Sri M.Srihari

1

IN THE COURT OF FAMILY-CUM-VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE:

PRAKASAM AT ONGOLE

Present: M.SRIHARI,

Judge, Family Court-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole.

Friday, this the 08th day of April, 2022.

Crl.M.P.155/2022 in Cr. No.38/2022

Between:

1. MandapatiDurga Prasad, s/o Hanumantha Rao, aged about 27 years, SC Hindu.

2. Mandapati Krishnaveni, w/o Hanumantha Rao, aged about 45 years, SC Hindu.

3. Mandapati Hanumantha rao, s/o Nagaiah, aged about 50 years, SC Hindu.

A1 to A3 are r/o Narnevaripalem village, J. Panguluru Mandal, Prakasam District.

4. Nagandla Syamala, w/o Ashok, aged about 25 years, SC Hindu.

5. Nagandla Ashok, s/o Chinna, aged about 30 years, SC Hindu.

A4 and A5 are r/o Netaji Nagar, Martur Mandal.

.. Petitioners/A1 to A5

And

State : Station House Officer, Martur police station, represented by Public Prosecutor,

Ongole. .. Respondent/Complainant

This petition coming on 07.04.2022 day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Annie Grace Flary, Advocate for the Petitioners/A1 to A5, and learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the state, on perusal of material available on record, upon hearing the counsel for the petitioner and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court made the following:-

// O R D E R //

1.The petition is filed under section 438 Cr.P.C to enlarge the petitioners/A1 to A5 on bail in the event of their arrest.

2.The petitioners are A1 to A5 in Cr. No.38/2022 of Martur police station.

3. The alleged offences against the petitioners are under section 498-A IPC and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the defacto complainant and A1 was performed on 18-06-2017 and at the time of marriage the parents of defacto complainant gave Rs.1,00,000/- and gold ornaments of 15 sovereigns and household articles worth Rs.1,00,000/- to A1. Later, the defacto complainant joined with A1. Out of their wedlock, the defacto 2 complainant gave birth to one male child on on 10-10-2018. Thereafter A1 addicted to vices and demanded the defacto complainant for additional dowry at the instigation of A2 and A3. The defacto complainant has been harassed by petitioners/A1 to A5 physically and mentally. Thereafter after giving birth to the 2nd child by the defacto complainant A2,A4 and A5 attended the function, A2 warned the defacto complainant that unless she bring one lakh rupees as additional dowry she would not be allowed and otherwise the defacto complainant should live at her parents house permanently. Thereby, the defacto complainant lodged a report with police on 28.02.2022.

5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed to grant bail by filing counter stating that the investigation in this case not yet completed, the petitioners harassed the defacto complainant both mentally and physically by demanding additional dowry from her parents. If the anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, they may tamper the evidence and as such he sought for dismissal of the petition.

6.The learned counsel for the petitioners/A1 to A5 argued that the petitioners are innocent persons and they are nothing to do with the alleged offences and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further argued that during the course of pregnancy, the defacto complainant had been to her parents house for delivery, after that she did not returned, even after mediation, despite a legal notice issued for restitution of conjugal rights the defacto complainant did not join with A1. It is further argued that after filing of OP.6/2022 by A1 against the defacto complainant for restitution of conjugal rights before Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Addanki and after receipt of notice from the court she lodged report with report and as such the learned counsel sought to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners/A1 to A5.

7.Perused case diary.

8.As can be seen from the record, the material part of investigation is not yet completed except examining some witnesses by the investigating officer. At this stage it is not desirable to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The accusation made against the petitioners is well founded and therefore in the circumstances of the case the petitioners are not entitled to grant for anticipatory bail at this stage.

9.In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me,

this the 08th day of April, 2022. VIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole.

3

Copies to

1. The Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Ongole.

2. The Station House Officer, Maddipadu P.S.

3. The counsel for the Petitioner. // True copy //

Chief Administration Officer VIII-ADJ Court, Ongole 4

IN THE COURT OF FAMILY-CUM-VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE:

PRAKASAM AT ONGOLE

Present: Sri Ch.Rajagopala Rao,

Judge, Family Court-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole.

Monday, this the 24th day of February, 2020.

Crl.M.P.160/2020 in F.C.O.P.4/2012

Between: Sri Mojerla Narasimhulu @ Earagani Narasimharao, S/o.late Mojerla Ranga Reddy @ Eragani Rangaiah, R/o.Rajamma House, Backside of Balaji Engineering Work, NH-7, Mavidipalli, Armur Town, Nizamabad District, Telangana .. Petitioner

And

Smt.Eragani Lakshmi Kavitha W/o.Narasimharao, R/o.Anumanabotlapalem, Opp: APSRTC Depot, Kandukur Town,

Prakasam District .. Respondent

This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Sections 148 and 151 of CPC., to condone the delay of 36 daysin representing the petition enclosed thereto, so as to enable him to proceed further.

