Smt. M.Sobha

1 APPR080000132024

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE :: KANDUKUR

SESSIONS CASE No. 81 of 2023

Complainant:STATE: Represented by the Inspector of Police, Singarayakonda Police Station. Description of the Accused1.Gaddam Srikanth, S/o. Narasimharao, age 33 years, Thumadu Village of Jarugumalli Mandal.

2.GaddamEswaramma,W/o. Narasimharao, age 59 years, Thumadu Village of Jarugumalli Mandal.

Charges:under Sections 498-A, 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code Plea of the Accused:Not guilty Finding of the Court:Found not guilty Sentence or OrderIn the result, A1 and A3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under

Sections 498-A, 306 of Indian Penal Code, as such they are acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 and

A3 shall remain in force for a further period of six months as contemplated under

Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The property M.O.1 in CPR.No.17/2025 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

DATE OF

Occurrence:19.02.2022 Complaint:19.02.2022 Committal Order:27.12.2022 Appearance :11.08.2023 Commencement of trial:23.03.2026 Closure of trial:10.04.2026 Sentence or Order:10.04.2026 2 APPR080000132024

Explanation for the delay:

The entire case record was received from the Hon'ble District & Sessions

Judge's Court, Ongole. On 23.05.2025 charge was framed under Section 228 of

Cr.P.C against A1 and A3, for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 of Indian Penal Code and summons were issued to the listed witnesses, fixing the schedule for trial. The evidence of prosecution commenced on 23.03.2026 and closed by 10.04.2026, during the course of trial, the prosecution examined on it’s behalf PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P15 and M.O.1 and the evidence of prosecution closed and they were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution, for which they denied and reported to have no evidence and heard the arguments and Judgment pronounced on 10.04.2026.

Sd/- M.Sobha

Assistant Sessions Judge, Kandukur.

Copies submitted to:-

1. The Hon’ble Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Ongole Copies to:-

2. The District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole

3. The Superintendent of Police, Ongole

4. The Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kandukur

5. The Addl. Public Prosecutor, Kandukur 3 APPR080000132024

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE :: KANDUKUR

Present:- Smt. M. Sobha,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Kandukur

Friday, this the 10 th day of April, 2026

SESSIONS CASE No. 81 of 2023

(P.R.C.No.26/2022 of Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court, Kandukur in Cr.No.28/2022 of Jarugumalli Police Station)

State: represented by it’s Inspector of Police,

Singarayakonda Police Station...Complainant

Vs.

1. Gaddam Srikanth, S/o. Narasimharao, age 33 years, Thumadu Village of Jarugumalli Mandal.

2. Gaddam Eswaramma, W/o. Narasimharao, age 59 years, Thumadu Village of Jarugumalli Mandal.…Accused Nos.1 and 3

This Sessions case is coming before me on 10th day of April, 2026 for arguments in the presence of the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri L.Bramhaiah, learned counsel for Accused Nos.1 and 3, and after hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusal of material on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration, this Court made the following:-

// J U D G M E N T //

1.The Inspector of Police, Singarayakonda police station filed charge- sheet against accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code in Cr.No.28/2022 of Jarugumalli police station.

2. The case of prosecution, in brief is that:

(a). At the time of the first delivery, the deceased gave birth to a female child. Thereafter, Accused Nos. 1 to 3 subjected her to physical and mental harassment on the ground that she had not given birth to a male child.

They intentionally ill-treated and abused her. Approximately three months prior to the incident, the deceased went to Anemadugu Village of Kavali Mandal for her second delivery, where she again gave birth to a female child. Following this, 4 APPR080000132024

Accused Nos. 1 to 3 continued to harass her both physically and mentally, even over the phone, for not giving birth to a male child. The deceased informed her parents about such harassment and was suffering both mentally and physically due to the acts of the accused.

(b). On 15.02.2022, the deceased was sent back to the matrimonial home of Accused Nos. 1 to 3 at Thumadu Village, Jarugumalli Mandal, to lead her marital life. Since then, the accused continued to harass her physically and mentally by using abusive language, repeatedly blaming her for giving birth to female children instead of a male child. The deceased shared her suffering with witnesses. Due to the continuous and unbearable harassment, the deceased became mentally distressed. On 19.02.2022 at about 12:30 hours, she consumed pesticide poison used for red chilli crops, with an intention to commit suicide. At about 13:30 hours, Accused No.2 came to the house, noticed that the deceased had consumed pesticide, and shifted her to KIMS Hospital, Ongole, in an auto for treatment. However, the doctors declared her brought dead.

(c). Thereafter, Accused No.2 informed LW-6/P.Sreenu at about 14:30 hours, who in turn informed PW1 to PW3, LW2/Ramathoti Srinivasulu – died and LW5/Ramathoti Vasantha Kumar. They rushed to Thumadu Village and found that the deceased had died. It is evident that Accused Nos. 1 to 3 had subjected the deceased to continuous physical and mental harassment by abusing her for giving birth to female children, which drove her to take the extreme step of committing suicide. Hence, the accused are responsible for abetting the suicide of the deceased. Subsequently, PW.1 lodged a report at the

Police Station. LW16/K.Hanumantha Rao, ASI-1754 received the report from

PW.1 and informed PW.6 over the phone. As per the instructions of PW.6, a case was registered under Section 306 read with 34 IPC in Crime No. 28/2022 on 19.02.2022 at 22:00 hours. The original FIR was submitted to the Hon’ble

Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kandukur, and copies were forwarded

to all concerned officers.

(d). PW.6 took up investigation, examined the witnesses, recorded their statements, inspected the scene of offence on 20.02.2022 in the presence of 5 APPR080000132024

PW5 and LW10/Boddu Siva Kumari, drafted an observation report of the scene of offence, duly attested by PW5 and LW10/Boddu Siva Kumari. PW.6 added

Section 498-A of IPC by submitting a memo to the Hon'ble court. On 20.02.2022

LW15/S.V.S.Kameswara Rao-Tahsildar held inquest on the body of the deceased in the presence of PW5, LW12/Kakumanu Ramesh and LW13/Vadinala Siva

Kumar, drafted an inquest report, duly attested by PW5, LW12/Kakumanu

Ramesh and LW13/Vadinala Siva Kumar and sent the body for autopsy. During the course of the investigation of the case, PW.6 arrested the accused on 24.02.2022 and sent them to the Hon'ble court for remand. Dr. K.Sharmista

Reddy, Medical Officer who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased issued the PMC, opining that the death occurred due to organophashapate poisoning. After completion of the investigation of the case, PW.6 charge sheet against the accused.

