M. Sreedhar

1

In The Court of The Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) Tenali

PRESENT: Sri Marpu Sreedhar,

Prl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tenali

Friday, the 10th May 2024.

AS.No.49/2024 (Old Appeal No.80/2018)

Between:

1. Narla Koteswara Rao, S/o. Raghavaiah, Hindu, aged 70 years, Cultivation, R/o. Thondipalli village, Near Zakir Farm House, Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Narla Varadaiah alias Vara Prasada Rao, S/o. Koteswara Rao, Hindu, aged 50 years,

Cultivation, R/o. Amarthaluru village and mandal. ..Appellants/Defendants.

And

1. Narla Anitha Kumari, W/o. Late Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, aged 46 years, House-wife, R/o. Door No.2-58, Vetapalem village, Tsunduru mandal.

2. Narla Gopi, S/o. Late Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, aged 28 years, Milatary, R/o. Door No.2-58, Vetapalem village, Tsunduru mandal.

3. Votla Sahiti, W/o. Rama Krishna, Hindu, aged 28 years, House-wife, R/o. Near Babuji Ashramam, Shamshabad,

Hyderabad. ..Respondents/Plaintiffs.

Appeal against the judgment and decree, dated 14.06.2018 in O.S.No.430/2015 on the file of the learned 1st Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, at Tenali.

In OS. No.430/2015

Between:

1. Narla Anitha Kumari, W/o. Late Narla Srinivasa Rao, aged about 42 years, Hindu, House-wife, R/o. Door No.2-58, Vetapalem village, Tsunduru mandal.

2. Narla Gopi, S/o. Late Narla Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, aged about 23 years, Employee in Army, Permanent R/o. Door No.2-58, Vetapalem village, Tsunduru mandal. Presently residing at Aambala, Haryana state.

3. Votla Sahiti, W/o. Rama Krishna, aged about 25 years, Hindu, House-wife, R/o. Near Babuji Ashramam,

Shamshabad, Hyderabad, Telangana state. ..Plaintiffs.

2

And

1. Narla Koteswara Rao, S/o. Late Raghavaiah, aged about 66 years, Hindu, cultivation, R/o. Thondepalli village, Near Jakeer Farm House, Opp. Asharam Babuji Ashram, Shamshabad mandal, Ranga Reddy district.

2. Narla Varadaiah alias Vara Prasad Rao, S/o. Koteswara Rao, aged about 46 years, Hindu, cultivation,

R/o. Amarthalur village and mandal. ..Defendants.

This appeal is coming on 26.04.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri J. Siva Ram Kumar, Advocates for the appellants/defendants and of Sri P. Ravindra Babu, advocate for respondents/plaintiffs and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is an appeal preferred by the appellant herein, who are the defendants 1 and 2 in Os.430/2015 on the file of learned I Addl. Junior Civil

Judge’s Court at Tenali, against the decree and judgment, dated 14.6.2018

passed in favour of the Plaintiffs, who are the Respondents herein.

2.The parties hereinafter referred as arrayed in the original suit for the sake of convenience.

3.The case of the plaintiffs in a nutshell is as follows:

The plaint schedule property i.e., item No.1 is the landed property an extent of 17 cents and item No.2 is the hose property with door No.6-77 are the ancestral properties. The 1st plaintiff is wife of Narla Srinivasarao and plaintiffs 2 and 3 are their children. The 2nd defendant and the said Narla Srinivasa Rao are children of the 1st defendant. The said Narla Srinvasa Rao died on 20.9.2013 leaving behind his legal heirs as plaintiffs 1 to 3. The plaint schedule property is in their joint possession and enjoyment of all the parties and they requested the defendants for partition of the plaint schedule properties into 3 equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiffs and the defendants did not acceded their 3 request while admitting the same. They came to know that the 1st defendant executed a gift deed in favour of the 2nd defendant on 9.4.2015 with respect of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property, without any manner of right to alienate the same. Therefore, the said gift deed is not valid and does not bind the plaintiffs. They have also issued a legal notice on 22.6.2015 to the defendants with a request to cooperate for partition and allotment of their share and the said notice was received by the 2nd defendant and the 1st defendant intentionally avoided to receive the same. Hence, the suit is filed for partition of plaint schedule property into 3 equal shares and allot one such shares to plaintiffs and for separate possession.

4.The defendant No.1 filed written statement and the same was adopted by defendant No.2 and they denied the material allegations are all false and had inter-alia contended as follows:

a). The plaint schedule property is the self acquired property of 1st defendant’s father Narla Raghavaiah and after his death, his 3 sons who are the 1st defendant his two brothers namely Narla Peda Anjaiah and Narla China

Anjaiah got divided the property and in the said partition the 1st defendant got 17 cents wet land and about 125 sq. yards of site. Therefore, the said property became self acquired property of the 1st defendant and he got an absolute right and thereby he conveyed the same to the 2nd defendant by way of gift deed.

Hence, the plaintiffs have no right over the property to seek partition. Hence, the suit is liable for dismissal.

5.The trial Court framed the following issues upon considering the pleadings and documents submitted by the both parties :

1.Whether the suit schedule property is joint family property and available for partition?

4

2. Whether the defendant No.1 is absolute owner of schedule property?

3. whether plaintiffs are entitled for partition as prayed for?

4. If so, to what relief ?

6.During the trial, the plaintiff No.1 was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.A.1 to A5 were admitted though her. Ex.A1 is Extract copy of the gift deed executed by 1st defendant in favour of 2nd defendant in respect of the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property, Ex.A2 is Office copy of the Registered notice got issued by

PW.1 and her children through her advocate to the defendants, Ex.A3 is Original postal acknowledge of the 2nd defendant, Ex.A4 is Original returned registered notice of the 1st defendant, Ex.A5 is Original death certificate of husband of PW.1,

Narla Srinivasa Rao. On behalf of defendants, the 1st defendant was examined as DW.1, and the 2nd defendant was examined as DW.2. No documents were marked on behalf of the defendants.

7.The 1st plaintiff, her brother as P.Ws.1 and 2 deposed that the plaint schedule property is ancestral property, no partition was affected among them and as such, they are entitled for share in the property. PW.3, who is the brother of the 1st defendant deposed that no partition was affected among himself, his brother, who is the 1st defendant and another brother and it is the ancestral property. The defendants 1 and 2 denied the case of the plaintiff about the nature of the property and deposed that it is the separate property of the 1st defendant after partition of self acquired property of their father Raghavaiah and about dis- entitlement to seek partition by the plaintiffs.

8.Upon considering the evidence and documents submitted by both parties, the trial court decreed the suit with a specific finding that the defendants failed to bring any evidence to say that it is the self acquired property of Raghavaiah and on the other hand the recitals in the gift deed itself shows that it is an ancestral 5 property, and as such, the plaintiffs are entitled for the share and according, the suit was decreed in their favour.

9.Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present appeal was preferred by the defendants, as many as 9 grounds and out of which the ground

No.”e” and “f” is with regard to the conduct of the respondent in connection with the corrupt practices as a Sarpanch of the village, which is irrelevant and unconnected with the case. The remaining grounds which were canvassed by the appellant is that the trial court did not property appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and also proposition of law, without mentioning the specification about the grounds on which they relied,

10.The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the admission of the plaintiffs and evidence placed by the defendants clearly establish that there was partition among the 1st defendant and his brother for the self acquired property of

Raghavaiah and as such, the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of partition by relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court between Uttam Vs.

Saubhag Singh and others.

11.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contends that the trial court properly appreciated the evidence and relied upon the recitals in the gift deed executed in favour of the 2nd defendant by the 1st defendant and rightly came to conclusion that it is an ancestral property and the judgment relied by the appellants is not applicable to the present case, and as such, the appeal is liable for dismissal.

11.Now the points that arises for consideration are as follows:

1. Whether the suit schedule property is the ancestral property?

2. Whether the defendant No.1 is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property as pleaded by the defendants?

6

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition as prayed for?

4. Whether the judgment and decree, dated 14.06.2018 passed by the trial court warrants any interference ?

And

5. To what relief ?

12.POINT No.1 and 2:-

1. Whether the suit schedule property is the ancestral property?

2. Whether the defendant No.1 is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property as pleaded by the defendants?

a). The facts covered under points 1 and 2 are intertwined to each other and as such this court is inclined to decide both the points in one stretch to avoid redundancy of facts in discussion.

b). The case of the plaintiffs is that the plaint schedule property which is landed and house property, are ancestral properties, whereas the defendants pleaded and averred that the plaint schedule property is the self acquired property of the father of the 1st defendant namely Narla Raghavaiah. It is an admitted fact that both the parties did not choose to disclose the nature of acquisition by the ancestors of the plaintiffs and defendants by whom and when as pleaded by plaintiff and nature of acquisition by Raghavaiah i.e., how and when he acquired as pleaded by the defendants.

c). However, it is an admitted fact that the suit schedule property inherited from Raghavaiah to the 1st defendant, after his death. It is an admitted fact that the father of the plaintiffs 2 and 3 and husband of plaintiff No.1 namely Narla

Srinivasarao and the 2nd defendant Narla Varadaiah are sons of Narla

Koteswararao, who is the 1st defendant herein. It is also an admitted fact that 7

Narla Srinivasarao died on 20.9.2013 and the plaintiffs alone are his legal heirs being his wife, son and daughter.

d). The plaintiffs relied upon the documentary evidence in Ex.A1 i.e., the gift deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant in respect of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property to establish that the suit schedule is an ancestral property. Admittedly, the recitals in Ex.A1 clearly shows that the said property inherited from the ancestors of the 1st defendant as it is recited in following manner:- “Maa poorvikula Valana samapadinchabadi” at page No.2 of Ex.A1. If really, the same was acquired by Raghavaiah, it is not difficult for the defendants to bring any evidence to that effect unlike ancestral property where we cannot expect any evidence if at all the same was acquired long back. But, the defendants did not disclose the nature of acquisition of Raghavaiah and no such material is pleaded and averred by them. On the other hand, the recitals in

Ex.A1 clearly shows that it is an ancestral property.

e). In support of the contention of the plaintiffs, the 1st plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and her brother as PW.2, and deposed that it is an ancestral property. They admitted in their cross examination that the plaint schedule property originally belongs to Raghavaiah, who is the father of 1st defendant.

