expressed her inability to fulfill this demand, the petitioner intensified the harassment, subjecting her to physical abuse to the extent of causing visible injuries, rendering her black and blue. The respondent was subjected to continuous physical and mental cruelty, including untold mental torture. Despite bringing these issues to the attention of the petitioner’s family members, she was shocked to learn that they were already aware of such conduct and took no steps to intervene or provide any support.

c) The respondent further stated that her parents, from time to time, took care of her by consulting doctors, conducting medical tests, and providing necessary medicines. On several occasions, they also provided her with money as a precautionary measure for her well-being. However, the petitioner, despite being gainfully employed and having a sufficient source of income, used to forcibly take away the said amounts from the respondent. These acts were committed solely to harass and subject her to cruelty. During her pregnancy, the petitioner openly declared that the respondent was not suitable for him and that he had no interest in continuing the marital relationship. On 25.12.2014, the respondent gave

ASCJ 5 of 10HMOP No.34 of 2023 birth to a child through a surgical procedure at Yashoda Krishna

Hospital, Karimnagar. It was her parents who bore all the medical, hospital, and miscellaneous expenses related to the delivery. Additionally, they performed the customary postnatal ceremonies and presented gifts and offerings to the newborn, as well as to the petitioner and the respondent.

d) The respondent further stated that, without her knowledge or consent, the petitioner installed tracking applications such as

Track View and call recording apps on her mobile phone. He would frequently question her about her whereabouts and, in the absence of an internet connection, insisted that she take selfies with neighbors or people nearby and send them to him as proof.

The petitioner habitually inspected the respondent’s mobile phone for extended periods and subjected her to physical abuse —leaving her bruised—by questioning her call history and contacts, all without any valid cause or justification.

e) The respondent further stated that the petitioner used to repeatedly call her while she was attending to her professional duties and would make disturbing remarks related to suicide. He would refer to news reports about women—such as B.Tech students, engineers, or lady professionals—committing suicide

ASCJ 6 of 10HMOP No.34 of 2023 or dying in accidents, and would mockingly laugh while suggesting that similar incidents might happen to the respondent. The petitioner would also make cruel remarks about receiving a large sum of money through insurance and death benefits in the event of the respondent’s demise. Furthermore, he stated that such husbands are fortunate, as they can remarry, receive fresh dowry, and acquire new property through the new bride.

f) Thereafter, despite sincere efforts made by the respondent, her family members, relatives, and elders to resolve the issues amicably, all such attempts proved futile. Having no other recourse and with the intention of saving the matrimonial relationship while upholding her responsibilities, dignity, and social image, the respondent brought to light certain facts and the untenable conduct of the petitioner and his family members.

Consequently, she lodged a complaint before the Women Police

Station, Karimnagar on 20.09.2018. Pursuant to the said complaint, the police conducted an enquiry and registered a case in Crime No. 173 of 2018 on 27.09.2018 for the offences under Section 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, and

Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner and

ASCJ 7 of 10HMOP No.34 of 2023 his family members. The said case is presently pending before the Hon’ble Court as C.C. No. 361 of 2018 at Karimnagar. In view of the aforementioned facts, the respondent respectfully prayed for dismissal of the present petition.

3. Heard both sides.

4. Considering the rival contentions, the following points for determination would arise.

1. “Whether the petitioner is entitled for relief of restitution of conjugal rights, as prayed for?

2. To what relief ?

5. POINT NO.1:

PW1 was examined and reiterated the contents of the petition during his chief examination, and documents marked as Exs. P1 to P5 were exhibited. Ample opportunity was provided to the respondent to cross-examine PW1, including through the appointment of an

Advocate Commissioner. However, despite being granted sufficient opportunities, the respondent failed to avail the same and did not choose to cross-examine PW1. Accordingly, the cross-examination was treated as 'Nil' and closed. Furthermore, the respondent's evidence was also closed, as he did not come forward to adduce any evidence on his behalf.