3. The Learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kandukur having taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and registered as Preliminary Registered Case in

P.R.C.No.26/2022 and committed the case to the Sessions Court, Sessions

Division of Ongole, from where it was made over to this (Assistant Sessions

Judge’s) Court, Kandukur and registered as Sessions Case No.81/2023.

4.After appearance of A1 and A3, they were examined under Section 228 Cr.P.C and charge under Sections 498-A, 306 of Indian Penal Code against

A1 and A3 have been framed, read over and explained to them in their regional dialect, whereupon they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and that therefore they were put on trial.

5. During the course of trial, PWs. 1 to 6 were examined for the prosecution and got marked Exs.P1 to P15 and M.O.1. The prosecution has given up the evidence of LW5/Ramathoti Vasantha Kumar, LW6/Padamuttam Sreenu,

LW7/Koppolu Kumari, LW8/Menda Sravani, LW10/Boddu Sivakumari,

LW12/Kakumanu Ramesh, LW13/Vadinala Siva Kumar, LW14/ Dr.K.Sharmista

Reddy–Medical Officer, LW15/S.V.S.Kameswara Rao and LW16/K.Hanumantha

Rao - ASI and the prosecution closed.

6 APPR080000132024

6.After completion of evidence of prosecution, Accused No.1 and 3 have been examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution, who having heard denied the incriminating evidence and reported to have no defence evidence, resulting closure of defence evidence.

7.Heard arguments of prosecution and defence counsel.

8. Now the point that arise for determination is that:

Whether the prosecution bring home the guilt of Accused Nos.1 and 3 for the charge framed against them for the offence under Sections 498-A, 306 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt?

9. POINT:

(a). It is the case of prosecution that the deceased Gaddam Sirisha married Accused No.1 who is the 2nd son of Accused No.2 of Thumadu village,

Jarugumalli Mandal about 3 years back and they blessed with two children. Later,

Accused 1 to 3 harassed the deceased as she gave birth to a female girl and also they suspected and intentionally harassed the physically and mentally. The deceased again gave birth to a female child and then the accused harassed her.

Due to unbearable harassment, the deceased vexed on her life and on 19.02.2022 at about 12.30 hours, she consumed pesticide poison, when accused

No.2 came to the house and noticed the same and shifted her to Kims Hospital,

Ongle for treatment and the Doctors declared her as dead. It is the case of the prosecution that due to harassment of the accused, the deceased committed to suicide and they are responsible for the death of the deceased.

(b). To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 6 i.e., the blood relatives of the deceased, eye witnesses, mediator and Investigating Officer. Among them PW1 is the brother of the deceased, PW2 is the mother of the deceased and PW3 is another brother of the deceased. They testified that about 4 years back, LW6/Srinivasulu made a phone call and informed that the Gaddam Sirisha died due to taking the pesticide poison and she was given in marriage to accused No.1 of Thumadu village.

7 APPR080000132024

Immediately, they rushed to Thumadu village and observed the dead body of the deceased Sirisha. They categorically testified that the said Sirisha committed to suicide by taking poison and due to her ill-health. PW1 testified that police obtained his signature on a white paper under Ex.P1. PWs. 1 to 3 who are the blood relatives of the deceased Sirisha did not supported the case of prosecution by stating that the police not examined them. Then the learned Addl. Public

Prosecutor put them to face the cross examination and in the cross examination also, nothing was elicited from the mouth of the Pws.1 to 3, except marking of their section 161 Cr.P.C statements as Exs.P2 to P4.

(c). PW.4 is the witness to speak to the facts of the occurrence of the incident, but he testified that he doesn’t know anything about this case, and he knows the deceased and accused person. He did not support the case of prosecution and in the cross examination also nothing was elicited except, marking of his section 161 Cr.P.C statement as Ex.P5.

(d). As the prosecution witnesses i.e., PWs 1 to 4 did not support the case of prosecution, and that the prosecution relied upon the revenue official as

PW5 and the Investigating Officer as PW6. The Investigating Officer testified that on 19.02.2021 at about 22.00 hours, Jarugumalli, ASI received at report from the defacto complainant then he registered the same in Cr.No.20/2022, under section 306 of IPC. He sent the same report from his mobile, on receiving information, he left the office and reached the Jarugumalli police station and secured the copy of

FIR and also visited the Thumadu village of Jarugumalli Mandal and deputed his staff members to safe guard the scene of offence. Then, he shifted the body of the deceased to Government area hospital, Kandukur for conducting of inquest over the dead body. On the next day, he sent requisition to the Tahsildar of

Kondapi for conducting for inquest because of the deceased died, within the 3 years of marriage. On 20.02.2022 he along with mediators went to Thumadu village and examined the scene of offence situated in the house of Gaddam

Narasimha Rao of Thumadu village and he seized Triban CHNORPYIPHOS insecticide poison bottle from the scene of offence in presence of the mediators duly attested by them and he took photographs of the scene of offence and draw 8 APPR080000132024 the rough sketch. Then, he went the Jarugumalli police station and came to know that Kondapi Mandal, Tahsildar went to Kandukur area Hospital for conducting inquest, and completed the same and sent the dead body of the deceased to the mortuary for autopsy. Thereafter, he secured the witnesses and recorded their statements and left the area Hospital, and went to Thumadu village and also secured the presence of witnesses examined them and recorded their statements. As prima facie of case is made out under Section 498-A of IPC against the Accused Nos.1 to 3 and then he added under Section 498-A of IPC addition to Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC and filed a memo section of law and he received credible information about the accused and went to Thumadu village of

Jarugumalli Mandal and arrested the A1 to A3 at their house and sent them for

Hon’ble court for judicial remand. During the course of investigation he received

final opinion of the deceased occurred due to ORGENOTHESHAPATE poisoning after completion of the investigation, he filed charge sheet against the A1 to A3 under Sections 498-A, 306 r/w 34 of IPC. Ex.P8 is the report, dated 19.02.2022 of

PW1, Ex.P9 is FIR, Ex.P10 is rough sketch, Ex.P11 is postmortem certificate,

dated 20.02.2022, Ex.P12 is final opinion, Ex.P13 is letter of advise, Ex.P14 is

RFSL report dated 20.04.2022, Ex.P15 is photographs (7).

(e). To corroborate the testimony of Investigating officer, the prosecution also relied upon the evidence of one of the mediator as PW5. He testified that about on 20.02.2022 at about 8.00 a.m, he received a phone call form C.I, Singarayakonda P.S and informed that one Gaddam Sirisha, W/o.