Based on the above said admission, we cannot say that it is the self acquired property of Raghavaiah, in absence of any positive evidence from the defendants. PW.3 namely Narla China Anjaiah, who is brother of the 1st defendant, also deposed that the plaint schedule property is the ancestral property and nothing was elicited nor suggested to him that it is the self acquired property of his father Raghavaiah. He is the material witness to speak about the said fact as he is one of the sons of Raghavaiah, but the defendants failed to suggest him about the said fact. On the other hand, the 1st defendant as DW.1 8 admitted in his cross examination that the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property is their ancestral property and it is also recited in Ex.A1 that it is an ancestral property. The 2nd defendant, who was examined as DW.2 also admitted that the properties are ancestral properties.

f). In the light of above discussion, the recitals in Ex.A1, the admission of

DW.1 and 2 coupled with the failure on the part of the defendants to disclose about the nature of acquisition by Raghavaiah, this court can safely come to conclusion that the plaint schedule properties are the ancestral properties in the hands of Raghavaiah and disprove the case of defendants that it is self acquired property of Raghavaiah.

g). The main flank of contention of the defendants is that this property became the separate and self acquired property of the 1st defendant as soon as the partition was affected among his brothers namely Peda Anjaiah and China

Anjaiah after death of their father namely Raghavaiah. In this regard the defendants relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court between the parties Uttam Vs. Saubhag Siungh and others, wherein it is held as follows:- “20. The law, therefore, insofar as it applies to joint family property governed by the Mitakshara School, prior to the amendment of 2005, could therefore be summarized as follows:-

(i) When a male Hindu dies after the commencement of the Hindu

Succession Act, 1956 , having at the time of his death an interest in

Mitakshara coparcenary property, his interest in the property will devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcenary (vide

Section 6).

(ii) To proposition (i), an exception is contained in Section 30

Explanation of the Act, making it clear that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, the interest of a male Hindu in Mitakshara 9 coparcenary property is property that can be disposed of by him by will or other testamentary disposition.

(iii) A second exception engrafted on proposition (i) is contained in the proviso to Section 6 , which states that if such a male Hindu had died leaving behind a female relative specified in Class I of the Schedule or a male relative specified in that Class who claims through such female relative surviving him, then the interest of the deceased in the coparcenary property would devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, and not by survivorship.

(iv) In order to determine the share of the Hindu male coparcener who is governed by Section 6 proviso, a partition is effected by operation of law immediately before his death. In this partition, all the coparceners and the male Hindu’s widow get a share in the joint family property.

(v) On the application of Section 8 of the Act, either by reason of the death of a male Hindu leaving self-acquired property or by the application of Section 6 proviso, such property would devolve only by intestacy and not survivorship.

(vi) On a conjoint reading of Sections 4 , 8 and 19 of the Act, after joint family property has been distributed in accordance with section 8 on principles of intestacy, the joint family property ceases to be joint family property in the hands of the various persons who have succeeded to it as they hold the property as tenants in common and not as joint tenants.

21. Applying the law to the facts of this case, it is clear that on the death of Jagannath Singh in 1973, the joint family property which was ancestral property in the hands of Jagannath Singh and the other coparceners, devolved by succession under Section 8 of the Act. This being the case, the ancestral property ceased to be joint family property on the date of death of Jagannath Singh, and the other coparceners and his widow held the property as tenants in common and not as joint tenants. This being the case, on the date of the birth of the appellant in 1977 the said ancestral property, not being joint family property, the suit for partition of such property would not be maintainable. The appeal is consequently dismissed with no order as to costs”.

10

h). The defendants have categorically pleaded and averred that the 1st defendant and his 2 brother Peda Anjaiah and China Anjaiah divided the property which was inherited from their father and the plaint schedule property fell to the share of the 1st defendant. In that connection the defendants elicited admission from the evidence of PW.1 that the plaint schedule property fell to the share of the defendant No.1 during the partition among himself and his brothers. PW.2 also admitted in his cross examination that the father of the 1st defendant got 52 cents and 8 cents of house sites and 1st defendant got 17 cents out of 52 cents and 125 sq. yards of site out of 8 cents and remaining property is in the possession and enjoyment of his brothers. The plaintiffs got examined one of the brothers of the 1st defendant and he denied the earlier partition which was pleaded by the defendants. But he admitted that he has not filed any suit for partition and not acquired any property through his father. This court is unable to believe that he has been keeping silence without seeking for partition of the property, if it is joint and as such, his evidence cannot be believed as far as jointness of the property among the sons of Raghavaiah. Moreover, the plaintiff and her brother categorically admitted about the partition and the southern boundary in Ex.A1 also discloses the name of Narla Subbarao and as such, there is no inch of doubt to say that the suit schedule property fell to the share of the 1st defendant during the partition with his brothers.

i). Now the contention of the defendants is that since the partition was affected and the property fell to the share of the defendant No.1 and it became his separate property. Admittedly, the suit schedule property is an ancestral property as stated supra, the question of change of nature of the property does not arise whenever the 1st defendant gave birth to a son. Admittedly, there is no whisper in the pleadings and evidence about the date of the said partition which was affected among them to say that the said property is the separate property of 11 the 1st defendant. Upon perusal of the recitals in Ex.A1 which shows that the partition was affected at about 45 years back from the date of execution. It is not the case of the defendant that the 2nd defendant and Narla Srinivasarao were not born by the time of partition. Once, the 1st defendant gave birth to his sons, he cannot divest the property as if he has absolute right over the property and the plaintiffs who being the legal representatives of the deceased Srinivasarao, they are entitled to seek partition over the property as Srinivasarao is no more. The decision relied on by the defendants was delivered in the different context when the suit filed during the life time of the father and after partition of the properties and the same cannot be made applicable to present case. Moreover, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court clearly held at page No.3 of judgment in between Sheela Devi

And Others Vs. Lal Chand And Another reported in Indian Kanoon

http://Indian Kanoon Org/doc/420921 in the following manner in a similar circumstance of this case.

“The principle of law applicable in this case is that so long a property remains in the hands of a single person, the same was to be treated as a separate property and thus, would be entitled to dispose of the coparcenary property as the same were his separate property, but, if a son is subsequently born to him or adopted by him, the alienation whether it is by way of sale, mortgage or gift, will nevertheless stand, for a son cannot object to alienations so made by his father before he was born or begotten. (See Krishna Prasad v. C.LT, Bangalore, [1975] 1 SCC

160. But once a son is born, it becomes a coparcenary property and he would acquire an interest therein”.

j). In view of the above proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court and in view of the circumstances of this case, this court is unable to agree with the contention of the defendants that it is self acquired property of the 1st defendant to dis-entitle the plaintiffs to lay claim for partition. Accordingly, these two points are answered against the defendants.

12

13.Point No.3:- Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition as prayed for?

a). In view of the findings of this court for points 1 and 2, the plaintiffs are entitled to seek partition of share of deceased Srinivasarao. There is no dispute with regard to the quantum of share which was claimed by the plaintiffs to an extent of 1/3rd of the plaint schedule. In fact, the 1st defendant executed gift deed in favour of 2nd defendant for item No.2 of the plaint schedule property. The said gift deed is not binding upon the plaintiffs as far as the share of Srinivasarao is concerned. The trial court determined share of all the parties as it is duty of court to determine the share of the all sharers in a suit for partition. Hence, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiffs.

14.Point No.4:- Whether the judgment and decree, dated 14.06.2018 passed in OS.430/2015 by the trial court warrants any interference ?

a). The trail court decreed the suit with the finding that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property and the defendants failed to establish that it is self acquired property of the 1st defendant and about entitlement of share of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property. No substantial grounds were alleged by the appellants by way of appeal grounds except relying upon legal aspect.

However, the finding of the trial court does not warrant any interference in view of findings of this court for points 1 to 3. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents.

15.Point No.5 :- To what relief?

a). In view of the findings of this court for points 1 to 4, the appeal shall be liable for dismissal. However, this court is not inclined to grant costs to avoid further strain in the relationship of both parties, who belongs to the same family.