ASCJ 8 of 10HMOP No.34 of 2023

6. The evidence of PW1 clearly establishes that the respondent had deserted the petitioner. To rebut these allegations, the respondent has not brought any evidence on record. Notably, PW1 was not subjected to cross-examination by the respondent, despite ample opportunities provided. Although the respondent entered appearance through counsel and filed a counter, he did not participate in the trial proceedings in any meaningful manner, nor did he adduce any evidence to substantiate his version. The unrebutted testimony of

PW1, when considered in conjunction with the pleadings, demonstrates that there is a complete lack of compatibility between the petitioner and the respondent. The primary grievance of the petitioner, as set out in the petition, is that the respondent exhibited abnormal behavior and subjected the petitioner to harassment.

7. It is well-settled that specific instances of mental agony and harassment within the domestic sphere are often difficult to substantiate with direct evidence, as such incidents typically occur within the confines of the matrimonial home and in the absence of third-party witnesses. However, in the present case, the unrebutted evidence relating to the mental cruelty faced by the petitioner stands unchallenged and is deserving of due consideration in the petitioner’s favor.

ASCJ 9 of 10HMOP No.34 of 2023

8. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage

Act, 1955, thereby directing the respondent to resume cohabitation with the petitioner and fulfill their marital obligations.

9. In the instant case, the respondent chose not to contest the case and failed to rebut the allegations made against her. As a result, a presumption arises in favor of the petitioner’s version of events. The evidence of PW1, having remained un-rebutted and unchallenged, stands uncontradicted and serves to prove the petitioner’s case.

10. As the wife and mother of children, the respondent bears the primary responsibility for their well-being and future. Both the petitioner and the respondent must consider not only their own futures but also that of their children, who will undoubtedly suffer if the couple separates without just cause.

11. Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act deals with the restitution of conjugal rights. Under this law, if one spouse has deserted the other without any reason, the aggrieved party may approach the court for a decree of restitution of conjugal rights”. Petitioner filed the present petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, and in view of entire discussion made supra, he is entitled for the relief claimed by him.

ASCJ 10 of 10HMOP No.34 of 2023

12. POINT NO.2:

Considering the discussion made in point No.1, this petition is allowed.

13. In the result, the petition is allowed, directing the respondent to join the company of the petitioner, within one month from the date of this order.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 15 h day of April,

2025.

Sd/-

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Sangareddy. FAC Additional Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of Petitioner Respondent PW1: Peddapalli Durga Prasad -NIL-

Exhibits marked for Petitioner

Ex.P1: Original Marriage Photographs (Nos. 01) with C.D. Ex.P2: Cop of Legal Notice. Ex.P3: Original Marriage card. Ex.P4: Copy of Aadhar card of petitioner (Verified with original and returned) Ex.P5: Postal track report. Exhibits marked for Respondent -NIL-

Sd/-

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Sangareddy. FAC Additional Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.

ASCJ

1 of 9

O.S.No. 16 of 2019

TSSN020000302019

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

AT SANGAREDDY

PRESENT: Sri. Dr. M. Radha Krishna Chahavan,

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Sangareddy.

FAC Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Sangareddy.

Dated this the 08th day of April, 2025

O.S.NO. 16 of 2019

Between:

K. Vidya Sagar Rao, S/o. K. Chokka Rao

Aged about 50 years, Occ – Business

R/o. Plot No. 698, Viveknanda Nagar Colonmy,

Kukatpally, Rangareddy District.

…PLAINTIFF

AND

1.G. Damodaran S/o. Manawalan

Aged about 58 years, Occ – Contractor,

2.Smt Vijaya Durga W/o. G. Damodaran

Aged about 50 years, Occ – Housewife

3.G. Suvitha D/o. G. Damodaran

Aged about 25 years, Occ – Employee,

All are R/o. Quarter No. 24-17/3, Ashok Nagar,

Ramachandrapuram Village & Mandal, Sangareddy District.

…DEFENDANTS

ASCJ 2 of 9

O.S.No. 16 of 2019

This suit is coming on 18-03-2025 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri.G. Hanumantha Reddy , Advocate for the Plaintiff and the defendants D1 to D3 were remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following.

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed for perpetual injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendants D1 to D3, wherein the facts of the case as per the plaint are that:

(a) The plaintiff purchased the agricultural land bearing Sy No: 355 extent of Ac. 0-29 gts out of Ac. 5.30 gts under Registered Sale

Deed vide Doct No. 6236 of 2010 dated. 09.07.2010 from its

Original Owners under the Registered Sale Deed vide Doct. No.