Srikanth committed to suicide and requested him to act as a mediator and then he along with LW10/P.Siva Kumari Thumadu VRO rushed to Thumadu village and there, they observed the dead body of the Gaddam Sirisha and found pesticide bottle and the C.I took the photographs of scene of offence and seized pesticide poison in their presence and on the same day, he along with LWs12 and 13

K.Ramesh and V.Siva Kumar rushed to Government hospital, Kandukur and conducted inquest panchanama in their presence on the dead body of the deceased. Ex.P6 is the scene observation report, Ex.P7 is the inquest report,

M.O.1 is the triban chlorpyriphos 20EC insecticide white bottle.

9 APPR080000132024

(f). Perused the entire evidence of prosecution witnesses. The prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused, it has mainly relied upon the evidence of blood relatives of the deceased as PWs.1 to 3, but they did not support the case of prosecution, by stating that the deceased committed to suicide by taking poison due to her ill-health. As per the evidence of Investigating

Officer/PW6, he visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene and also seized MO.1 from the scene of offence which is the house of the accused in the presence of mediators, and the entire evidence of Investigating

Officer is nothing but replica of charge sheet contents only. The mediator / PW5 also deposed in the same lines of Investigating Officer only. PW6/Investigating

Officer testified that he examined the blood relatives of the deceased and the surrounding the people of the scene of offence and recorded their statements, but

PWs 1 to 4 clearly testified that they were not examined by the police and even they denied their section 161 Cr.P.C statement made before the police. As PWs.1 to 3 did not depose anything against the accused and as there is no incriminating material available against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, except the evidence of investigating officer and mediator, and this court hold that the evidence available in the record is in sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused and that the prosecution failed to prove the same beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the Accused Nos.1 and 3 are entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

10.In the result, A1 and A3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 of Indian Penal Code, as such they are acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 and A3 shall remain in force for a further period of six months as contemplated under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The property M.O.1 in CPR.No.17/2025 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer (Outsourcing), corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 10 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- M.Sobha

Assistant Sessions Judge, Kandukur.

10 APPR080000132024

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: PW.1: Ramathoti Srikanth PW.2: Ramathoti Sivakumari PW.3: Padamuttam Surendra PW.4: Chodabattina Ankamma PW.5 : Pigili Balaji PW.6 : M.Lakshman – Investigating Officer For Defence: Nil

Documents Marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 report dated 13.02.2021. Ex.P2: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 Ex.P3: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 Ex.P4: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P5: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4 Ex.P6: Scene observation report dated 20.02.2022 Ex.P7: Inquest report dated 20.02.2022 Ex.P8: Report dated 19.02.2022 Ex.P9: First Information Report Ex.P10 : Rough sketch Ex.P11 : Postmortem certificate, dated 20.02.2022 Ex.P12 : Final opinion Ex.P13 : Letter of advise Ex.P14 : RFSL report dated 20.04.2022 Ex.P15 : Photographs -7 For Defence: Nil

Material objects marked

MO.1 : Triban Chlorpyriphos 20EC insecticide white bottle.

Sd/- M.Sobha

Assistant Sessions Judge, Kandukur.

1

APPR080000652023

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) :: KANDUKUR

Present : Smt. M. Sobha,

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kandukur

Friday, this the 10 th day of April, 2026

H.M.O.P.No. 31 of 2023

Tokala Satish, S/o. Krishna Rao, Hindu, aged about 31 years, Finance Executive, R/o. D.No.20-3-20, Pamuru

Road, Kandukur, SPSR Nellore District....Petitioner

Vs.

Kodavali Archana @ Tokala Archana, W/o. Tokala Satish, aged about 24 Years, Hindu, Housewife, R/o. Door No. 4-61, Kodavalivaripalem Village, Karamchedu Mandal,

Baptla District....Respondent

This petition is coming on 10th day of April, 2026 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Bezawada Krishnaiah Chowdary, learned counsel for petitioner and of Sri K.Harikoteswara Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court, made the following:-

// O R D E R //

1. The petitioner/husband filed the petition under section 13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent/wife solemnized on 22.05.2021 on the ground of cruelty.

2.The case of petitioner/husband, in a nutshell is that:

(a). The petitioner married the respondent on 22-05-2021 at

Kandukur, SPSR Nellore District, as per the customs and traditions applicable to their community. After the marriage, the nuptial ceremony was arranged at her parental house. On the very first night, she refused to join the petitioner for conjugal life. The same was informed to both the respondent’s parents and the Petitioner’s parents. Even after a period of ten (10) days, though the respondent joined the petitioner, she continued to refuse to cohabit or consummate the marriage.

2

APPR080000652023

(b). The Petitioner repeatedly requested her to undergo medical treatment, but she consistently refused and she openly declared that she had no interest in leading a marital life with the Petitioner and expressed her desire only for money and for purchasing gold in her name. She insisted on travelling by car from Kandukur to her parental village and refused to travel by bus, thereby imposing unnecessary financial burden on the petitioner and the respondent lived with the Petitioner only for a period of about two (2) months.

During this time, she constantly expressed her dislike towards the Petitioner, picked quarrels without any valid reason, and behaved in an arrogant and disrespectful manner. The respondent mentally harassed the Petitioner without any justifiable cause.

(c). Despite the Petitioner’s sincere efforts to improve the respondent’s attitude and behavior, there was no change. The respondent clearly demonstrated that she was unwilling to lead a happy marital life with the Petitioner or to have children through the Petitioner, and she expressed her intention to adopt and foster a child. The respondent repeatedly insulted the Petitioner in the presence of his parents and relatives. She also insisted that the Petitioner should set up a separate residence away from his parents.

The Petitioner expressed his inability and unwillingness to do so, as he is the only son responsible for the care of his parents.

(d). On 23-02-2022, the respondent requested the Petitioner to drop her at her parental house, and accordingly, the Petitioner left her there.

Thereafter, the respondent failed to return to the matrimonial home and continued to refuse cohabitation and consummation of the marriage. Further, on 26-01-2023, the petitioner’s father, Moduboina Nageswara Rao, along with

Vaikunta Veeranjaneyulu, visited the respondent’s house to bring her back.

However, the respondent’s parents neither gave a proper response nor allowed them to meet the respondent. In these circumstances, it has become impossible for the Petitioner to live with the respondent under one roof. The

3

APPR080000652023 respondent’s conduct amounts to mental cruelty. Therefore, the Petitioner has filed the present petition seeking dissolution of the marriage dated 22-05-2021 on the ground of cruelty. There is no collusion between the petitioner and the respondent in filing this petition. Hence, the petition.