16.In the result, this appeal is dismissed without costs by confirming the decree and judgment of the trial court dated 14.6.2018 passed in OS.430/2015 by 13 granting preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into three equal shares and allot one such share to plaintiffs 1 to 3 and the remaining two shares each to defendants 1 and 2.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 10th day of May, 2024.

Sd/-xx,

Prl. Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Tenali. Appendix of evidence No oral or documentary evidence is by either party.

Sd/-xx,

Prl. Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Tenali.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

TENALI

PRESENT: SRI MARPU SREEDHAR,

Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Tenali

Tuesday, this the 28th day of November, 2023

HMOP No.12 of 2022

Between:

Kolli Ajay Kumar Reddy S/o.Siva Sankar Reddy, Hindu, aged about 37 years, Employee, R/o.D.No.4-103, Konda Street, Namburu, Pedakakani Mandal, Guntur District, presently residing at Plot No.78, Flat No.502, Dhanalakshmi Nilayam, Mitra Hills, Hydernagar, Nizampet Road, Hyderabad, Telagana State.

....Petitioner

And

Kolli Prasanthi alias Bhanu Prasanthi W/o. Kolli Ajay Kumar Reddy D/o.Eada Prathap Reddy, Hindu, aged about 33 years, R/o.H.No.2039, Chemudubadupalem Village, Kollipara Mandal, Guntur District.

....Respondent

This petition came before me on 16.11.2023 for hearing in the presence of Sri K. Gurunadha Babu, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri T. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the Respondent and upon hearing and considering the material on record, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

: : O R D E R : :

1.This petition is filed by the petitioner/husband under Section 9 of Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 seeking the Court for grant of restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the petitioner by directing the respondent/wife to come and join with the petitioner for discharging the conjugal obligations and costs of the petition.

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

The marriage between the petitioner and respondent took place on 18.11.2012 at Tripuramallu Kalyana Mandapam, Nazerpet, Tenali as per Hindu

Rites and Customs. Immediately, the said marriage was consummated and she joined with him at Hyderabad and both lived together happily till 23.11.2014 by attending their respective jobs. The Respondent used to put up quarrel with the petitioner for petty reasons and oftenly go to her parents house and he used to take back to their home finally on 25.03.2018 the respondent left the matrimonial home.Thepetitionercametoknowthatshe 2 was conceived and on that he went to their house and her parents informed him that she has no interest to live with him. The respondent with the support of her parents did not allow him to their home and as such he got issued a legal notice to her dt.15.10.2018 to come and join with him. But there is no response from her side. She gave a birth to Male child Guru Karthikeya Reddy on 13.12.2018 and he rushed to the Government Hospital, Tenali after knowing about the said fact and he extended his co-operation, but the mother of the respondent made a galata at he hospital and she did not allow him to see his son. However, he oftenly used to visit their house to see her and his son but she did not allow him to their house. After knowing about performance of first birth day of their son at

Chemudupadupalaem, he along with his brother and mother went there and none of them spoke with them. Therefore, they returned to their house and quarreled with the petitioner and his family members. He has much love and affection towards the respondent and his son and her parents are the cause for their separation. She filed a petition before District Legal Services Authority, Guntur and the father of the respondent alone attended before the Honourable Authority and the same was closed by advising the petitioner to file a petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights. Hence, this petition.

3.The respondent filed her counter while admitting the relationship, marriage but denied the material allegations in the petition are all false and had interalia contended as follows:

a) The petitioner’s father spent Rs.7,00,000/- for marriage expenses and the respondent parents presented Rs.10,00,000/- towards Paspu Kumkum and the same was entrusted to the petitioner in the presence of his mother and brother and her parents presented gold chain, weighing 3 sovereigns and gold ring to the petitioner. They have also presented 20 sovereigns of gold to their daughter and house hold articles worth of Rs.2,00,000/-. The petitioner used to work in Hyderabad and resided along with his mother and brother and they 3 amicablylivedonlyforonemonth.

Mother of the petitioner used to demand the respondent to give her ATM card while she was working at Hetiro Pharmaceuticals Company, Hyderabad and his mother used to abused her without any fault and she used to beat her with legs and hands and his brother used to tell tales to petitioner against the respondent and he used to abused her in vulgar language. She became pregnant but he did not take care towards her and in in view of their harassment the pregnancy was aborted for twice. On 10.06.2014, the petitioner, his mother and his brother picked up quarrel with her and necked out her from the house and as such she joined at private hostel at Hyderabad and subsequently in the month of July, 2015 the petitioner approached her and she joined with him on promise made by him that he will look after her in affection. But the petitioner did not keep up his promise and again started harassment and he used to compare her financial capacity with his brother’s wife and demanded her alienate the property of her mother in his favour or else to give amount to him. On 19.04.2018 at p.m., the petitioner his mother unnecessarily picked up quarrel with her by demanding property in his favour or additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- and as such he was forced to got to her parents house. Subsequently she gave birth to male child and thereafter, at 5th month age of the boy they took her to the house of the petitioner and left her and advised him to look after both of them but there is no change in attitude of the Petitioner. On 19.02.2020 at about 5 p.m., the petitioner along with his mother and brother picked up quarrel with her by demanding dowry and humiliated her and such he was forced to go to her parents house and One

Avuthu Srinivasa Reddy and Butchi Reddy conducted mediations between the both parties but the petitioner bluntly refused to join with her until payment of dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- and as such the mediations were failed. The respondent filed MC.15/2022 on the file of the learned 2nd Additional Munsif Magistrate Court,

Tenali and the petitioner is avoiding to attend before the said court. Therefore, 4 the petition is liable for dismissal.

4.The reconciliation was conducted between the both parties and it was failed as both parties did not come forward to settled the matter amicably.

5.During the trial the petitioner alone was examined as P.W.1, Ex.P1 is wedding card, Ex.P2 is marriage photos (3 in number) along with C.D., Ex.P3 is office copy of registered legal notice dt.15.10.2018 have been admitted through him. On behalf of respondent, she was examined as R.W.1. Her father was examined as R.W.2. During the cross examination of R.W.1 Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 photographs (11 in number) were admitted.

5. Heard both sides. The petitioner filed written arguments also.

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the evidence placed by him and admission of the respondents clearly shows the respondents separated from the Matrimonial home without any reasonable cause and as such he is entitled for the relief as prayed for. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contends that the petitioner fails to establish the grounds to grant restitution of conjugal rights and on the other hand her evidence clearly shows she was forced to live separately due to harassment of petitioner and his family members. Thereby, the respondent requested this court to dismiss the petition.

7.On the strength of the above pleadings, the point to be determined is:

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to restitution of conjugal rights as prayed for?

2. To what relief ?

8.POINT No.1:

I)Before dwelling upon the contentious issues between the both parties, it is apposite to refer section under which the present petition is filed i.e., Sec.9 of

Hindu Marriage Act. It reads as follows:

9.Restitution of conjugal right.— When either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the 5 other, the aggrieved party may apply, by petition to the district court, for restitution of conjugal rights and the court, on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition and that there is no legal ground why the application should not be granted, may decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly.

[Explanation.—Where a question arises whether there has been reasonable excuse for withdrawal from the society, the burden of proving reasonable excuse shall be on the person who has withdrawn from the society.] ii).In-order to sustain the petition for restitution of conjugal rights, it is necessary to establish that the respondent has withdrawn from the society of the petitioner. The society meaning conjugal society. Thus, the onus on the petitioner to establish her own case. The explanation added to Sec.9 of the Act by the amended Act of 1976, has merely provided for rule of evidence by laying down the burden of proof in regard to question whether there has been a reasonable excuse for withdrawal of society of the petitioner spouses on the party pleading excuse. This burden of proof is very light since these spouses always suppose to live together, if he or she lives separately, it is for that person to prove the condition which are necessitated such a course to be taken. There after the burden would be shift to other party to show that he or she withdrawn the society of the other for the reasonable excuse.

Iii)It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is husband of the respondent and their marriage was performed on 18.11.2012 at Tripuramallu Kalyana Mandapam,

Nazerpet, Tenali as per Hindu rites and customs. There is no need to discuss about the Exs.P1 and P2 which are wedding invitation card and photographs, as there is no dispute with regard to the said aspect.

iv)It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner and respondent are residing separately from each other. The petitioner pleaded and averred that the 6 respondent left their house on 25.03.2018 whereas the responded stated that she was separated from the petitioner from 19.02.2020 after she gave a birth to male child and after her joining with the petitioner with 5th month child. The said fact deposed by the petitioner as P.W.1 as per pleadings and the respondent suggested to him that she joined with him along with son at the age of 5th month to the said baby and the said suggestion denied by him as false and reiterated by him that she never resided along with him after she gave birth to male child. It is an admitted fact the Ex.P3 legal notice was issued on 15.10.2018 and the respondent gave a birth to child on 13.12.2018. Therefore, the respondent could not elicit anything from the evidence of the petitioner that they lived in one house even after she gave birth to male child. The respondent as R.W.1 deposed that they were separated from 19.02.2020 by way of her chief examination. She stated in her cross examination that she joined with the petitioner and lived for five months after she gave a birth to male child but she admitted in her cross examination that she can not say the door number and particulars of said house where they resided for five months. It may not be possible for her to give such particulars but she went to an extent to say that she can not say the number of portions in the said house, name of the owner of the house and names of the neighbourers. Therefore, the fact pleaded and averred by the respondent about date of their separation is unbelievable and the version which was given by the petitioner about the date of their separation from 25.03.2018 is to be believed by this court.