6236 of 2010 dated. 09.07.2010. The northern side boundary was wrongly mentioned by over-site as land in Sy.No. 355 instead of 30 feet wide road, as the same is rectified through Registered

Rectification Deed vide Doct No. 12618 of 2011 dated.

16.12.2011.

(b) The plaintiff also purchased the land bearing Sy.No. 356 extent

Ac. 1.15 gts under Registered Sale Deed vide Doct No. 6238 of 2010 dated. 09.07.2010 from its original owners but the Sy.No.

355 extent Ac.0.29 gts and Sy No. 356 extent Ac. 1.15 gts is the compact block and total extent Ac. 2.04 gts situated at Pasham

ASCJ 3 of 9

O.S.No. 16 of 2019

Mailaram Village, Patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy District which is herein after called as Suit Schedule-A property.

(c) After purchasing the suit Schedule-A property, the plaintiff approached the Tahsildar Patancheru got mutated the suit schedule-A property in the name of plaintiff under Proc Nos,

B/9380/2010 and B/9381/2010 dated. 06.10.2010 . Subsequently pattadar passbook and Title deeds were also issued in favour of plaintiff and the plaintiff name is also recorded in the revenue records as pattedar and possessor of the suit schedule-A property.

(d) The Plaintiff purchased the suit schedule-A property for establishing the bread manufacturing unit, as such the plaintiff approached the Revenue Divisional officer, Sangareddy for conversion of the suit schedule – A property from agriculture to non-agriculture. The Revenue Divisional officer, Sangareddy converted the suit schedule-A property in to non agriculture under

Proc No. A2/344/7/2010 dated. 27.10.2010, subsequently the

Plaintiff obtained the gramapanchayat permission for construction of the industry by submitting all relevant documents and proposed map for which the gram panchayath also accorded permission on 18.03.2015 and the plaintiff obtained loan from financial institution and constructed the building and running the industry in suit

ASCJ 4 of 9

O.S.No. 16 of 2019

schedule – A property by constructing the compound wall around the suit schedule – A property.

(e) The plaintiff purchasing the suit schedule property has 30 feet wide road shown towards north-east corner of suit schedule-A property which is already laid and the same is approved by the gramapanchayat at the time of accorded permission for construction of industry in the suit schedule-A property which is of width of 30 feet wide and length is 160 feet in Sy.No. 355 which is herein after called as Suit Schedule – B Property.

(f) The plaintiff informed that vendors of the plaintiff also executed a supplementary deed in favour of the plaintiff vide Doct No. 2525 of 2011 showing the 160 feet length which is omitted in the Principal sale deed vide Doct No. 6236 of 2011. Since the date of purchase, the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit schedule – A property and using Suit Schedule – B

Property. The gram panchayath also verified the suit schedule – B property road before granting the permission in favour of the plaintiff for construction of the industry.

(g) The Defendants 1 and 2 are the wife and husband and defendant

No. 3 is their daughter and are no way concerned with the suit schedule properties and in fact the defendants are strangers to

ASCJ 5 of 9

O.S.No. 16 of 2019

the plaintiff, but whereas the defendants on 05.10.2018 with a

Malafide intention tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule – A and B

Properties.

(h) The plaintiffs informed that defendants again came to the suit schedule A and B properties on 02.12.2018 and tried to obstruct the plaintiff his men and workers by using the suit schedule – B

Property and they tried to dig the pits in the Suit Schedule – B property with a sole intention to cause loss to the plaintiff in running the industry and trying to blackmail the plaintiff.

(i) The defendants No.2 and 3 are being the ladies they are abusing the plaintiff and his workers in filthy language, as such the plaintiff filed a complaint before the Police BDL Bhanoor but they refused to receive the complaint as the same is civil in nature.

(j) Defendants are no way concerned with the plaintiff and not even with the suit schedule properties have tried to interfere with the possession of plaintiff and tried to dispossess them on 02.12.2018, the plaintiff could restrain the acts of defendants.

Hence, the present suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for granting perpetual injunction.

ASCJ 6 of 9

O.S.No. 16 of 2019

2. Paper publication against defendants No.1 to 3, none appeared hence, defendants No.1 to 3 were set exparte.

3. The plaintiff got himself examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to

A15 as mentioned in the appendix of evidence.

