Sri M.Sathish Kumar

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT : SIRCILLA

PRESENT: SRI M.SATISH KUMAR

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR,

F.A.C.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SIRCILLA.

Thursday, the 29th day of August, 2019

H.M.O.P. No. 38 OF 2019

Between:-

Pandugu Chakrapani, S/o.Veeraiah, Age: 37 years, Occ: Driver, R/o.H.No.7­36, Jangamreddipalli, V/o Ellanthakunta mandal of Rajanna Sircilla district. 

….Petitioner

And

Pandugu Lavanya @ Gariganti Mamatha, W/o.Chakrapani, Age: 26 years, Occ: Household, R/o.H.No.7­36, Jangamreddipalli, V/o Ellanthakunta mandal, presently residing at her parents' house C/o Gargiganti Gangaram, H.No.2­81/A, Ryalapalle V/o Gangadhara mandal of Karimnagar district. 

….Respondent

This petition coming before me on 27-08-2019 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Penta Srinivas, Advocate for petitioner and Sri A.Venu, Advocate for the respondent, upon perusing the material papers on record, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:-

:: ORDER ::

1.This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 13 (1) (i-a) & (ib) of

Hindu Marriage Act, for dissolution of his marriage on the ground of cruelty with the respondent by a decree of divorce. Both the parties to the petition are

Hindus by religion and Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is applicable to them.

2.The following are the contents of the petition:-

The marriage of the petitioner and respondent took place on 03.02.2012 at the house of the parents of respondent at Ryalapalli V/o

Gangadhara mandal, as per caste and customs prevailing in their community.

At the time of marriage no dowry was taken by the petitioner's parents and instead of that, the parents of the petitioner presented 5 tulas gold and 10 tulas of silver ornaments to the respondent. After the marriage, the 2 respondent joined with the petitioner and they lived together happily for a period of 3 years and out of their wedlock a female child was born to them by name Hemalatha. However, differences cropped up between them for the reasons that the respondent used to quarrel with the petitioner to change their residence to Hyderabad city by way of separating from his parents and also used insult the petitioner in front of neighbors by alleging that the petitioner did not provided luxurious life to her and she did not attend the household duties like preparing food, washing clothes and etc., and even though she did not looked after their daughter Hemalatha and she did not allow to cohabit with her. The respondent used to went to her parents house without informing the petitioner or his parents, when he questioned the same the respondent started harassing the petitioner. The respondent also used to suspect the petitioner. In this regard, a panchayat was held in the presence of elders, and the elders advised the petitioner to join the society of the petitioner and lead marital life, on that the respondent agreed for the same on a condition to reside separately from the parents of the petitioner. The petitioner out of the love and affection towards the respondent agreed for the same and resided separately for some period. Later, the respondent again started harassing to the petitioner both physically and mentally stating that to provide luxurious life and she did not change her attitude. On 20.12.2016, the respondent along with her minor daughter went to her parents house by leaving the matrimonial society of the petitioner and since then she has been residing in her parents house. The petitioner several time went to her parents house and lastly on 17.03.2019 along with his parents and elders went to the house of respondent and requested the respondent to come and join the society of the petitioner, but she refused to join the society of the petitioner and threatened to file false cases against the him. That the respondent put the Petitioner lot of mental agony and cruelty. The

Respondent deserted the company of the Petitioner and staying separately.

3

That in these circumstances, there is no hope to reunion of the Petitioner and Respondent in future and as such there is no other alternative remedy

for the Petitioner, except to seek a Decree for dissolution of marriage. Hence

the petition.

3.On the other hand, the respondent filed written statement and admitted the relationship with the petitioner and denied the suggestion of the petitioner that she insisted to change the resident to Hyderabad and used to insult him in front of neighbors and used to beat the petitioner. She further denied the suggestion that she did not allow to cohabit with her and she left the society of the petition on her wish and will and used to stay her parents house without any reason. It is further stated that at the time of marriage her parents presented 5 tulas of gold and 10 tulas of silver and net cash of Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner towards dowry. It is further stated that the respondent for want of additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- used to harassed the respondent and beat the respondent and when the respondent stated that her parents are not in a position to give additional dowry, on which the petitioner beat her indiscriminately. It is further stated that in this regard several panchayats were held and the petitioner never cared the advise of the elders and continued his mental and physical harassment on the respondent and the petitioner and his parents necked out the respondent and her daughter from his house, in this regard several times she tried to join the society of the petitioner through elders, but in vain. It is further stated that the respondent put to lot of suffering for food and shelter and the parents of the respondent not in a position to provide any maintenance to her and the petitioner filed the false petition with all baseless and false allegations and he spoiled the life of the respondent and she prayed the

Court dismiss the petition with costs.

4

4. Thereafter, the petitioner and respondent jointly filed a joint memo for grant of divorce and stating that they compromised the matter out of the

Court as per the advise of elders and as per terms the petitioner agreed to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and out of the said amount Rs.1,00,000/- given to respondent as net cash and Rs.1,00,000/- as fixed deposit in favour of their minor daughter by name Hemalatha aged about 6 years in

F.D.No.631117 drawn on Corporation Bank, Karimnagar and the respondent agreed that she would not file any criminal or civil cases in future also and they exchanged their articles and prayed the Court to decree of divorce.

5. Petitioner and respondent were examined as PW1 and RW1 and they filed their chief examination affidavit.

6.Heard the counsel for the petitioner and respondent. The chief examination affidavits of PW.1 and RW1 are the replica of their joint memo.

7. Now the point for consideration is :-

Whether the marriage of the petitioner and respondent is to be dissolved by a decree of divorce?