This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri O.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner, no notice issued to the Respondent, on perusal of material available on record, upon hearing the counsel

for the petitioner and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court

Doth order and Decree :

(a) that the petition be and the same is hereby allowed, and

(b) that there be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 24th day of February, 2020.

VIII -Additional District Judge, Ongole.

TABLE OF COSTS

- No C.M. & F.C. is filed on either side -

VIII -A.D.J.,

5 6 productionof documents :Mere filing application under Order XVI Rule 6 does not suggest that the applicant is required to order automatically without considering the bonafideness of the application. No doubt where a party is using dilatory tactics and trying to stall the proceedings by seeking adjournments to examine witnesses, the Court is well within its power to refuse to production of such evidence. (i) 2006 (1) Law Summary 487 in Addagattla Narendra Vs. Somi Vijayalakshmi.

8.In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. viz.(i) AIR 2004 AP 538 in Surendra Vs. Mhd.Ismail or 2004 (2) Law Summary 29 (DB) or 2004 (3) ALT 661 (ii) 2005 (3) APLJ 199 in D.Ramamohan Rao Vs.M/s Sreedevi

Hotels Pvt. Ltd., or 2005 (6) ALT 712 (iii) 2017 (6) ALT 652 Veerlabomma

Lakshmanna Vs.Veerlabomma Chandrasekhar (iv) 2011 (5) ALD 39 in Shaik

Hussain Peera Vs.J.Suseelamma. The petition is not maintainable, since the matter is of the year 2008. I do not see any valid, bonafide grounds to allow the petition and the petition being sans,substance,stands dismissed.

-

Summon witness for documents (1) AIR 2004 (D.B) AP 538 in Sundar Vs

Mahammad Ismail (2) 2017 (6) ALT 652 in Veerabomma Lakshmamma, Nalgonda

District Vs. Veerabomma Chandrasekhar, R.R.District.

- the Court is well within its power to refuse to production of such evidence as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme court of India in D.K.Basu Vs. State of

West Bengal in AIR 1997 SC 610.

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, PRAKASAM AT

ONGOLE

Present:: M.Srihari

Judge, Family Court, Ongole.

Saturday, this the 09th day of April, 2022.

F.C.O.P.68/2021

Between:

Yelchuri Venkata Sujatha, w/o Srinivasa Rao, d/o Sanala Bala Sundara Chary, aged 46 years, Hindu, housewife, r/o 2nd line, Annavarappadu, Ongole town and Mandal, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh.

… Petitioner

And

Yelchuri Srinivasa Rao, s/o Sankarachari, aged 50 years, Hindu, r/o H. No. 35-3-69/39, Sanjay Gandhi Colony, CSR Sarma College back side, Ongole town and Mandal,

Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh. ... Respondent

This petition is coming on 15-03-2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri L. Koteswara Rao and N. Padma Latha, Advocate for petitioner and respondent having remained exparte, upon perusal of material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

01. The petitioner/wife filed this petition under section 13 (1) (ia) of

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage between the petitioner and respondent performed on 09-12-1994 by way of decree of divorce and for costs.

02.The averments of the petition in brief are as follows :

The marriage between the petitioner and respondent was performed on 09.12.1994 at Nellore as per Hindu tradition and caste custom. At the time of marriage the parents of the petitioner gave an amount of

Rs.50,000/- cash, one gold ring to the respondent towards dowry.

Immediately after the marriage the petitioner joined with the respondent and the marriage was consummated. Out of their wedlock they blessed with a female child by name Venkata Siva Sai Nikitha. Both of them lived together for about 20 years up to 2014. The petitioner joined with the 2 respondent for the welfare of the family and daughter. There used tobe small disputes between the petitioner and respondent. From the year 2015 on wards the respondent increased his harassment towards the petitioner and demanded more money from the petitioner as additional dowry from her parents for his vices. The petitioner requested the respondent that her parents unable to pay the amount to the respondent. The respondent did not heed the words of the petitioner and harassed the petitioner mentally and physically. The respondent used to abuse the petitioner indecently and also used to beat her indiscriminately. The respondent neglected to maintain the petitioner and her daughter. The petitioner bear the harassment and ill treatment of the respondent with fond hope that the respondent will change his attitude, but went in vain. During the march of 2018 the respondent beat the petitioner and necked out her and her daughter from the house and as such the petitioner reached her parents house at Ongole. The petitioner is staying at her parents house along with her daughter. Thus, the respondent deserted the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner and her parents requested to allow the petitioner and to lead marital life, but the respondent refused to lead marital life with the petitioner. The elders namely Adimulam

Arunachal Eswara Chari and S.V. Nageswara Rao requested the respondent and advised him to take back the petitioner to his family fold, but went in vain. As there is no chance of reunion the petitioner filed this petition.