9.The contention of the respondent is that they have presented

Rs.10,00,000/- towards Paspu Kumkum, incurred the expenditure of

Rs.7,00,000/- for marriage and presentation of gold ornaments to the petitioner at the time of marriage and he demanded for more dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- or demand of alienation of property in his favour by her mother. In support of her contention, she elicited from the evidence of P.W.1 that the marriage was held at 7 the expenses of the parents of the respondent. It is suggest to him that they spent Rs.10,00,000/- towards marriage expenses and that suggestion was denied by him as false. The respondent deposed the said fact. R.W.1 admitted in her cross examination that her parents are doing cultivation and there are no savings from her property and income derived from said lanth is sufficient for maintenance of their family. She further admitted that there are no liabilities and deposits for her parents at the time of her marriage. R.W.2 who is the father of the respondent No.1 also deposed in his chief examination about the payment of dowry and that was denied by the petitioner. However, the above aspect is not a material. It is the case of the respondent that they have demanded for property and dowry after she gave a birth to male child, but the evidence shows that they never resided after she gave a birth to male child. Moreover, there is not such particulars in the evidence of respondent or her father about the particulars of the property stands in the name of mother of respondent to establish the demand of alienation.

10.The contention of the respondent is that her pregnancy was aborted for twice due to harassment of family members of the petitioner and on the other hand the petitioners contends that the pregnancy was aborted due to her negligence and he look after her in very much affectionate manner. From the evidence of P.W.1, the respondent elicited that himself, his brother and his brother used to reside together. The petitioner stated that his brother separated from them immediately after the marriage and even before their marriage as disputes arose between them. He further admitted that she got two abortions when they resided together and she resided at Private Hostel for two days. Then it is suggested to him as he harassed her physically and mentally as such the pregnancy was aborted. However, R.W.1 categorically admitted that 1st pregnancy was miscarried while she was working in their office and the 2nd pregnancy was miscarried after 10 days from the confirmation of pregnancy and 8 the petitioner took her to doctor for treatment and she was treated at Mamata

Hospital and at Osmania Hospital and her husband took her for treatment. She further admits that she was treated at VMR Hospital, Hyderabad and her husband got conducted tests. The above said admissions clearly shows the petitioner provided treatment for the respondent and we can not believe her version that he neglected her without providing any treatment for miscarried of pregnancy.

11. The contention of the respondent is that the mother of the petitioner used to beat her and his brother used to tell tales against her to his brother and such the disputes were arose between them. In support of her contention, she elicited from the evidence of PW.1 that at the time of marriage they all are resided together and disputes arose between them and as such they separated from him.

P.W.1 further admits that the respondent worked in Hetiro

Pharmaceuticals Company, Jedcherla at the time of marriage and the salary directly credited to her account and the ATM card is with her. The respondent suggested to him that his mother used to demanded for ATM for withdrawal of said salary. Except the above said admissions and suggestion nothing is elicited from his evidence about the harassment made by the mother of the petitioner.

The respondent as R.W.1 deposed about the harassment of the mother of the petitioner and his brother. She admitted that her brother in law married in the month of June, 2017 and they lived jointly for four months only and she went to hostel because of the disputes arose between them. She further admits that her parents also resided along with her at Hyderabad until end of November, 2018 and the petitioner resided along with her for two days while she was in hospital during period of delivery of child. She further admits that his mother in law came to their house for first birth day celebrations and got marked Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 (Photographs which were taken at the time of said celebrations). R.W.1 also admitted in her cross examination they have joined each other during the pendency of the petition and they went to park, hotel and shopping during the 9 said five days and after five days her mother came to their house. Based on above said admissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is an amicable mood in between them to lead conjugal life but parents of the respondent are spoiling the said atmosphere. R.W.2 also admitted in his cross examination that the petitioner and respondent resided happily for some time as per the intervention of this court and after filing of this petition. R.W.1 also admitted in her cross examination that her husband appears to be soft among her mother in law and his brother and herself and her husband resided in their house for five days and her parents left the house for said five days and they lead conjugal life during the said five days without any force. All the above said circumstances clearly establishes that there are no such serious disputes between the petitioner and respondent for leading matrimonial life and disputes cropped up among them due to their family members.

12.It is an admitted fact the respondent did not choose to submit any report against the petitioner and his family members, even though she made severe allegations against them. If really there is such intensity in the said allegation, she might have submitted report to the police. Her admission shows she filed petition for maintenance and D.V.C. after three months from the date of receipt of notices in this petition. It is not completely unknown to the family of the respondents with regard to cases in connection with matrimonial disputes as

R.W.1 admitted that one divorce petition is pending in between her brother and his wife and her sister in law submitted report against her brother, her family members and including herself. Despite of above said experiences, she did not choose to submit any report against the petitioner and his family members before the police so far and as such, this Court presumed that there is no such severity of harassment as alleged by her by way of counter. More over, she admitted that she did not issue any reply notice for the notice in Ex.P3 issued by the petitioner.

It is also strengthen the case of the petitioner that there are no such serious 10 disputes between them to say that the respondent was forced to live separately from the petitioner for the reason assigned by her. On the other hand the evidence placed by both the parties indicates that there are some minor disputes which are usually occurred in the matrimonial home as ordinary wear and tear in the matrimonial relationship and as such we can not say that there is a strong reason for the respondent to reside separately from the petitioner.

13.In the light of above discussion, the petitioner establishes that he is the legally wedded husband of the respondent and she was separated from him without any strong reason and to extent to forced her to reside separately.

Though the respondent has taken several serious allegations for her separation but she fails to establish her case of above said allegations which includes date of her separation. The evidence placed by both parties with regard to the disputes clearly indicates that the disputes are ordinary wear and tear in the matrimonial home and conjugal life can be restored by directing the respondent to come and join with the petitioner. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of petitioner.

14. Point No.2 : In the result, this petition is allowed without costs by granting restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent by directing the respondent to join with the petitioner for discharging the conjugal obligations within two months, from the date of this order.

(Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 28th day of November, 2023)

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Tenali

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner:

PW1- Kolli Ajay Kumar Reddy

For Respondent:

RW1 – Kolli Prasanthi @ Bhanu Prasanthi RW2 – Eda Pratap Reddy 11

Exhibits Marked

For Petitioner:

Ex.P1 is wedding card. Ex.P2 is marriage photos (3 in number) along with CD. Ex.P3 is office copy of registered legal notice dt.15.10.2018.

For Respondent:

Nil

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Tenali

1

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

TENALI

PRESENT: Sri Shaik Abdul Shariff,

Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Tenali

Wednesday, this the 1st day of May, 2024

H.M.O.P.No.62 of 2023

Between: Bhavanam Sri Harsha Reddy, S/o.Chenna Reddy, Hindu, aged about 33 years, Bank Employee, r/o.D.No.13-9-9, Tadiboina vari Street, Pinapadu, Tenali, Tenali JCJC.

....Petitioner

And

Bhavanam @ Vempatai Vishnupriya W/o.Bhavanam Sri Harsha Reddy, D/o.Vempati Tirupati Reddy, Hindu, aged about 31 years, Bank Employee, R/o.D.No.59-3-342, Redla Bazaar, Old Guntur, Guntur JCJC.

....Respondent

This petition came before me on 29.04.2024 for hearing in the presence of Sri M.Anil Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Ch.B.Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy garu and Smt.S.V.L.H.Annapurna.B garu, Advocate for the respondent and upon hearing and considering the material on record, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

: : O R D E R : :

1.This petition is filed by the petitioner/Husband under Section 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking the Court to grant decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of the petitioner/Husband with the respondent/wife, which was held on 24.02.2018 and costs of the petition.

2.The case of the petitioner and the respondent in a narrow compass which is as follows:

That the petitioner, by name Bhavanam Sri Harsha Reddy states in the petition that he married the respondent on 24.02.2018 by following the caste custom. After the wedding, the matrimonial quarrels happened in between him and the respondent due to her misbehavior. The respondent made an effort to bring her back to the matrimonial home, but the petitioner did not evince any interest. Therefore, the petition be allowed.

3.Refuting the averments made in the petition, the respondent filed counter and interalia maintains that the mother of petitioner used to harass and humiliate her. The petitioner has no interest to lead marital life with her and has been making efforts to break the marital bond. The petition is highly misconceived and it is liable to be dismissed.

2

4.In view of the above factual matrix, the question that germane for consideration whether the marital relationship in between PW1 and RW1 can be annulled by decree of divorce ?

5.The petitioner in order to buttress his contention filed proof affidavit and got himself examined as P.W.1 and got Ex P1 to P4 marked. While, the respondent in order to fortify her contention got herself examined as RW1 and got Ex.R1 marked.

6.On the aforementioned evidential background, it is strongly canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.Anil Kumar garu that the petitioner married the respondent on 24.02.2018 following the vedic rituals.