3. On the other hand the respondent filed her counter and the contents is as follows:

(a). The respondent contended that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 22-05-2021. At the time of marriage, the Petitioner and his parents, namely Mr. and Mrs. Krishna Rao

Tokala, demanded a substantial amount as dowry from the respondent’s family. The respondent belongs to a financially modest family, and considering the future responsibilities of her younger siblings, her father requested the

Petitioner’s family to accept a portion of the dowry at the time of marriage and the balance at a later stage. The Petitioner and his family agreed to the said arrangement, and accordingly, the respondent’s parents paid a certain amount along with gold ornaments.

(b). The respondent further contended that just prior to the marriage, the petitioner informed the respondent over a phone call that he was unwilling to marry her, stating that he had been in a prior relationship with a girl from a different caste, which was opposed by his family. However, upon persuasion by his parents, who assured him of financial support for his stock market activities, the Petitioner proceeded with the marriage. After the marriage, the respondent joined the matrimonial home. Within a month, the

Petitioner began exhibiting rude, arrogant, and abusive behavior. The respondent was subjected to physical and mental cruelty, including forceful and non-consensual sexual conduct, without regard to her health or consent, even during her menstrual periods. Whenever the respondent objected, the

Petitioner would verbally abuse and physically assault her.

4

APPR080000652023

(c). The respondent contended that when she complained to the

Petitioner’s mother, no action was taken. Instead, she was further harassed and pressurized to bring the remaining dowry amount. The Petitioner’s mother also subjected the respondent to ill-treatment in the absence of the Petitioner.

At the time of marriage, the petitioner and his family represented that he was a

Chartered Accountant earning a substantial income. However, the respondent later discovered that the Petitioner was unemployed, had no stable source of income, and was engaged in speculative trading in the stock market, incurring continuous financial losses. Whenever he incurred losses, he would behave aggressively, return home late, and subject the Respondent to further abuse.

(d). The respondent further contended that the Petitioner attempted to create false educational and employment documents in her name to secure loans from financial institutions for his personal use. When the respondent refused to cooperate, the Petitioner physically assaulted her and confined her in a room for several days. Due to continuous physical and mental harassment, the respondent suffered severe distress and was even driven to contemplate suicide. However, considering her family’s dignity and her siblings’ future, she restrained herself. The respondent contended that the

Petitioner frequently absconded from the house to avoid creditors, leaving her alone to face harassment from moneylenders, who used abusive language against her. Upon inquiry, she came to know that the Petitioner had a pattern of borrowing money and evading repayment.

(e). Despite her repeated requests for the Petitioner to take up stable employment and improve their financial condition, he responded in an abusive and derogatory manner, stating that she had no right to question him, and continued to disappear for days together. On one such occasion, when the respondent questioned his conduct, the Petitioner physically assaulted her, forcibly took her in a car, and left her at her parental home without even informing her parents, thereby causing humiliation and mental agony to the respondent and her family. Thereafter, while residing at her parental home

5

APPR080000652023 and recovering from trauma, the respondent resumed her studies and completed her M.Tech. With the support of her parents and relatives, she applied for higher education in the United States of America (USA). During the period of about six months that she stayed at her parental home, the

Respondent made several attempts to contact the Petitioner, but he neither responded nor made any effort to communicate with her. Even after the respondent left for the USA, she retained the same mobile number, yet the

Petitioner made no attempt to contact her. Subsequently, the Petitioner sent a message seeking divorce. By the time the respondent became aware of the legal proceedings through her parents, the Petitioner had already filed

H.M.O.P.No. 31/2023 and resorted to substituted service by way of paper

publication.

(f). The respondent further contended that she has no intention to dissolve the marriage and is willing to resume matrimonial life after completion of her education and upon securing employment. The Petitioner and his family were fully aware, even prior to the marriage, of the respondent’s intention to pursue higher studies abroad. Being from a family where all they care about is self-respect and some dignity but the things made by petitioner had bought respondents family respects very low and this will eventually affect her siblings who are yet to get married and settle in their life and prays to dismiss the petition with costs.

4.During the enquiry, petitioner having been examined as PW1, got marked on his behalf Exs.P1 and P2. The petitioner examined his mother as

PW2 and the petitioner further examined one third party as PW3. On behalf of the respondent no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.

5.Heard the petitioner and perused the record.

6.Now the point for determination is that :

Whether the petitioner is entitled to get decree of divorce from the respondent on the grounds of cruelty ?

6

APPR080000652023

7.Point:

This is the petition filed by the petitioner/husband seeking divorce from the respondent/wife on the ground of cruelty and so the burden is on the petitioner to prove his case.

8.(a). To prove his case, the petitioner entered into witness box as

PW1 and reiterated the petition averments in his chief examination affidavit.

He further testified that the respondent refused to join him for conjugal life and the same was informed to both the parents. Even after a period of ten (10) days, though the respondent joined him, she continued to refuse to cohabit him. He also repeatedly requested her to undergo medical treatment, but she consistently refused and she openly declared that she had no interest in leading a marital life and expressed her desire only for money and for purchasing gold in her name. She insisted on travelling by car from Kandukur to her parental village and refused to travel by bus, thereby imposing unnecessary financial burden on him and the respondent lived with him only for a period of about two (2) months and also demanded for separate family.

(b). In the cross examination of PW1, he testified that he employed with Price water house coopers (PWC) since 2019, earning approximately Rs. 8.5 lakhs per annum, and worked in Bangalore (later from home during Covid), and his salary details and employment status were correctly disclosed to the respondent’s family. The respondent was a B.Tech graduate at the time of marriage and intended to pursue M.Tech, which was accepted by his family. PW1 denied that being unemployed at the time of marriage and suffering heavy share market losses prior to marriage. He admitted that investing in the share market and availing bank loans, but denied borrowing large amounts from the respondent’s relatives or being addicted to trading. He denied that creation of documents or taking loans in the respondent’s name. He testified that on 23-02-2022, the respondent requested to drop her, at her parental home, and despite sending elders on

7

APPR080000652023 26-01-2023 to bring her back, she did not return. He denied neglecting or failing to contact the respondent. He testified that he was unaware of the respondent is in USA at the time of filing the petition. He admitted that no notice under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was issued prior to filing the petition. PW1 also clearly testified that he is not willing to resume cohabitation, even if the respondent is willing.

9.(a). The petitioner also examined his mother as PW2, whose chief examination affidavit contents supported the averments of the petition and also the evidence of PW1 in all aspects. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 read in conjunction establishes the fact that the petitioner having married the respondent on 22-05-2021 at Kandukur, and she refused to join the petitioner for conjugal life, and the same is known to their parents.