03.Though notice served personally the respondent failed to appear

before this court and as such he was set exparte.

04. During the course of enquiry PW.1 was examined and Ex.A1 and

A2 were marked on behalf of the petitioner. No oral or documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent,

05.Heard arguments on behalf of the petitioner.

3

06.Now the point for consideration is :

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

07.POINT :

In order to prove her case, the petitioner herself was examined as

PW.1 and reiterated the averments in the petition. She also filed Ex.A1 and

A2 in support of her case. Ex.A1 is wedding invitation card. Ex.A2 is photographs of the marriage of petitioner and respondent with corresponding

CD. Ex.A1 and A2 clearly reveals that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was performed on 09-12-1994. The evidence of PW.1 remained unchallenged. Ex.A1 and A2 are undisputed. There is no contra evidence adduced by the respondent to disprove the case of the petitioner.

The evidence of PW.1 reveals that both petitioner and respondent lived happily for some period. Later some disputes arose on account of ill treatment made by the respondent. Thereby the petitioner has been residing at her parents house. In spite of best efforts made by the petitioner it is not possible for reunion between the petitioner and respondent.

08.Considering the unchallenged evidence of PW.1 coupled with

Ex.A1 and A2 this court has no hesitation to hold that the respondent deserted the petitioner since March, 2018. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled for decree of divorce as prayed for. Accordingly this point is answered.

09.In the result, the petition is allowed and the marriage of petitioner and respondent solemnized on 09.12.1994 as per Hindu rites and custom is dissolved by a decree of divorce under Section 13 (1) (ia) of Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955. Considering the facts and circumstances, there is no order as to costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 09th day of April, 2022.

Judge, Family Court

Ongole.

4

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined:

For petitioner : For Respondent : None

PW.1 : Yelchuri Venkata Sujatha. Documents marked:

For Petitioner:

Ex.A1 : Wedding invitation card. Ex.A2 : Marriage photographs along with corresponding CD (2 in number).

For Respondent : NIL.

J-F.C., Ongole.

5

IN THE COURT OF JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, PRAKASAM AT

ONGOLE

Present:: M.Srihari

Judge, Family Court, Ongole.

Saturday, this the 09th day of April, 2022.

F.C.O.P.68/2021

Between:

Yelchuri Venkata Sujatha, w/o Srinivasa Rao, d/o Sanala Bala Sundara Chary, aged 46 years, Hindu, housewife, r/o 2nd line, Annavarappadu, Ongole town and Mandal, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh.

… Petitioner

And

Yelchuri Srinivasa Rao, s/o Sankarachari, aged 50 years, Hindu, r/o H. No. 35-3-69/39, Sanjay Gandhi Colony, CSR Sarma College back side, Ongole town and Mandal,

Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh. ... Respondent

The petitioner/wife filed this petition under section 13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage between the petitioner and respondent performed on 09-12-1994 by way of decree of divorce and for costs.

A fixed Court Fees of Rs.10/- is paid under Schedule-II, Article 1 (vii) of APCF and SV Act, 1956.

This petition is coming on 15-03-2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri L. Koteswara Rao and N. Padma Latha, Advocate for petitioner and respondent having remained exparte, upon perusal of material on record 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 ;

2) that the marriage between Petitioner and respondent dated 09-12-1994 be and is hereby dissolved by way of decree of divorce ; and

3) that there be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 09th day of April, 2022.

Judge, Family Court-cum-

VIII-Additional District Judge, Ongole.

Table of Costs - No C.M. & F.C. filed on either side -

J-F.C.,Ongole.

6 //t.c.f.b.o//

Administrative Officer, Family Court, Ongole.

7 8

BEFORE THE LOK ADAI-AT HELD AT : ONGOLE

[Organized by the District Legal Services Authority, Ongole under Section 19, of Legal Services Authorities Act 1987 (Central Act)l

Date:08-04-2022

D.Hr.: IvVs Shri Ram City Union Finance Limited, rep. by its Divisional Executive/ CPA Holder Ongole, Prakasam District.