After the wedding, the petitioner and the respondent shared healthy equations in the matrimony for some time i.e., till 12.03.2018. The respondent was employed as a Manager in Bank of Baroda even prior to the marriage. On the date of marriage, she was working in Chennai. After performing the initial rituals of wedding, R.W.1 without informing the petitioner and his parents left to Chennai directly. The petitioner made an attempt to contact P.W.1 over phone, but there was no positive response. In the month of April, 2018, R.W.1 called the petitioner over phone and informed him that she was pregnant. On hearing the news of pregnancy, the petitioner felt very happy and informed her that he would be coming to Chennai, but the respondent did not allow the petitioner to come over to Chennai without any viable reason. The petitioner is highly modest and a man of good credentials and endured all the mental trauma that R.W.1 would amend her conduct, but she did not change her erratic behaviour and continues to mistreat P.W.1. R.W.1 made scandalous and unfounded allegations against

P.W.1 that he developed sinful relationship with one women, however, the name of that women is not found place in the counter and that perse clearly shows that R.W.1 developed deep seated animosity and ill-will against P.W.1.

R.W.1 herself is the deserter from the matrimonial obligations without any cogent reasons. P.W.1 made several attempts to re-set the matrimonial bond, however R.W.1 is steadfast in her stance. P.W.1 got the legal notice covered under Ex.P3 issued to R.W.1 for restitution of conjugal rights, but

R.W.1 did not oblige for reunion and on the other hand, she got Ex.P4 issued with false averments. The marriage is wrecked beyond salvation. Bringing the agony, affliction and torment suffered by P.W.1 to an end, it is essential to 3 dissolve the marriage in between P.W.1 and R.W.1 as R.W.1 is guilty of matrimonial misconduct. P.W.1 passed the twin test of reliability and acceptability and his evidence is not tainted in the cross examination and it is above board. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, the force of section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 can be spent against the respondent.

7.Refuting the arguments, it is strongly canvassed by the learned counsel

for the respondent, Smt.S.V.L.H.Annapurna.B garu that after the wedding,

P.W.1 and R.W.1 have had happy days for some time. The mindset of the mother of P.W.1 is cruel mindset and she is acting as a villain in the happy matrimony of P.W.1 and R.W.1, and due to her unnecessarily indulgence, the much unrest happened in the marital life of PW1 and RW1. The mother of

P.W.1 developed much aversion towards R.W.1 and used to humiliate and ridicule her. R.W.1 informed the conceiving of pregnancy by her to the petitioner, but the petitioner did not show any interest to come over to

Chennai. The mother of petitioner began pestering her to resign the job.

P.W.1 is a man of suspicious character and check the call data from the mobile phone of R.W.1. On 09.02.2020, the petitioner took away the child from the custody of R.W.1 without her knowledge and R.W.1 got into panic mode. R.W.1 has much love and affection towards the petitioner and she has been making hectic efforts to make the marriage work. P.W.1 is highly pretentious and getting the legal notice issued to R.W.1 covered under Ex.P3 is a make believe affair and he has no transparent sincerity to sustain the marriage. The cause of action as pleaded by the petitioner is palpably false and no iota of truth in it. The case of the petitioner does not fall within the fold of desertion as envisaged under section 13(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act. If

RW1 herself abandoned from the matrimonial obligations, P.W.1 would have filed application for restitution of conjugal rights and that perse clearly shows that P.W.1 has been making efforts to snap the marital tie which is made with sacred rituals. The evidence of RW1 is of sterling character and her evidence is not shattered in the cross examination. Therefore, appending the seal of approval to the case of the petitioner is wholly unsustainable in law.

8.In order to appreciate the disputative issues, now at this juncture, I am obliged to refer to the material emerged out from the testimony of P.W.1,

R.W.1 and Ex.P1 to P4 and Ex.R1.

4

9.Now, I am setting forth the scope of controversy under different heads for easy reference.

Is there any pressing reason which prevented PW1 not to file

application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution

of conjugal rights prior to launching of the proceedings, when RW1

left the matrimonial home on her own volition ?

10.For answering the question posed and for better appreciation of the point, I feel it relevant to reproduce the averments made in para-7 of the petition. Para-7 goes on to disclose that “At the time of counseling,

before the concerned police, the respondent admitted that she is

not interested to lead marital life with the petitioner since the date

of marriage. Accordingly, on 09.02.2020 the respondent left the

company of the petitioner with the child and shifted to her parental

house without any intimation to the petitioner. Since then the

petitioner is trying to change the attitude of the respondent and

requested her to join with him and begged her to show the child.

The efforts of the petitioner proved futile. Even the parents of the

petitioner , mediators and elders also tried to pacify the matter

between them amicably. But all their efforts are in vain.”

Now, the aforementioned factual scenario is to be put on test on the measure of the material emerged out from the cross-examination of PW1.

Question and answers from the testimony of PW1 :

Q.1. Did you file any application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights ?

Ans. I did not file any application.

Q.2. Did you give any notice to RW1 for dissolution of marriage ?

Ans. I did not give any notice.

Q.3. Did you get any rejoinder notice issued to the notice covered under

Ex.P4 ?

Ans. No.

As noticed, in essence, from the pleadings of PW1 that he has much love and affection towards the respondent and the child and he wants to lead peaceful life with the respondent. When that being so, as to what prompted

PW1 not to resort to the procedure as envisaged under Section 9 of the Hindu

Marriages Act for restitution of conjugal rights. In this regard, no rational explanation, much less satisfactory forthcame from the side of PW1 as to why 5 he adopted light hearted approach without filing petition for restitution of conjugal rights. It appears from the circumstances that PW1 is highly hasty and impulsive person and he has taken decision to snap the marital tie in a fit of emotion without anticipating the consequences post divorce.

Whether issuing the notice covered under Ex.P3 for restitution of

conjugal rights is only a make believe affair or PW1 has any

transparent honesty to sustain the marriage ?

11.It is in the backdrop, I may reproduce the cross-examination of PW1.

Question and answers from the testimony of PW1 :

Q.1. Did you make any endeavor to take back RW1 to marital home after receiving the reply notice covered under Ex.P4 ?

Ans. I did not.

Q.2. Whether it is mentioned in Ex.P4 that RW1 is ready to join with you ?

Ans. Yes.

Q.3. Did you produce any proof to show that RW1 expressed her unwillingness to live with you ?

Ans. No.

Certain facts are incapable of direct proof and their existence can be inferred from the circumstances or from the proved facts or from the relevance or from the connection or from the coincidence and from the conduct of the parties. The presumptive evidence as well has higher probative value on par with the other modes of evidence. In the case on hand, PW1 candidly admits in the cross examination that after the reply notice covered under Ex.P4, he did not evince any interest for resumption of matrimonial obligations. Therefore, these tale-tale and attended circumstances purport to convey a strong message that PW1 is highly pretentious and made up his mind to give a go-bye to the marriage.

Whether PW1 and RW1 are unmindful of the future of the innocent

child who has great future in the days to come and due to their

erratic behaviour, they are making the child to suffer physical and

psychological ordeal in the future ?

12. In this controversial backdrop, I feel it relevant to restate the cross- examination of PW1.

Question and answers from the testimony of PW1 :

Q.1. Are you ready to take your child to your house ?

Ans. No.

6

Q.2. Did you file GWOP for custody of the child ?

Ans. I did not file.

From the aforementioned admissions, what I make out is that PW1 has no love, affection, warmth, compassion, kindness and generosity towards his child and he is making efforts to abandon the child to his fate. PW1 thought that marriage is only for recreation, procreation and not relational. This is the conduct of the PW1 who is highly educated person and he has no moral responsibility.

Whether PW1 gave up the case as set out in the pleadings and made

out a new case during cross-examination ?

13.In this segment, I must take notice of the deposition of PW1. PW1 testifies during cross-examination that “I did not get it averred in my petition that there is a danger to my life at the hands of RW1.”

It is well recognized legal convention that, if the party to the lis endeavors to introduce a new version, a version which is materially and substantially different from one stated in the pleadings, it shall be presumed that the witness is a big lier, and his/her testimony cannot be relied upon. In the case on hand, the pleadings of PW1 is sadly silent with respect to the life threat. On the other hand, it is never the case of PW1 that RW1 made an attempt to do away his life. Thus, in such circumstance, my logic says that the testimony of PW.1 suffers from the vice of improvements, exaggeration and embellishments, and implicit trust cannot be placed.

Whether non-examination of the so called mediators who made an

attempt to bring the troubled marriage into the right track is a big

incurable infirmity in the case propounded by PW1 ?

14. In this context, once again, I am back to the contents of para – 7 of the petition. Para-7 goes on to specify that “Even the parents of the

petitioner, mediators and elders also tried to pacify the matter

between them amicably. But all their efforts are in vain.”

It is the rule of essential justice that when the party to the lis obstructs or blocks such evidence and adopts a devise to withhold the material witnesses from whom the case of the prosecution gets unfolded, the presumption gets activated that purposefully the witness is withheld so that the truth would get exposed. In the case on hand, PW1 did not offer any 7 impressive explanation as to why he did not choose to examine the mediators who brokered the deal in between him and RW1. On the other hand, the pleadings of PW1 is highly uncommunicative with respect to the name of the mediators who made the attempt to bring the matrimonial harmony in between PW1 and RW1.