(b). In the cross examination of PW2, she testified that the marriage between the Petitioner and respondent was performed during the

Covid period, and the respondent was not related to their family, her relatives reside at Kunipalem. She denied that her son was addicted to share market trading prior to marriage. She denied that her son intended to marry another girl of a different community before this marriage. She testified that the disputes between the couple arose within one month of marriage, as informed by her son. She denied that her son used to leave the house and return lately due to share market losses. She denied that the respondent complained to her about the Petitioner’s behavior and that she asked the respondent to “adjust.” She denied that they misrepresented that the petitioner was a

Chartered Accountant and earning Rs. 50,000/- per month and that he would receive Rs. 2 crores property. She asserts that they made efforts to bring back the respondent, through elders but the respondent’s parents did not send her

PW2 admitted that they did not approach police, alleging that the respondent was being hidden by her parents. She testified that they were unaware that the respondent went to the USA for higher studies. She denied that her son

8

APPR080000652023 neglected the respondent due to share market involvement and that she failed to warn him.

10.(a). The petitioner has also examined one third party as PW3, whose chief examination affidavit contents supported the averments of the petition and also the evidence of PW1 in all aspects.

(b). In the cross examination of PW3, testified that the petitioner’s father is his friend and he admitted that his chief examination affidavit was prepared by his Advocate on his instructions. He studied up to Degree and he admitted that the contents of his chief examination were narrated to him by the

Petitioner’s father and he admitted that he came to know about the marital disputes only in the year, 2023. He testified that he, along with M. Nageswara

Rao (Petitioner’s father), visited the respondent’s house for mediation, but he did not mention in his affidavit that the Petitioner’s parents also accompanied them. He testified that the respondent’s parents informed them that the respondent had gone to the USA for higher studies and he confirms that the mediation visit took place on 26-01-2023, after which the present petition was filed.

11.The evidence of PW1 to PW3 reveals that they made efforts to bring back the respondent, but in vain. Moreover, the respondent who filed her counter and denied the entire averments in the petition filed by the petitioner, but she did not intend to enter into the witness box and adduced any evidence. Further the evidence on record reveals that the respondent has been staying at U.S.A and inspite of granting number of adjournments also she failed to adduce any evidence. Hence, the entire evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is sufficient to grant relief in favour of petitioner, as the respondent failed to appear before the court, and lost the opportunity to deny the averments in the petition by adducing her evidence. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to have a decree of divorce from the respondent. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of petitioner.

9

APPR080000652023

12.In the result, this petition is allowed without costs and granted decree of divorce by declaring that the marriage of petitioner with the respondent solemnized on 22.05.2021 is dissolved on the ground of cruelty.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer (Outsourcing), corrected and Pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 10 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- M.Sobha

Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Kandukur

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner: For Respondent : Nil

PW.1 : Tokala Satish PW.2 : Tokala Nirmala PW.3 : Vykunta Veeranjaneyulu

Documents Marked

For Petitioner:

Ex.P1 : Wedding card. Ex.P2 : Marriage photo along with C.D.

For Respondent : Nil

Sd/- M.Sobha

C.J(S.D),Kandukur

10

APPR080000652023

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) :: KANDUKUR

Present : Smt. M. Sobha,

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kandukur

Friday, this the 10 th day of April, 2026

H.M.O.P.No. 31 of 2023

Tokala Satish, S/o. Krishna Rao, Hindu, aged about 31 years, Finance Executive, R/o. D.No.20-3-20, Pamuru

Road, Kandukur, SPSR Nellore District....Petitioner

Vs.

Kodavali Archana @ Tokala Archana, W/o. Tokala Satish, aged about 24 Years, Hindu, Housewife, R/o. Door No. 4-61, Kodavalivaripalem Village, Karamchedu Mandal,

Baptla District....Respondent

The petitioner/husband filed the petition under section 13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent/wife solemnized on 22.05.2021 on the ground of cruelty.

This petition is coming on 10th day of April, 2026 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Bezawada Krishnaiah, learned counsel for petitioner and of Sri K.Harikoteswara Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court, doth order and decree;

1. that the petition be and the same is hereby allowed without costs,

2. that the divorce be and is hereby granted decree of divorce by declaring that the marriage of petitioner with the respondent solemnized on 22.05.2021 is dissolved on the ground of cruelty, and

3. that the each party do bear their own costs.

Given under my hand and the Seal of the Court, this the 10 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- M.Sobha

Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Kandukur

// Table of Costs //

(C.M & C.F not filed on either side)

Sd/- M.Sobha

C.J(S.D),Kandukur

1

APPR080000742025

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) :: KANDUKUR

Present : Smt. M. Sobha

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kandukur

Friday, this the 10 th day of April, 2026

H.M.O.P.No. 10 of 2026

Chimata @ Bathula Chandana, W/o. Chimata Jaya Krishna, D/o. Bathula Madhava, Hindu, aged about 21 years, Occ: House wife, R/o.D.No. 2-3, Anneboinapalli village, Lingasamudram Mandal, SPSR Nellore

District...Petitioner

Vs.

Chimata Jaya Krishna, S/o. Koteswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 30 years, Occ: Pvt. Work, R/o. D.No. 1-29, Near Narasimha Swamy Temple, Old Singarayakonda

village, Singarayakonda Mandal, Prakasam District...Respondent

This petition is coming on 10th day of April, 2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Penna Krishnaiah, learned counsel for petitioner, and the respondent remained exparte, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

// O R D E R //

1. The petitioner/wife filed the petition under section 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent solemnized on 16.02.2023 on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

2.The case of petitioner/wife, in a nutshell is that:

(a). The petitioner married to the respondent on 16.02.2023 at

Malakonda, Narasimha Swamy Temple, V.V. Palem Mandal, SPSR Nellore

District, in accordance with Hindu rites, customs, and traditions. At the time of marriage, her parents provided Rs.2,00,000/- in cash, 5 sovereigns of gold, and incurred an expenditure of Rs.50,000/- towards marriage expenses. After the solemnization of the marriage, she joined the respondent and the

2

APPR080000742025 marriage was duly consummated and they lived together happily as husband and wife for a period of approximately six months. Thereafter, she came to know that the respondent addicted to various vices, including womanizing and gambling. To satisfy his habits, he frequently demanded that her to bring money from her parental home. The petitioner, however, expressed her inability due to her parents’ poor financial condition and declined to meet such unlawful demands.