J.Drs.: l.Koppolu Padmavathi, Wo late Laskshmi Narasimha, 2.Thammuluri Yesupadam, S/o Venkata Swamy, aged about 55 years, Hostel Welfare Officer, Jandrapet, Chirala, Prakasam District. 3.Shaik BAsheer Ahmed, S/o Mahamood Rasool, Hostel Welfare Officer, Govemment St Boys, Jandrapet, 4.Muthyala Venkateswarlu, S/o Ramaiah, aged about 43 years, Watchman, government ST Boys Hostel, Jandrapet, 5.Koppolu Lakshmi Narasaiah, FVo late Koppolu Padmavathi, 6.Koppolu Gopi Krishna, S/o Lakshmi Narasaiah, 7.KVGK Phani, S/o Lakjshmi Narasaiah, 8.K.Sridevi, D/o Lakshmi Narasaiah, 9.K.Chiranjeevi, S/o Lakshmi Narasaiah, R/o Swama Road, Chirala, Prakasam District.

No . of Proceedinss of the Court : E.P. No. 74012019 in ARB No. 831/2012 - VIII- Addl. District Judse Court-cum- Judse. Family Court. Onsole.

Present : - Name of Judicial Officer :Sri M.Sdhari, Presi<ling Judge, Lok Adalat, Ongole. Name of Members (1) Sri C.V.Ramakrishna Rao, Advocate, Ongole. (2) Sri P.Pullaiah, Advocate, Ongole.

AWABD

The dispute between the parties having been referred for determination to the Lok Adalat and the parties having compromised / seuled the case / matter, the following award is passed in terms of the settlement :

This E.P Settled for Rs.2,10,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs and Ten Thousand only) The 2"d J.Dr paid the above settlement amount ofRs.2,10,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs and Ten Thousand only) to the D.Hr towards full final settlement of entire E.P warrant amount

The attachment with regard to the 2'd J.Dr Salary is order to be raised.

Accordingly award is passed. The averments of the Terms of Compromise memo was read over and explained to both parties in Telugu and admitted by thenr to be true and correct. Hence. the Terms of compromise memo filed by the both parties is allowed. In view of the allowing of terms of compromise memo filed by both parties, the E.p. filed by the D.Hr. has to be settled. In the result, award is passed accordingly in terms of compromise. Enclosed the ofcommise filed by the both par:ties along with the award. ror strrlfity Un r0Ile Limite

7,

tffi/

DP.A. Holder 2nd .Dr./Rendents

Advocate/Petitioner Advocate for 2od J.Drpondents.

rPL

Sl--

Ju icOfficer

MeilrberMember

Date:08-04-2022

IN THE COURT OF FAMILY-CUM-VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

JUDGE: PRAKASAM AT ONGOLE

Present: M.Srihari,

Judge, Family Court-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole.

Friday, this the 8th day of April 2022.

E P.130 of 2018 in AC.No.931 of 2015

Between: M/S Shriram Transport finance Company Ltd., Branch Office at Addanki, Prakasam District rep by its Divisional Executive cum power of attorney Holder … D.Hr.

And

1. Shaik Adam Saheb, s/o Masthan, D.No. 7-41/2, Near Old Post Office, Gangavaram roadd, Inkollu village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

2.B.Padmavathi W/o Veeraswamy, office Sub Ordinate, Mandal Praja Parishad, Inkollu village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

3. Ch.Rambabu, S/oVenkateswarlu, Time Scale worker, Prakasam Milk producer company, Ongole

4. Sk. Bikshulu, S/o Adam Saheb, D.No.2/11,Main Bazar, Dudekula colony, Chinna Mallavaram Budavada J. Panguluru Mandal, Prakasam District … J.Drs.

This petition presented before me on 08-04-2022 for Rule 48 warrant in the presence of Sri D.Venkateswarlu, advocate for the Dhr, and of Sri V.Krishna Rao, Advocate for 2nd Jdr , case against 3rd Jdr was dismissed, on perusal of material available on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court made the following:-

// O R D E R //

Salary attachment effected on the salary of 2nd Jdr on 15-02-2022.

Attachment is made absolute. EP is closed.

Pronounced by me, open court, this the 8th day of April, 2022.

Sd/-M.Srihari

Judge, Family Court-cum-

VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENTS:

None //EXHIBITS MARKED // --N I L --

JUDGE: F.C.

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, PRAKASAM AT

ONGOLE

Present:: Sri D. Ammannaraja,

Judge, Family Court, Ongole.

Friday, 08th day of April, 2022

E.P.48/2020

Between:

Patibandla Madhavi and others… Petitioners

And

Maddapu Govinda Rajulu and Another ... Respondents

O R D E R

DHr filed a notpess memo stating that as the petitioner wanted to proceed in main Op as that the exparte decree has been set a side to day. Memo is recorded.

Petition is dismissed as not pressed.

Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of April, 2022.

Judge, Family Court

Ongole.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined: None Documents marked: NIL. J-F.C., Ongole.

2 //t.c.f.b.o//

Administrative Officer, Family Court, Ongole.

3 4