4. Heard the plaintiff and perused the record.

5. Now the point for determination is:

(a) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction against the defendants their men, agents are restrain from interfering with the possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule A and B properties ?

6.POINT:

It is the contention of the plaintiff that he is absolute owner and possessor of suit schedule A & B properties and he purchased them through Registered sale deeds, since then the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. On 12-06-2022, defendants No.

1 to 3 having no right or title have tried to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff of the suit schedule properties.

7.To prove their case, the plaintiff No.1 filed Ex.A.1 to Ex.A15. On persual of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2, shows that plaintiff purchased the suit schedule properties through various Registered sale deeds from his vendors. Ex.A9 to Ex.A15 are the pahanies for the year 2010-11, 2011- 12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17.

ASCJ 7 of 9

O.S.No. 16 of 2019

8.For granting a decree for perpetual injunction the plaintiff has to establish his lawful possession in and over the suit schedule properties and the interference of the defendants in the said lawful possession.

The defendants were set exparte and oral and documentary evidence of plaintiff remained unchallenged. Title follows possession and though title is not completely adjudicated in this case, the documents clinchingly show that the plaintiff purchased the properties long back and his possession is undisputed.

9.In view of aforesaid discussions and in absence of any contrary evidence filed by defendants, the evidence of PW1 and marked as

Ex.A1 to Ex.A15, establish the suit claim and accordingly plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of plaintiff and against defendants.

10.In the result, the suit is decreed without costs, Perpetual injunction is granted, restraining the defendants, their men, agents, from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

Dictated to the Stenographer , transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open Court on this 08 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/-

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.

FAC: Addl.Senior Civil Judge Sangareddy.

ASCJ 8 of 9

O.S.No. 16 of 2019

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For PLAINTIFF: For DEFENDANTS:

PW1: K. Vidya Sagar – Nil –

Documents marked on behalf of Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 :Certified copy of Register Sale Deed vide Doct.No. 6236 of 2010 dated. 09.07.2010 Ex.A2 :Certified copy of Register Sale Deed vide Doct.No. 6238 of 2010 dated. 09.07.2010 Ex.A3 :Certified copy of Rectification Deed vide Doct.No. 12618 of 2011 dated. 16.12.2011 Ex.A4 :Certified copy of Mutation proceedings vide Proc. No. B/9380/2010 dated. 06.10.2010 Ex.A5 :Certified copy of Mutation proceedings vide Proc. No. B/9381/2010 dated. 06.10.2010 Ex.A6 :Certified copy of land Conversion Proceedings issued by RDO vide Proc. No. A2/344/7/2010 dated. 27.10.2010. Ex.A7 :Certified copy of Supplementary deed vide Doct. No. 2525 of 2010 dated. 10.12.2010 Ex.A8 :True copy of Construction permission of Industry issued by the gramapanchayat dated.18.03.2015. Ex.A9 :Certified copy of Pahani for the year 2010-11. Ex.A10: Certified copy of Pahani for the year 2011-12. Ex.A11:Certified copy of Pahani for the year 2012-13. Ex.A12: Certified copy of Pahani for the year 2013-14.. Ex.A13:Certified copy of Pahani for the year 2014-15. Ex.A14:Certified copy of Pahani for the year 2015-16. Ex.A15:Certified copy of Pahani for the year 2016-17.

Documents marked on behalf of Defendants: -NIL-

Sd/-

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.

FAC: Addl.Senior Civil Judge

ASCJ 9 of 9

O.S.No. 16 of 2019

Sangareddy.

ASCJ

SC.No. 45/2022 1 of 7

TSSN020000362022

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

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE SANGAREDDY

PRESENT : Sri. Dr. M. Radha Krishna Chahavan,

Principal Senior Civil Judge-Cum-

Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangareddy.

Dated this, Monday 21st day of April, 2025

SESSIONS CASE NO. 45 of 2022

(PRC No. 70/2021 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS SPECIAL MOBILE COURT :: SANGAREDDY)

1. Name and description of the :The State of Telangana through complainant Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Munipally.

2Name and description of the A1. K. Narsimha Chary, S/o. accusedChandraiah, age: 35 yrs, Occ: carpenter, R/o. H.No. 2-27, Munipally village.