(b). As a result, he developed ill-will towards her and began subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty and he used to assault her without any valid reason and neglected her basic needs, including food and clothing. Despite such ill-treatment, the petitioner endured the same with the hope that the respondent would reform his conduct. The petitioner further contended that the respondent demanded an additional dowry of

Rs.1,00,000/- from her parental home. Upon her refusal, he subjected her to severe physical assault. Ultimately, on 22.08.2023, she forcibly drove her out of the matrimonial home after beating her and reiterating his demand for

additional dowry.

(c). The petitioner remained in the veranda of the respondent’s house for one day after being driven out, however, neither the respondent nor his family members provided her with food or permitted her to re-enter the house. Under such distressing circumstances, she was compelled to return to her parental home and seek shelter there. The petitioner contended that she made several sincere efforts to resume cohabitation with the respondent, both personally and through her parents and community elders. However, all such attempts proved futile, as the respondent adamantly refused to take her back.

The petitioner further contended that the respondent has willfully and deliberately deserted her with the intention of terminating the marital relationship and remarrying another woman. The respondent has openly expressed before elders and the petitioner’s parents that he is not interested

3

APPR080000742025 in continuing the marital relationship and that he married the petitioner only under parental pressure. In view of the above circumstances, she has lost all hope of reconciliation and is constrained to file the present petition on the ground of cruelty. There is no collusion between the petitioner and the respondent in filing this petition, and the petitioner has not previously filed any such petition before any court. Hence, this petition.

3. The respondent remained exparte on 07.04.2026.

4. The petitioner having been examined as PW1, got marked on her behalf Exs.P1 and P2. The petitioner also examined her mother as PW2.

5.Heard and perused the record.

6.Now the point for determination is that:

Whether the marriage solemnized between the petitioner and respondent? If so, whether the respondent, being husband has subjected the petitioner to cruelty and thereby deserted her without any justifiable cause or reason?

7.Point:

This is the petition filed by the petitioner/wife seeking divorce from the respondent/husband on the ground of cruelty and desertion and so the burden is on the petitioner to prove her case.

8.The petitioner/wife, while being examined as PW1, so as to establish her case has reiterated and reaffirmed to have married the respondent on 16.02.2023 at Malakonda, Narasimha Swamy Temple, V.V.

Palem Mandal. At the time of marriage, her parents provided Rs.2,00,000/- in cash, 5 sovereigns of gold, and incurred an expenditure of Rs.50,000/- towards marriage expenses. After the solemnization of the marriage, she joined the respondent and the marriage was duly consummated and they lived happily as husband and wife for a period of approximately six months.

4

APPR080000742025

9. The petitioner as PW1, so as to establish her marriage with the respondent has produced the wedding card under Ex.P1, the contents thereunder drives to suggests that the marriage of petitioner and respondent was held on 16.02.2023. She has also produced marriage photo along with

C.D under the cover of Ex.P2, in which they are in traditional attire with exchange of garlands, which inference the performance of Hindu Marriage.

10.To prove her contention, the petitioner/PW1 examined her mother as PW2, who deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW1. The evidence of PW2 is clearly established the harassment meted by her daughter in the hands of respondent. The respondent failed to appear before the court and remained exparte.

11.The unimpeachable and un-assailed evidence of PW1 and PW2 establishes the fact that the petitioner having married the respondent and later he demanded an additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- from her parental home.

Upon her refusal, he subjected her to severe physical assault. On 22.08.2023, she forcibly drove her out of the matrimonial home after beating her and reiterating his demand for additional dowry. Hence, the petitioner is entitled her to have a decree of divorce from the respondent. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the petitioner.

12.In the result, this petition is allowed without costs and granted decree of divorce by declaring that the marriage of petitioner with the respondent solemnized on 16.02.2023 is dissolved henceforth on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer (Outsourcing), corrected and Pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 10 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- M.Sobha

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Kandukur.

5

APPR080000742025

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner: For Respondent : Exparte

PW.1 : Chimata @ Bathula Chandana PW.2 : Bathula Kumari

Documents Marked

For Petitioner:

Ex.P1 : Wedding Card Ex.P2 : Marriage photo along with C.D.

For Respondent : Nil

Sd/- M.Sobha

C.J(S.D),Kandukur

6

APPR080000742025

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) :: KANDUKUR

Present : Smt. M. Sobha

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kandukur

Friday, this the 10 th day of April, 2026

H.M.O.P.No. 10 of 2026

Chimata @ Bathula Chandana, W/o. Chimata Jaya Krishna, D/o. Bathula Madhava, Hindu, aged about 21 years, Occ: House wife, R/o.D.No. 2-3, Anneboinapalli village, Lingasamudram Mandal, SPSR Nellore

District,..Petitioner

Vs.

Chimata Jaya Krishna, S/o. Koteswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 30 years, Occ: Pvt. Work, R/o. D.No. 1-29, Near Narasimha Swamy Temple, Old Singarayakonda

village, Singarayakonda Mandal, Prakasam District...Respondent

The petitioner/wife filed the petition under section 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent solemnized on 16.02.2023 on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. This petition is coming on 10th day of April, 2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Penna Krishnaiah, learned counsel for petitioner, and the respondent remained exparte, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court, doth order and decree.

1. that the petition be and the same is hereby allowed without costs,

2. that the petition be and the same is hereby granted decree of divorce by declaring that the marriage of petitioner with the respondent solemnized on 16.02.2023 is dissolved henceforth on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, and

3. that the each party do bear their own costs. Given under my hand and the Seal of the Court, this the 10 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- M.Sobha

Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Kandukur

// Table of Costs //

(C.M & C.F not filed on either side)

Sd/- M.Sobha

C.J(S.D),Kandukur

1

APPR080000152026

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) :: KANDUKUR

Present : Smt. M. Sobha,

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kandukur

Friday, this the 10 th day of April, 2026

H.M.O.P.No. 17 of 2026

Challa Srikanth, S/o. Babu, Hindu, aged about 25 years, Mason worker, R/o Koduruvaripalle H/o Pedda Irlapadu

village, P.C.Palli Mandal, Prakasam District....Petitioner

Vs.

Challa Venkata Sirisha @ Bathula Venkata Sirisha, W/o. Srikanth, D/o. Bathula Srinu, Hindu, aged about 21 years, Housewife, R/o. Chinna Ammapalem Village,

V.V.Palem Mandal, SPSR Nellore District....Respondent

This petition is coming on 10th day of April, 2026 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Penna Krishnaiah, and N.Yallamanda Rao, learned counsels for petitioner, and the respondent remained exparte, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court, made the following:-

// O R D E R //

1. The petitioner/husband filed the petition under Section 13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent/wife solemnized on 17.10.2024 on the ground of cruelty.