The cardinal principal of law of evidence is that “He who asserts” the burden to prove is on him, he has to proof affirmatively the existence or non- existence of the fact-in-issue which is known as initial or legal burden. In the matter at hand, PW1 failed to discharge the burden as per the evidential standards i.e., by preponderance of probabilities.

The learned counsel for the petitioner in order to buttress his contention, relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High court reported in 2024 (1) CCC 283 (M.P.) in between Omprakash S/o.Shriram

Bhaawsar V. Sangeeta W/o.Omprakash Bhaawsar.

Each case presents its own peculiar factual scenario, the straight jacket formula cannot be applied. In the case cited, the respondent therein admitted that always she doubts the fidelity of the petitioner. Therefore, the court came to conclusion and granted divorce. This case has no manner of application to the present factual scenario.

15.Last but not least, in the wake of the aforementioned reason, the petition sans any merit and it is liable to be dismissed.

16.In the result, the petition is dismissed with costs.

(Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 1st day of May, 2024)

Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tenali

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner:

P.W.1 – Bhavanam Sri Harsha Reddy

For Respondent:

RW1 – Bhavanam Vishnu Priya alias Vempati Vishnu Priya

Exhibits Marked

For Petitioner:

Ex.P1 is Marriage Wedding Card.

Ex.P2 is Wedding photographs (six in number) along with C.D., 8

Ex.P3 is office copy of registered legal notice dated 17.01.2022 got issued by PW1 to the respondent.

Ex.P4 is reply registered notice got issued by the respondent to PW1.

For Respondent:

Ex.R1 is RW1 made application for seeking transfer to Gudiwada pertaining to Karur Vysya Bank consists of seven papers.

Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tenali * 9

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

TENALI

PRESENT: Sri Shaik Abdul Shariff,

Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Tenali

Wednesday, this the 1st day of May, 2024

H.M.O.P.No.62 of 2023

Between: Bhavanam Sri Harsha Reddy, S/o.Chenna Reddy, Hindu, aged about 33 years, Bank Employee, r/o.D.No.13-9-9, Tadiboina vari Street, Pinapadu, Tenali, Tenali JCJC.

....Petitioner

And

Bhavanam @ Vempatai Vishnupriya W/o.Bhavanam Sri Harsha Reddy, D/o.Vempati Tirupati Reddy, Hindu, aged about 31 years, Bank Employee, R/o.D.No.59-3-342, Redla Bazaar, Old Guntur, Guntur JCJC.

....Respondent

This petition is filed by the petitioner/Husband under Section 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking the Court to grant decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of the petitioner/Husband with the respondent/wife, which was held on 24.02.2018 and costs of the petition.

Petition presented on:01.04.2023

Petition filed on:12.04.2023

Cause of action : Cause of action for the petition arose on 24.02.2018 when the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized at Subhodaya Kalyana Mandapam, Pandurangapet, Tenali ; when both of them were blessed with a male child on 27.11.2018 ; when the respondent harassed the petitioner without having any proper reason and blamed the petitioner and defamed him in public and also before the parents of the petitioner and respondent ; without having any sufficient reason on 09.02.2020 when the respondent left the company of the petitioner along with child without intimating to the petitioner ; subsequently inspite of mediations and requests made by the petitioner when the respondent failed to join with the petitioner harassed the petitioner mentally and at Tenali where the marriage was performed - all are within the jurisdiction of this Court.

Particulars of Valuation :

This being a petition filed under the provisions U/s.13 (1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on which, a fixed Court fee of Rs.10/- is herewith paid Under Sch.II Art.I of A.P.C.F and S.V Act.

This petition came before me on 29.04.2024 for hearing in the presence of Sri M.Anil Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Ch.B.Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy garu and Smt.S.V.L.H.Annapurna.B garu, Advocate for the respondent and upon hearing and considering the material on record, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made doth order and decree as follows:

10 *Note :- Decree is amended as per orders in I.A.316 of 2024 dated 29.05.2024.

1) That the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed.

2)that both the parties do bear their own costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 1st day of May, 2024.

Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Tenali

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

No costs memo and fee certificate were filed.

Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Tenali *

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: TENALI.

PRESENT: SRI MARPU SREEDHAR,

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TENALI

Tuesday 28th day of November, 2023

O.S.No. 28 of 2018

Between:

Narra Venkateswarlu, S/o. Sambaiah, aged about 49 years, Hindu, business, R/o. H. No.7-1-28/A, Narravari street,

Ganganammapet, Tenali. ..Plaintiff.

And

1. Dabbakuti Sambasiva Rao, S/o. late Venkateswarlu, aged 43 years, Hindu, Teacher, Seetharamaiah High School, Bapatla, Residing at H.No.4-12-136/1, Tupan Nagar, Bapatla.

2. Nakkala Kumari, W/o. Yedukondalu, aged about 40 years, Hindu, House-wife, R/o. Door No.7-1-14/B, Oggura Rama Kotaiah Road,

Ganganammapet, Tenali. ..Defendants.

This suit came on 24.11.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of

Sri M. Manikya Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri C. Ravi Kumar and Sri R.

Satyanarayana (Bapatla), Advocates for defendants 1 and 2, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.This suit is filed for recovery of money based on the promissory notes.

2.The case of the plaintiff in a nutshell is as follows:

The defendants 1 and 2 are son and daughter of one Dabbakuti Hymavathi.

She borrowed an amount of Rs.50 ,000/- each on 19.10.2016, 19.10.2016, 4.11.2016, 4,11,2016, 9.11.2016 and 9.11.2016 and executed promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff. Subsequently, the said Hymavathi died intestate on 25.1.2018 by leaving behind her son and daughter who are the 1st and 2nd defendants. Her husband predeceased her. After her death, the plaintiff requested the defendants for payment of the debt which was contracted for the purpose of family expenses. They admitted their liability to pay the amount but postponing the 2 same. Hence, this suit is filed for recovery of Rs.3,90,066/- along with subsequent interest at 12% p.a, from, the estate of the deceased Hymavathi.

3.The 1st defendant filed written statement and the same was adopted by the 2nd defendant by admitting their relationship but they denied the material allegations of the plaint are all false and had inter alia contended as follows:

a). Their mother worked as night watch-woman in Tahsildar office Tsunduru mandal until her death. She resided at Manikantha apartments as a tenant under the plaintiff. The plaintiff has been running unauthorized chit fund business for the last 10 years. There might be financial transactions in between the plaintiff and the

Hymavathi, as such, he got forged her signatures and got filed this suit for unlawful gain. After receiving the summons they came to know that the signatures in the promissory notes are not that of Hymavathi and she never executed any promissory notes and she has no necessity to borrow the amount from the plaintiff.

Therefore, the suit is liable for dismissal.

4.Basing on the rival contentions and material available on record, the following issues were settled by my predecessor :

1. Whether the suit promissory notes are rank forged ones ?

2. Whether the suit promissory notes are true, valid and binding on the defendants?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount from the defendants as prayed for? And

4. To what relief ?

5.During the trial, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.A1 to A6 Original promissory notes dt.19.10.2016, 19,10.2016, 04.11.2016, 04.11.2016, 9.11.2016 and 9.11.2016 have been marked through PW.1 as A to F marked promissory notes. The scribe of the promissory notes was examined as PW.2. One of the 3 attestors of Exs.A1 to A4 was examined as PW.3. The 1st defendant was examined as D.W.1 and Ex.B1 housing loan statement from 1.4.2017 to 19.2.2018 issued by

State Bank of India, Bapatla, dated 19.02.2018 was admitted through him.

6.The plaintiff as P.W.1 deposed about the execution of the promissory notes by Hymavathi after receipt of consideration and about his demand for repayment of debt. PW.2 who is the scribe of the promissory notes deposed about the execution of promissory notes by Hymavathi and his presence at the time of the said transaction. PW.3 deposed about his presence at the time of transactions under

Ex.A1 to A4. The 1st defendant as DW.1 reiterated their averments in the written statement and denied the signature of their mother in the promissory notes and denied the transactions under Exs.A1 to A6.

7.Heard both sides.

8.The learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the evidence of the plaintiff coupled with admission of the defendant No.1 clearly shows mother of the defendants borrowed the amounts from the plaintiff and the pleas which were taken by them by way of his written statement and his evidence remained disproved and he failed to rebut the presumption operated against them under Section 118 (a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act with regard to the passage of consideration. Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendants vehemently contends that the plaintiff fails to establish the execution of the promissory notes and their efforts to send the documents to expert for comparison of signatures, was not materialized only due to unavoidable circumstances and as such, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of recovery of money as prayed for.

9.ISSUE Nos.1 and 2:

1. Whether the suit promissory notes are rank forged ones ?

2. Whether the suit promissory notes are true, valid and binding on the 4 defendants?

10.The facts which are covered under both the issues are intertwined to each other and as such, this court is inclined to discuss both the issues in one stretch to avoid redundancy in discussion of facts.