A2. E. Vamshi @ Vamshi Kumar, S/o. E. Sanganna, age: 23 yrs, Occ: student, R/o. Munipally village. A3. G. Raju, S/o. Ananathram, A4. G. Pramod Kumar @ Prasad, S/o. Ramulu. A5. V. Yadav @ Kadagoni Veesham, S/o. Narsimulu. A6. Manne Anil, S/o. Venkanna All are R/o. Munipally village and

ASJ

SC.No. 45/2022 2 of 7

Mandal.

3Offence with which charged: Under Section 341, 307 r/w. 34 of IPC.

4Plea of the accused:Not guilty 5Finding of the Judge:Not guilty 6Sentence or order: In the result, the accused No.1 to 6 are found not guilty for the offence punishable Under Section 341, 307 r/w. 34 of the IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted Under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the accused shall be in force for six months. Mo.1 shall be made absolute after lapse of appeal time. 7Prosecution conducted by :Sri. G.B. Aravind Kiran, Additional Public Prosecutor. 8Accused defended by:Sri. B. Vijay Goud, Advocate for accused No.1 Sri. G. Ravindar, Advocate for accused No.2 Sri. M. Dhanraj, Advocate for accused No.3 to 6

This case came before me on 16-04-2025 for final hearing for disposal in the presence of Sri. G.B. Aravind Kiran, Additional Public Prosecutor and Sri. B. Vijay Goud, learned counsel for accused No.1, Sri. G. Ravindar, learned counsel for accused No.2 and Sri. M. Dhanraj, Advocate for accused No.3 to 6, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a case of wrongful restraint and attempt to murder, wherein the facts of the case as per the charge sheet filed by PW5 are that he received a written report from LW1/A. Harish on 02.08.2021 at 02:00 pm, mentioning the facts as follows:

(a) On 01.08.2021 in the morning hours the father of LW1 i.e. PW3, PW2 went to Yedupayala Temple to offer prayers in an Auto of PW4. In the evening hours while they were returning in the same Auto, accused No. 1

ASJ

SC.No. 45/2022 3 of 7

to 6 herein have stopped their Auto with their Duster car. As the Auto got stopped, the accused No.1 to 6 have attacked PW3 with sticks with an intention to kill him. On such incident PW4 informed about the said incident to LW1 over phone, on which LW1 rushed to the spot. On reaching, he found his father with severe bleeding injuries on the ground.

Immediately PW3 was shifted to Manjeera Hospital for treatment.

Thereafter, LW1 lodged a report requesting to take action against the accused No.1 to 6.

2. Basing on the said report of LW1, PW5, registered a case in Crime No.

64/2021, for the offence punishable under Section 341, 307 r/w. 34 of IPC by issuing First Information Report (Ex.P6) and took up investigation.

3. During the course of investigation, PW5 examined all the witnesses and conducted scene of offence panchanama, also drawn rough sketch. Accused

No.1 and 2 have surrendered before the Court and were taken to Judicial custody. During the investigation, they enquired about the car which they have used. They did not reveal about the car. However, accused No.1 and 2 have confessed about their guilt which he recorded as panchanama in presence of LW8 and LW9. As the accused No.1 and 2 have revealed about the car during the confession panchanama at the time of police cutody, they seized car bearing No. AP09 CT 0400. Thereafter, he collected medical certificate from Manjeera Certificate, Sangareddy. Ex.P10 is the medical certificate issued by LW12/Dr. Shiva Shanker Reddy. On completion of

ASJ

SC.No. 45/2022 4 of 7

investigation against accused No.1 and 2 he filed charge sheet against them by showing accused No.3 to 6 as absconding. Accused No.3 to 6 got bail from Hon’ble High Court vide orders in Crl.P No. 7424/2021, dated 26.10.2021. Subsequently, he filed supplementary charge sheet against accused No.3 to 6.

4. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class Special Mobile Court,

Sangareddy, took cognizance of the offence under Section 341, 307 r/w.34 of

IPC against the accused vide PRC No. 70 of 2021, and after compliance of

Sec. 209 (a) Cr.P.C., as the offence is exclusively triable by court of sessions, the case was committed to the Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions Court,

Sangareddy and the same is taken on file as S.C.No. 45 of 2022 and made over to this court.