8.The evidence of PW.1 and RW1 are on record. In the chief examination, PW1 and RW1 are stated that they compromised the matter out of the Court as per the advise of elders and as per terms, the petitioner agreed to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and out of the said amount

Rs.1,00,000/- given to respondent as net cash and Rs.1,00,000/- as fixed deposit in favour of their minor daughter by name Hemalatha aged about 6 years in F.D.No.631117 drawn on Corporation Bank, Karimnagar and the respondent agreed for the same and stated that she would not file any criminal or civil cases in future also and they exchanged their articles and they agreed that in future they have no claim what soever over each other 5 and prayed the Court to pass a decree of divorce. In the cross-examination, they stated that they settled the disputes outside the Court and intended to obtain divorce. The contents of joint memo are reiterated in the chief examination of PW1 and RW1 and as the evidence of PW1 and RW1 remained unchallenged, the averments and allegations in the petition are deemed to have been proved. Thus, the evidence of PW1 and RW1 proves that the petitioner and the respondent are Hindus, their marriage took place on 03.02.2012 and they are governed by Hindu Law. Thus, the petitioner and respondent could make out a case for need of dissolution of their marriage.

For the above reasons, this petition is to be allowed to dissolve the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent. Therefore, this petition is allowed.

9. IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed and the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent that was solemnized on 03.02.2012 is hereby dissolved by granting decree of divorce. No order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 29th day of August, 2019.

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

F.A.C.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SIRCILLA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENT:

PW.1: Pandugu Chakrapani. RW.1:Pandugu Lavanya @ Gariganti Mamatha :EXHIBITS MARKED:

FOR PETITIONER:

---Nil---

FOR RESPONDENT:

-----NIL----

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

F.A.C.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SIRCILLA.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AT SIRCILLA

PRESENT: SRI M.SATHEESH KUMAR,

ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SIRCILLA,

F.A.C.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SIRCILLA.

SATURDAY, THIS THE 03rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019

O.S.No. 52 OF 2016

BETWEEN:-

Chinthapalli Vijaya Laxmi W/o: Late Venkatehwar Rao, Age: 55 years, Occ: Household and agriculture, R/o Sankepelli village of Vemulawada mandal now residing at H.No.9-1- 110, Rajeevnagar, Vemulawada proper and mandal of Karimnagar District. …Plaintiff.

// A N D //

1. Chinthapalli Prasad Rao, S/o: Narayana Rao, Age: 55 years, Occ: Agriculture,

2. Nampelly Lachaiah, S/o: Mallaiah, Age: 60 years, Occ: Agriculture,

3. Nampelly Srinivas, S/o: Lachaiah, Age: 35 years, Occ: Agriculture,

4. Sirikonda Radha, D/o: Lachaiah, Age: 32 years, Occ: Household,

5. Nampelly Lalitha, W/o: Late Shankaraiah, Age: 45 years, Occ: Household.

All are R/o: Sankepelli village of Vemulawada mandal of Karimnagar District.

6. Special Deputy Collector L.A., Unit, FFC-II, SRSP LMD Colony, Karimnagar.

.

..Respondents.

:: D O C K E T O R D E R ::

The plaintiff counsel filed memo stating that the plaintiff not pressing the suit against defendant Nos.2 to 5.

2 Plaintiff and defendant No.1 present before the court today, plaintiff stated that suit is compromised with defendant No.1 and this suit is posted to 30-09-2019 and filed a petition to advance this suit to today.

Both parties and their respective counsel are present before the

Lok-Adalath bench. Matter reported as compromised. Terms of compromise are already filed. The contents of terms of compromise are read over and explained to the parties in Telugu for which they admitted the same as true and correct. Compromise is recorded in Lok-Adalath.

Award is passed accordingly in terms of compromise.

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SIRCILLA.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AT SIRCILLA

PRESENT: SRI M.SATHEESH KUMAR,

ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SIRCILLA,

F.A.C.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SIRCILLA.

SATURDAY, THIS THE 03rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019

O.S.No. 52 OF 2016

BETWEEN:-

Chinthapalli Vijaya Laxmi W/o: Late Venkatehwar Rao, Age: 55 years, Occ: Household and agriculture, R/o Sankepelli village of Vemulawada mandal now residing at H.No.9-1- 110, Rajeevnagar, Vemulawada proper and mandal of Karimnagar District. …Plaintiff.

// A N D //

1. Chinthapalli Prasad Rao, S/o: Narayana Rao, Age: 55 years, Occ: Agriculture,

2. Nampelly Lachaiah, S/o: Mallaiah, Age: 60 years, Occ: Agriculture,

3. Nampelly Srinivas, S/o: Lachaiah, Age: 35 years, Occ: Agriculture,

4. Sirikonda Radha, D/o: Lachaiah, Age: 32 years, Occ: Household,

5. Nampelly Lalitha, W/o: Late Shankaraiah, Age: 45 years, Occ: Household.

All are R/o: Sankepelli village of Vemulawada mandal of Karimnagar District.

6. Special Deputy Collector L.A., Unit, FFC-II, SRSP LMD Colony, Karimnagar.

.

..Respondents.

:: D O C K E T O R D E R ::

The plaintiff counsel filed memo stating that the plaintiff not pressing the suit against defendant Nos.2 to 5.

2 Plaintiff and defendant No.1 present before the court today, plaintiff stated that suit is compromised with defendant No.1 and this suit is posted to 30-09-2019 and filed a petition to advance this suit to today.

Both parties and their respective counsel are present before the

Lok-Adalath bench. Matter reported as compromised. Terms of compromise are already filed. The contents of terms of compromise are read over and explained to the parties in Telugu for which they admitted the same as true and correct. Compromise is recorded in Lok-Adalath.

Award is passed accordingly in terms of compromise.

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SIRCILLA.