11.The case of the plaintiff is that one Dabbakuti Hymavathi who is the mother of defendants 1 and 2 borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- each under Exs.A1 to A6 promissory notes from 19.10.2016 to 4.11.2016 whereas the defendants contends that her mother had no necessity to borrow such huge amounts and her signature was forged by taking advantage of financial transactions in between them. The defendants had taken a plea of forgery and as such, they have to establish that the signature was forged for which they filed a petition in IA.512/2019 to send the

Exs.A1 to A6 to expert for comparison of signatures. In order to secure the admitted signatures the defendants also filed another petition to send for the documents from Accountant General office. The concerned official appeared

before this court and submitted a letter that it is not possible for them to submit the

records for more than period of 3 years as they have to preserve the records only for such period, whereas the record sought for for the period pertains to more than 7 years. Moreover, they further submitted that without particulars of GPF account number and last place of work they could not submit the same. In view of the above said circumstances the defendants requested to close the said IA and accordingly the said IA was closed as he could not submit the admitted signatures of contemporaneous period. Therefore, the defendants banks upon the oral evidence to establish the forgery.

12.To prove the execution of the promissory notes, the plaintiff was examined as

PW.1 and he deposed about the execution of the promissory notes by Hymavathi after receipt of consideration from him. The defendant elicited discrepancy with 5 regard to his profession from his evidence and evidence of PW3. PW.1 stated that he is doing cycle mechanic work whereas PW.3 stated that PW.1 is doing finance business. The above said aspect is not material to disbelieve the transactions.

PW.1 admitted that he does not know the contents of the written statement and the said Hymavathi used to stay in his house for rent and this transaction under Exs.A1 and A2 were taken place at about 3 and 4 p.m., on 19.10.2016. He further admits that D. Baburao who is one of the attestors was tenant and the scribe is also his tenant. Except that nothing was elicited from his evidence to disprove the transaction. It is suggested to him that the said Hymavathi was on duty at 3 p.m., to 4 p.m., on 19.10.2016 but no such evidence was placed by them to establish the said fact.

13.PW.2 who is the scribe of all the promissory notes under Exs.A1 to A6 deposed about execution of the promissory notes by Hymavathi and about his presence at the time of the said transaction. It is suggested to him that he was also on the duty on the date of the said transaction and he denied the same as false.

However, he admitted that he is working as a security supervisor at Sangam Dairy and he used to attend shift duties for 8 hours a day and his duty hours on 4.11.2016 were between 6 a.m., to 2 p,m. He reported no objection to call for his attendance register. The defendants did not choose to bring the said evidence

before this court to disbelieve his presence at the time of transaction at relevant

point of time. The defendants failed to elicit anything from his evidence to disprove the said transaction under Exs.A1 to A6. Though the defendant have taken a plea that the plaintiff have forged the signatures of Hymavathi, nothing was elicited from his evidence by disputing the signatures except bear suggestions about creation of promissory notes.

6

14.The plaintiff also got examined attestor of Exs.A1 to A4 promissory notes and he deposed about his presence at the time of the said transaction. He stated in his cross examination that he does not know about execution of other promissory notes except A1 to A4. He stated in his cross examination that he stayed in the house of plaintiff as a tenant. The defendant failed to elicit anything from his evidence to disprove the transaction or atleast by disputing his presence at the time of the said transaction.

15.The 1st defendant as DW.1 deposed that his mother has no necessity to borrow the amount and her signatures were forged. To establish the said fact he got marked housing loan statement under Ex.B1 issued by State Bank of India,

Bapatla. He also got admission from the evidence of PW.1 that the said Hymavathi borrowed the amount for the educational expenses of her son and for construction of house for defendant No.1. He further stated that she borrowed the amounts for repairs of house. Then defendant suggested to him that the loan obtained by him from bank and as such, there is no necessity for her to borrow the amounts from him. In order to establish the said fact, he got admitted the Ex.B1. The plaintiff suggested to him that he obtained Ex.B1 only for the purpose of this case. Based on Ex.B1, we cannot say that she has no necessity to borrow the amounts and on the other hand it strengthens the case of the plaintiff that there is a necessity for

Hymavathi to borrow the amounts for construction of the house. Therefore, the sole testimony of the defendant is also not suffice to say that he discharged the burden of proof of forgery and to disprove the transaction.

16.In the light of the above discussion, the consistent and corroborative evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 coupled with Exs.A1 to A6 clearly establishes that the said

Hymavathi borrowed the amounts from the plaintiff after execution of the promissory notes. Though the defendants have taken plea of forgery, they failed to 7 establish the said fact. In fact, the said Hymavathi worked as a government servant but the defendant did not choose to submit any signatures before this court or atleast did not choose to suggest the witnesses by showing her signatures to impress upon the court that plaintiff forged her signatures. Though the defendant made an effort to get opinion from expert about genuines of signature of Hymavathi but the said petition was closed as he failed to produce admitted signature of contemporary period. However, there is no impedendent for him to confirm the signature of witness by showing the signature of Hymavathi. But they barely denied signature without elaborating. How the signatures from Ex.A1 to A6 differs from her admitted signature. The defendants further failed to establish the plea of alibi though they contended that the said Hymavathi was on duty by the date of transaction and that relevant point of time. The defendants also fail to elicit anything from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 about absence of consideration under

Exs.A1 to A6. Therefore, the plaintiff proved the execution of the promissory notes after receipt of consideration by Hymavathi and the same are binding upon the defendants who are her legal heirs to the extent of the property devolved upon them from their mother. Accordingly, these two issues are answered in favour of the plaintiff.

17.ISSUE No.3:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount from the defendant as prayed for?

a). In view of the findings of this court for issue Nos.1 and 2, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of amount as prayed for. In fact the promissory notes were executed for interest @ 24% per annum. However, the plaintiff claims interest at the rate of 12% p.a., subsequent to filing of the suit. Though the plaintiff claims 12% p.a., it is desirable to grant only 6% as the amounts are borrowed for family 8 expenses and it is not a commercial transaction. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount along with interest of 6% p.a., from the date of suit till the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from and out of the estate of the deceased Hymavathi which is in the hands of defendants 1 and 2.

Accordingly this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

18.ISSUE No.4: To what relief?

In view of the findings of this court for issue Nos.1 to 3, the suit shall be decreed.

19.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants by directing them to pay for a sum of Rs.3,90,066/-(Rupees

Three lakh ninety thousand sixty sixonly), together with interest @ 6 per annum from the date of suit till realization on the principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees

Three Lakhs only), from and out of the estate of the deceased Hymavathi, which is in their hands.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-I,corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 28th day of November, 2023.

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Tenali

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:

P.W.1 : Narra Venkateswarlu. P.W.2 : Sriramula Seshaiah. PW.3 : Dasyam Baburao.

For Defendants:

D.W.1: Dabbakuti Sambasiva Rao.

EXHIBITS MARKED

9

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 : A-marked promissory note executed by Dabbakuti Hymavathi, in favour of plaintiff for Rs.50,000/-, dated 19.10.2016.

Ex.A2 : B-marked promissory note executed by Dabbakuti Hymavathi, in favour of plaintiff for Rs.50,000/-, dated 19.10.2016.

Ex.A3 : C-marked promissory note executed by Dabbakuti Hymavathi, in favour of Plaintiff for Rs.50,000/-, dated 04.11.2016.

Ex.A4 : D-marked promissory note executed by Dabbakuti Hymavath in favour of Plaintiff for Rs.50,000/-, dated 04.11.2016.

Ex.A5 : E-marked promissory note executed by Dabbakuti Hymavath in favour of Plaintiff for Rs.50,000/-, dated 09.11.2016.

Ex.A6 : F-marked promissory note executed by Dabbakuti Hymavath in favour of Plaintiff for Rs.50,000/-, dated 09.11.2016.

For Defendants:

Ex.B1 : Housing loan statement from 01.4.2017 to 19.02.2018 issued by State Bank of India, Bapatla, dated 19.02.2018 pertaining to account of DW.1.

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Tenali

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE: TENALI

Present: Sri MARPU SREEDHAR,

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Tenali

Monday, this the 10th day of June, 2024

S.C.No.701/202 3

(PRC NO.21/2023 of II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Tenali, con- nection with Crime No.139/2023 of Vemuru Police Station)

Between:

State : Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Vemuru Police Station. ..Complainant.

And

Kollipara Rajesh S/o, Yallaiah, 31 years,

Rajaka, Jampani Village, Vemur Mandal. ..Accused.

This case is coming on 10.06.2024 for final hearing before me in the pres- ence of the Smt. J. Elizabeth Rani, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri D. Kishore and P. Bhushanam, Advocate for the Accused , and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This case arises out of Crime No.139/2023 of Vemuru Police Station registered against Accused for the offence under Sections 498-A, 307, 326 of

IPC of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred as ‘IPC’) on the basis of statement of P.W.1- Y.Siva Kumari.

2.The Case of the prosecution as per charge sheet in a nutshell is as follows:

a). The accused and the victim are husband and wife and their marriage was performed at about 10 years back. Subsequently, their marriage was dissolved by way of decree of divorce. Subsequently, the victim married Yelli.

Srinu and he died in the road accident, then she married Santhi Swaroop and he left her alone after he eloped with some other lady. Likewise, her 1st husband

Rajesh also left his 2nd wife and married PW.1. They blessed with male child. On 02.08.2023 at 1:30 P.M. the accused came to PW.1 in drunken state and asked her to give money to purchase alcohol and she refused to give the same. Then the accused became anger and tried to kill her and tried to stab with iron rod and as a result she received bleeding injury on her back side of the head and left hand. Her parents shifted her to Government Hospital, Tenali.