5. After hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor and the Accused, charge was framed Under Section 341, 307 r/w.34 of IPC, read over and explained to accused in vernacular language, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. Then, the schedule for commencement of trial has been issued, witnesses

Pws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.P1 to P10 were marked along with MO.1.

No defence evidence was adduced by accused however, Ex.D1 is marked through prosecution witnesses, as indicated in the appendix of evidence.

7. Accused persons were examined Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against them in the evidence of

ASJ

SC.No. 45/2022 5 of 7

prosecution witnesses. They denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence was closed.

8. Heard arguments of both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the

offence under Section 341, 307 r/w 34 of IPC, beyond all reasonable

doubt ?”

10.POINT:To substantiate the case of prosecution, PW1 to PW5 were examined, in which PW1 to PW4 have turned hostile and except for PW5 who is the investigating Officer no independent witness spoke about the incident.

11. The PW1, PW2 and PW4 who are the eye witnesses deposed that they do not know anything about this case and they turned hostile and did not speak anything against the accused. Their 161 Cr.P.C Statements are marked as Ex.P1, Ex.P2 and Ex.P4.

12.The injured/PW3 has stated that he do not know the facts of this case, police obtained his signature on some paper and he do not know its contents and did not speak anything as against the accused and turned hostile. His 161 Cr.P.C Statement is marked as Ex.P5.

13.The only left out witness in this case is investigating Officer/PW5 who nevertheless deposed the chronological order of events occurred during the course of investigation. His evidence is procedural and being the official police witness, his evidence cannot be independently believed when there is no corroborative evidence. Ex.D1 which is marked by defence which clearly

ASJ

SC.No. 45/2022 6 of 7

show that the FIR was received by Magistrate on 06.08.2021 which is after four (4) days from the date of FIR. There is no explanation from either investigation agency or prosecution witness about the said delay. The entire evidence of this witness is procedural in nature and however, his evidence speaks that the accused have confessed their guilt in his presence. Except this particular incriminating statement against accused, there is absolutely no other evidence as against accused to get them to the home of guilt of offence of 341, 307 r/w. 34 of IPC. Even the said portion of confession is not admissible as given Under Sections 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act. There is absolutely no evidence on record raising towards guilt of the accused as such accused persons are entitled for an acquittal.

14.In the result, the accused No.1 to 6 are found not guilty for the offence punishable Under Section 341, 307 r/w. 34 of the IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted Under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the accused shall be in force for six months. The orders pertaining to Mo.1 shall be made absolute after lapse of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the

open Court on this the 21st day of April, 2025.

SD/-

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangareddy.

ASJ

SC.No. 45/2022 7 of 7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION :FOR DEFENCE:

Pw 1: B. Anjaiah Nil

Pw 2: G. Eshwaraiah.

Pw 3: H. Parameshwar Rao.

Pw 4: K. Rajesh.

Pw 5: M. Maheshwar Reddy.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION :FOR DEFENCE Ex P 1: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1. Ex.D1: Endorsement of Learned Magistrate on FIR. Ex P 2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2.Nil Ex.P 3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3. Ex.P 4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4. Ex.P 5: Report received by PW5. Ex.P 6: FIR Ex.P 7: Scene of offence-cum-recovery panchanama. Ex.P 8: Rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P 9: Relevant portion of seizure of Car in panchanama dated 25.09.2021. Ex.P 10 : Medical certificate

Material objects marked:

MO1: Car Bearing No. AP09 CT 0400.

SD/-

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangareddy.

ASJ

1 of 5HMOP No. 251 of 2023

TSSN020007002023

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE::

AT SANGAREDDY

Present: Dr. M. Radha Krishna Chahavan,

Principal Senior Civil Judge

Sangareddy. FAC: Additional Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy

TUESDAY, THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL 2025

HMOP No. 251 of 2023

Between:

Vallakadu Bhavani W/o. Vallakadu Raju, Aged 23 years, Occ – house wife, R/o. H.No. 7-1-11/4, Hanuman Nagar Sadasivapet, Sangareddy District.

...Petitioner No.1.

AND

Vallakadu Raju S/o. Ambaiah, Aged 31 years Occ – Pvt Service, R/o.H.No. 7-1-11/4, Hanuman Nagar, Sadasivapet, Sangareddy District.