2.The case of petitioner/husband, in a nutshell is that:

(a). The petitioner married the respondent on 17.10.2024 at

China Ammapalem Village, V.V. Palem Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, in accordance with Hindu customs, rites, and usages. The marriage was duly consummated, and thereafter the respondent joined the petitioner at his residence situated at Koduruvaripalle, H/o Pedda Irlapadu Village, P.C. Palli

Mandal, Prakasam District. The parties as husband and wife and lived happily for a period of about three months. No children were born out of the said wedlock.

2

APPR080000152026

(b). The petitioner is a mason by profession and resides along with his aged parents in his native village. However, the respondent developed a dislike towards residing in the matrimonial home and frequently quarreled with the petitioner on trivial issues. She used to abuse and insult the petitioner and his parents in the presence of others. From the beginning, the respondent expressed her unwillingness to live with the petitioner and intended to stay at her parental house. When the petitioner refused to accede to such demand, the respondent developed a grudge against him.

(c). In the month of March 2025, without informing the petitioner, she left the matrimonial home and went to her parental house. Subsequently, he approached the respondent at her parental home and requested her to return and resume cohabitation, but she refused and stating that she was not willing to live with the petitioner. Her parents also supported her decision.

(d). The petitioner further contended that on one occasion, the respondent picked a quarrel with him and his parents and attempted to commit suicide. Upon being warned by the petitioner, she left for her parental home and has not returned since then. Thereafter, elders and mediators, namely (1) Bathula Edukondalu and (2) Challa Venkata Ramesh, were sent by the petitioner’s family to resolve the dispute. Despite their efforts, the respondent refused to rejoin the petitioner and openly stated before them that she has no love or affection towards the petitioner and is unwilling to resume marital life. Thus, the mediation efforts failed.

(e). The petitioner contended that he still has love and affection towards the respondent and is willing to lead a peaceful matrimonial life with her. However, the respondent, without any valid reason, has willfully withdrawn from the society of the petitioner and treated him with cruelty. There is no collusion between the petitioner and the respondent. No similar petition is pending before any court of law. Hence, the petition.

3

APPR080000152026

3.Respondent remained set exparte on 07.04.2026, as she failed to appear before the court even after receipt of notice from the court and speed post.

4.The petitioner having been examined as PW1, got marked on his behalf Exs.P1 and P2. The petitioner further examined one third party as

PW2.

5.Heard the petitioner and perused the record.

6.Now the point for determination is that :

Whether the marriage solemnized between the petitioner and respondent? If so, whether the respondent, being wife has subjected the petitioner to cruelty without any justifiable cause or reason?

7.Point:

This is the petition filed by the petitioner/husband seeking divorce from the respondent/wife and so the burden is on the petitioner to prove his case.

8.The petitioner/husband, while being examined as PW1, so as to establish his case has reiterated and reaffirmed to have married the respondent on 17.10.2024 at China Ammapalem Village, V.V. Palem Mandal,

SPSR Nellore District and the marriage was duly consummated, and she joined the petitioner at his residence and they lived happily for a period of about three months, and no children were born out of the said wedlock.

9. The petitioner as PW1, so as to establish his marriage with the respondent has produced the wedding card under Ex.P1, which clearly shows that the marriage of petitioner and respondent solemnized on 17.10.2024 at

China Ammapalem Village, V.V. Palem Mandal, and also produced marriage photo under Ex.P2. The oral evidence of PW1 is corroborating with the documentary evidence under Exs.P1 and P2 establishing the factum of marriage of estranged couple. The respondent failed to appear before the court and remained exparte and did not deny the case of petitioner.

4

APPR080000152026

10.The petitioner has also examined one third party as PW2, whose chief examination affidavit contents supports the averments of the petition and also the evidence of PW1 in all aspects. The unimpeachable and un-assailed evidence of PWs.1 and 2 establishes the fact that the petitioner having married the respondent on 17.10.2024 and in the month of March 2025, without informing the petitioner, she left the matrimonial home and went to her parental house and he approached the respondent at her parental home and requested her to return and resume cohabitation. The evidence on record reveals that the respondent used to threaten the petitioner and for separate family and refused to lead marital life with the petitioner also amounts to cruelty. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to have a decree of divorce from the respondent. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of petitioner.

11.In the result, the petition is allowed without costs and granted decree of divorce by declaring that the marriage of petitioner with the respondent solemnized on 17.10.2024 is dissolved on the ground of cruelty.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer (Outsourcing), corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 10 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- M.Sobha

Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Kandukur // APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner: For Respondent : Exparte

PW.1 : Challa Srikanth PW.2 : Bathula Yedukondalu

Documents Marked

For Petitioner:

Ex.P1 : Wedding card Ex.P2 : Marriage photo along with C.D.

For Respondent : Nil

Sd/- M.Sobha

C.J(S.D),Kandukur

5

APPR080000152026

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) :: KANDUKUR

Present : Smt. M. Sobha,

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kandukur

Friday, this the 10 th day of April, 2026

H.M.O.P.No. 17 of 2026

Challa Srikanth, S/o. Babu, Hindu, aged about 25 years, Mason worker, R/o Koduruvaripalle H/o Pedda Irlapadu

village, P.C.Palli Mandal, Prakasam District....Petitioner

Vs.

Challa Venkata Sirisha @ Bathula Venkata Sirisha, W/o. Srikanth, D/o. Bathula Srinu, Hindu, aged about 21 years, Housewife, R/o. Chinna Ammapalem Village,

V.V.Palem Mandal, SPSR Nellore District....Respondent

The petitioner/husband filed the petition under Section 13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent/wife solemnized on 17.10.2024 on the ground of cruelty.

This petition is coming on 10th day of April, 2026 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Penna Krishnaiah, and N.Yallamanda Rao, learned counsels for petitioner, and the respondent remained exparte, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court, doth order and decree;

1. that the petition be and the same is hereby allowed without costs,

2. that the divorce be and is hereby granted decree of divorce by declaring that the marriage of petitioner with the respondent solemnized on 17.10.2024 is dissolved on the ground of cruelty, and

3. that the each party do bear their own costs.