2

b). Basing on the said statement of PW.1, the SI of police registered a case in Cr. No.139/2023 under Section 498-A, 307, 324 of IPC on 07.08.2023 at 2:00 PM. During the investigation, he examined the witnesses, recorded their statements. He visited the scene of offence along with mediators LW.9-Gopi and

LW.10-Moulali and got prepared scene observation report and Rough Sketch. On 09.08.2023 at 10:00 AM., the S.I. of police arrested the accused in the presence of mediators and seized iron rod from the possession of Accused under the cover of mediators report in the presence of mediators. He produced the accused

before the learned Judicial Magistrate of first class, for judicial custody. After

receipt of wound certificate and after completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offences U/s.498-A, 307, 326 of IPC.

3.The learned II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Tenali, took cognizance of the offence U/Secs.498-A, 307, 326 of IPC in P.R.C.No.21/2023 after perusal of the entire record and after receipt of summons, the accused appeared before the said Court, the copies of case documents are furnished to them in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. Subsequently, the P.R.C. was committed to Hon’ble Principal Sessions Court at Guntur by virtue of committal order, dated 01.11.2023 and assigned with Sessions Case No.701/2023 and the same was made over to this Court, as the offence u/sec.307 of IPC is exclusively triable by sessions court. After appearance of the accused and on hearing both sides on the charge, the accused was examined U/Sec.228 Cr.P.C. and framed charges for the offences U/Secs.307, 326, 498-A of IPC against the accused, and the said charges were read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During the trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined

P.Ws.1 to 3, and Ex.P1 is Signature of Siva Kumari (PW.1) in the statement

dated 02.08.2023, Ex.P2 is 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Siva Kumari (PW.1) and

Ex.P3 is 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Kanaka Durga (PW.2) and Ex.P4 is the 161

Cr.P.C. statement of Venkateswara Rao (PW.3), were admitted through them.

5.The evidence of Sadineni Venkateswararao, Sadineni Padmaja,

Mudraboina Yedukondalu, Khagga Subramanyam, Donepudi Venkateswarlu,

Kuchipudi Gopi, Shaik Moulali, Dr. T.V. Chalapathirao (Medical Officer),

U.Poleswararao (HC 1725 Tenali III town PS), J. Nagaraju (SI of police) – 3 (L.Ws.4 to 13), was given up by the Addl. Public Prosecutor, as it is not necessary.

6.P.W.1, who is the victim, deposed about her marriage with the accused but she turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and denied the statement given to the police by her. P.W’s 2 and 3 who are the parents of the PW.1 also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution with regard to the material aspects.

7.After completion of evidence of the prosecution, as there is no incriminating material against the accused, their examination u/sec.313 Cr.P.C., was dispensed with, and no evidence is reported on their behalf.

8.Heard the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the material available on record.

9. Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence under Section 307, 326, 498-A of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.POINT: To prove the case of the prosecution U/Sec. 307 of IPC, they shall establish that the accused attempted to commit murder of P.W.1

11.The prosecution has to establish the following ingredients to constitute the offence U/Sec.307 of IPC i.e., Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder. Therefore, they have to establish the fact that the accused caused injury on the vital parts of the body by formidable weapon with an intention or knowingly to cause death.

a). The prosecution has to establish their case that the accused caused grievous injury to PW.1 with dangerous weapon, to establish their case u/sec.326 of IPC. To prove the case of the prosecution u/sec.498-A of IPC they shall establish that the accused committed cruelty against the victim being her husband and the said cruelty is an extent to force her to commit suicide.

12. To prove the case of prosecution, they have examined P.W.1, who is the victim in this case. PW.1 deposed about her marriage with accused for twice and the recent marriage was performed on 09.01.2022. She also deposed that there are minor disputes in between herself and accused, but there is no whisper in her 4 evidence about receipt of the injuries. She went to an extent to state that no injuries received by her and no statement was given to the police. The learned

Addl. Public Prosecutor was permitted to cross examine the witness and she could not elicit anything from her evidence except marking her signature in the statement as Ex. P1 and her statement under Sec.161 Cr.P.C as Ex.P2, which is of no value as she expressed her ignorance with regard to the contents of the statement which is the basis for the registration of the crime. she went to an extent to state that the police obtained her signature in a white paper and she was not examined by the police.

13.PW’s 2 and 3, who are the parents of the PW.1 also deposed about the relationship in between PW.1 and accused but they turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. There is no whisper in their evidence about the receipt of the injuries by PW.1 in the hands of accused. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor could not elicit anything from their evidence in favour of the prosecution except marking of their statements u/sec.161 Cr.P.C as Ex.P3 and P4, in view of hostile attitude of the witnesses.

14.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor rightly given up the evidence of all the witnesses including the Investigation Officer, who arrested the accused under the cover of mediators report and seized the property. In absence of evidence of injured, even if the prosecution bring other evidence like confession of accused through mediators report and the statement of PW.1 by examining the mediator and the Investigation Officer, no useful purpose would be served and there will be no improvement in the case of prosecution. Moreover, as per the findings of the

Hon’ble High court of A.P., in the judgment reported in “2000 (1) A.L.T. 174,

A.P., in between Thallapalli Rajaiah Vs. State of A.P.,” his Lordships held as follows:- “When eye witnesses and injured did not support prosecution case and there is no scope for conviction of the accused, ritual of facing trial would be abuse of process of law”.

15.As per the above decision, when there is no scope for conviction of the accused, further proceedings amounts to abuse of process. So also, in this case in view of the injured person and her parents have turned hostile, the prosecution gave up the evidence of mediators, doctor and investigation officer. Therefore, there is no scope for conviction of the accused for the above said charges. When 5 all the material witnesses P.W’s.1 to 3 turned hostile to the case of prosecution, the evidence of official witness i.e., Medical officer and Investigation officer, is no way helpful to the case of prosecution.

16.By following with above said judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh and circumstances of this case, the learned Addl, Public Prosecutor rightly gave up the evidence of the other witnesses.

17.There is no whisper in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 about the harassment meted out in the hands of accused to prove their case under Sec.498-A of IPC.

18.In the light of above discussion, the prosecution established that P.W.1 is the wife of the accused but they fails to establish the charges u/sec.307,326,498-

A of IPC against accused. Therefore, the Accused is found not guilty for the charges under/secs. 307, 326, 498-A of IPC.

19.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the charges punishable u/Sec.

307, 326, 498-A and he is acquitted U/Sec.232(1) of Criminal Procedure Code of the said offence. The Bail Bond of accused and sureties shall be remained in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated U/Sec.437-A of the

Cr.P.C. in order to appear before the appellate Court, if an appeal is preferred.

The unmarked non-valuable case property if, any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my Dictation by Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 10th June, 2024.

Sd/- xx,

Prl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Tenali

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

P.W.1: Y. Siva Kumari.

P.W.2: V. Kanaka Durga.

P.W.3: V. Venkateswara Rao.

For Defence: ..Nil..

6

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : Signature of Siva Kumari (PW.1) in the statement dated 02.08.2023.

Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Siva Kumari (PW.1).

Ex.P3 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Kanaka Durga (PW.2).

Ex.P4 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Venkateswara Rao (PW.3).

For Defence:

..Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:- --Nil--

Sd/- xx,

Prl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Tenali.

** 7

Calendar

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE : TENALI

S.C.No.701/2023 Between: State : Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Vemuru Police Station. ..Complainant.

And

Kollipara Rajesh S/o, Yallaiah, 31 years,

Rajaka, Jampani Village, Vemur Mandal. ..Accused.

(PRC NO. 21/2023 connected with Crime No. 139/2023 of Vemuru Police Station Committed by Smt. J.Sri Seetha II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Tenali.)

Charge U/s.307, 326 and 498-A of IPC

Date of offence02.08.2023

Date of appearance of the accused04.12.2023

Date of commencement of Trial29.05.2024

Date of closing of trial10.06.2024

Date of sentence or order10.06.2024

Finding of the courtAcquittal.

Sentence of Order:- In the result, accused is found not guilty for the charges punishable u/Sec. 307, 326, 498-A and he is acquitted U/Sec.232(1) of Criminal Procedure Code of the said offence. The Bail Bond of accused and sureties shall be remained in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated U/Sec.437-A of the Cr.P.C. in order to appear before the appellate Court, if an appeal is preferred. The unmarked non-valuable case property if, any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. Explanation for Delay:- Accused is present on 04.12.2023. Later the case was adjourned from time to time for framing of charges. On 08.05.2024 Examination of accused u/sec.228 Cr.P.C., was held and charges u/secs.307, 326 and 498-A of IPC against accused were framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Later the case underwent adjournments for trial. On 10.06.2024 P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined, the evidence of remaining witnesses was given up by learned Addl. Public prosecutor, 313 Cr.P.C., examination of accused was dispensed with, Heard arguments and the matter was posted to 10.06.2024 for judgment. On 10.06.2024 Judgment is

pronounced.

Sd/- xx,

Prl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Tenali. Copy to: The II AJMFC, Tenali. The Director of Prosecutions, A.P.