...Petitioner No.2/Respondent

[ This petition came for hearing before me on 11-03-2025 in the presence of Sri.Y. Nagaraj, Advocate for Petitioner No., 1 and Sri. M. Dhanaraj, Advocate for Petitioner No.2, upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides, having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court made the following:-

ORDER

1.This petition is filed by petitioner nos.,1 and 2 under

Section 13 (B) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking decree of divorce on mutual consent.

Addl. SCJ 2 of 5HMOP No. 251 of 2023

2.The brief averments of the petition are that:

i.Petitioners No. 1 and 2 were married on 17-02-2017 at

Sadasivapet, Sangareddy District as per Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, petitioners lived together only for few days, thereafter some differences arose in between them due to misunderstandings and both are living separately.

There is no possibility of reconciliation or re-union of the petitioners, despite of all efforts made by the elders to unite the couple. The marriage was consummated and there are no issues out of the wedlock.

ii.The marriage between the petitioners has irretrievably broken and also incompatibility between them has grown so intense that the petitioners decided to dissolve their marriage.

The petitioners agreed that they will not have any kind of right, claim, title any share in the property/assets (movable and immovable) herein in future. Hence, this petition is filed to grant decree of divorce on mutual consent.

3. In order to support their contention, petitioner no1 and

Petitioners No.2 themselves examined as PWs.,1 and PW2, and got marked Exs., P1 to Ex.P4, as per the list of appendix.

Addl. SCJ 3 of 5HMOP No. 251 of 2023

4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

5.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether petitioners No. 1 and 2 are entitled for seeking mutual divorce, as prayed for ?

POINT:-

6.Initially, it is essential to see whether the present petition for decree of divorce on mutual consent is filed after one year of their marriage as contemplated under Section 14 of Hindu

Marriage Act or not. As per Ex.P1/Marriage Card which shows that the petitioners entered into wedlock on 17-02-2017. Initially, the this petition was filed on 21-11-2023, under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, in this court and later converted into petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of decree by mutual consent vide orders in I.A.No. 114 of 2024 dated 17-12-2024, passed by this court and the present petition was filed on 17-12-2024, that is, after six (6) years of their marriage, hence it is maintainable.

7. The petitioners filed this petition Under Section 13-B of

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking decree of divorce on mutual consent. Both parties appeared before this Court on 01-04-2025. A joint application to waive off the cooling period of six months period as provided for by Section 13B(2) of the Act

Addl. SCJ 4 of 5HMOP No. 251 of 2023 was filed by the petitioners, since the petitioners have been already living separately and that they are not interested to live together and both parties have voluntarily agreed to obtain decree of divorce on mutual consent. Under these circumstances, this court allowed the application to waive the cooling off period of six months.

8. However, it is the burden of the petitioners to establish that they are entitled for seeking divorce, as prayed for.

9. In order to prove the same, petitioners got examined as

Pw1 & PW2 and marked documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. In view of the affidavits of both parties and on enquiry, this Court is satisfied that the marriage of the petitioners has been solemnized on 17-02-2017 and that the averments in the petition are true. Both parties appeared before the Court and expressed their willingness for dissolving their marriage.

Further, from the evidence of PW1 and 2, in their chief- affidavits, established that both petitioner nos., 1 and 2 are living separately and that there is no chance of reconciliation or reunion between them. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is allowed. Accordingly, the point is answered.

Addl. SCJ 5 of 5HMOP No. 251 of 2023

10.In the result, the petition is allowed and the marriage between petitioners No. 1 and 2 solemnized on 17-02-2017 is dissolved and decree of divorce is passed on mutual consent.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open Court on this the 15 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/-

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.

FAC: Addl.Senior Civil Judge Sangareddy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of Petitioners:

PW1: Smt Vallakadu Bhavani

PW2: Sri. Vallakadu Raju

Exhibits marked for Petitioners

Ex.P1: Marriage Photo along with CD (No.1)

Ex.P2: Marriage Card.

Ex.P3: Xerox copy of Aadhar card of the Petitioner No.1 (Verified with

Original and returned)

Ex.P4: Xerox copy of Aadhar card of the Petitioner No.2 (Verified with

Original and returned)

Sd/-

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.

FAC: Addl.Senior Civil Judge Sangareddy.

Addl. SCJ