Given under my hand and the Seal of the Court, this the 10 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- M.Sobha

Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Kandukur

// Table of Costs //

(C.M & C.F not filed on either side)

Sd/- M.Sobha

C.J(S.D),Kandukur

APPR0800036720251

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) : KANDUKUR IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) : KANDUKUR

Present : Smt. M. SobhaPresent : Smt. M. Sobha

Civil Judge (Senior Division), KandukurCivil Judge (Senior Division), Kandukur

Thursday, this the 9 th Thursday, this the 9 th day of April, 2026 day of April, 2026

SUCCESSION ORIGINAL PETITION NO.2/2026

1. Pokuri Hemalatha, @ Pathipati Hemalatha, W/o. Late Pathipati Ashok, aged about 25 years, Housewife.

2. Pathipati Praharshitha, D/o. Pathipati Ashok, aged about 2 years.

3. Pathipati Singamma, W/o.Subba Rao, aged about 60 years.

All are Hindus, residents of S.C Colony, MuppallaVillage,PonnalurMandal Prakasam District. .… Petitioners

Vs.

Nil ..… Respondent

This petition is coming on 08.04.2026before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Kesineni Rajasekhara Reddy,Advocate for Petitioners, and the Respondent nil, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, and this Court made the following:

:: O R D E R ::

1.This petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 372 of the

Indian Succession Act, 1925, seeking issuance of a Succession Certificate in their favour in respect of the petition schedule amount, namely the death benefits of late Pathipati Ashok lying with Axis Bank, Kandukur, along with costs of the petition.

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

(a). The petitioners contended that the Petitioner No. 1 is the wife,

Petitioner No. 2 is the daughter, and Petitioner No. 3 is the mother of late

Pathipati Ashok, a resident of Muppalla Village, Ponnaluru Mandal, Prakasam

APPR0800036720252

District. The petitioner contended that the said Pathipati Ashok was employed with Axis Bank at Kandukur and, unfortunately, he died on 06.03.2025 due to a road accident that occurred on the Kondapi–Podili Road near Regalagadda

Village. The deceased died intestate, leaving behind the petitioners as his only legal heirs and successors, namely his wife, daughter, and mother.

(b). The petitioner contended that the Tahsildar, Ponnaluru

Mandal, issued a Family Member Certificate dated 19.03.2025 in favor of

Petitioners No. 1 and 2, recognizing them as family members of the deceased

Pathipati Ashok; however, the name of Petitioner No. 3 was not included therein. The petitioners contended that, at the time of his employment, the deceased had nominated his father, Pathipati Subbarao, as his nominee.

However, the said Pathipati Subbarao also passed away on 08.04.2024. The petitioners have obtained the certified copies of the death certificates of both

Pathipati Ashok and Pathipati Subbarao, along with the Family Member

Certificate of the deceased Pathipati Ashok.

(c). The petitioners further contended that, being the legal heirs of the deceased, Petitioner No.1 approached the authorities of Axis Bank,

Kandukur, seeking the death benefits of the deceased Pathipati Ashok. The bank authorities, however, advised and directed the petitioners to obtain a

Succession Certificate from the competent court, as communicated vide letter

dated 29.04.2025. The petitioners contended that no other person has filed

any application seeking a Succession Certificate in respect of the death benefits of the deceased Pathipati Ashok. There is also no impediment under

Section 370(1) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, or under any other provision of law, for granting the Succession Certificate in favor of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners pray this Court may be pleased to grant a Succession Certificate in their favour in respect of the debts and securities (death benefits) of the deceased Pathipati Ashok. Hence, this petition.

APPR0800036720253

3.There are no contesting respondent in this petition. Therefore, a general notice was given to public by way of making paper publication in

Eenadu Telugu daily news paper calling for objections in this regard. Even after making the said publication, no objections were raised by any one.

Therefore, there are no contesting respondent in this matter.

4. To prove the claim, the petitioners 1 to 3 got examined themselves as PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4. Ex.P1 is certified copy of Death certificate of Pathipati Ashok, dated 13.03.2025, Ex.P2 is certified copy of

Death certificate of Pathipati Subbarao, dated 10.05.2024 and Ex.P3 is certified copy of family member certificate, dated 19.03.2025 issued by the

Tahasildar, Ponnalur Mandal and Ex.P4 is Letter issued by Bank Manager,

Axis Bank, dated 29.04.2025.

5.Heard.

6.Now the point for consideration is that:

Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of Succession certificate as prayed for?

7.Point:

To prove their case, the 1st petitioner, who is the wife of the deceased, examined herself as PW.1 and filed her chief-examination affidavit reiterating the petition averments. PWs.2 and 3, who are the daughter and mother of the deceased respectively, have also supported the case of the petitioners. Ex.P1, the certified copy of the death certificate of Pathipati Ashok, establishes that he died on 06.03.2025. Ex.P2, the certified copy of the death certificate of Pathipati Subbarao, shows that the nominee of the deceased predeceased him. Ex.P3, the Family Member Certificate issued by the

Tahsildar, supports the relationship of Petitioners No.1 and 2 with the deceased. As PW.3 establishes that she is the mother of the deceased. Ex.P4,

APPR0800036720254 the letter issued by the Bank Manager, Axis Bank, shows that the petitioners were advised to obtain a Succession Certificate.

8.Perused the material available on record, the deceased died intestate and the petitioners are his legal heirs, being his wife, daughter, and mother. There is no evidence to show the existence of any other legal heirs.

Further, a general notice was published in “Eenadu” Telugu daily newspaper calling for objections, and no objections have been received from any quarter.

Hence, the claim of the petitioners remains unchallenged. There is no legal impediment under Section 370 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, for granting the Succession Certificate. Accordingly, this Court is satisfied that the petitioners are entitled to the Succession Certificate as prayed for.

9.In the result, this petition is allowed without costs. Issue

Succession Certificate in favour of the petitioners 1 to 3 in respect of the petition schedule amount of Rs. 88,42,732/- (Rupees Eighty eight lakhs forty two thousand seven hundred and thirty two only) i.e., the death benefits of late

Pathipati Ashok lying with Axis Bank, Kandukur, on payment of requisite court fee as per law.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer (Outsourcing), corrected and Pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 9 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- M.Sobha

CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

KANDUKUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioners :

PW.1: Pokuri Hemalatha @ Pathipati Hemalatha PW.2: Pathipati Singamma PW.3: Pathipati Ramesh

For Respondent : Nil

APPR0800036720255

Documents Marked

For Petitioners :

Ex.P1: Certified copy of Death certificate of Pathipati Ashok, dated 13.03.2025. Ex.P2: Certified copy of Death certificate of Pathipati Subbarao, dated 10.05.2024 Ex.P3: Certified copy of family member certificate, dated 19.03.2025 issued by the Tahasildar, Ponnalur Mandal Ex.P4: Letter issued by Bank Manager, Axis Bank, dated 29.04.2025.

For Respondent : Nil

Sd/- M.Sobha

C.J(S.D), Kandukur