Smt M.Sudha

Dt.28.05.2020 1S.C.J. Court, Rayachoty S.C.No.467 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE :

RAYACHOTY

Present : - Smt. M.Sudha, Assistant Sessions Judge, Rayachoty.

Thursday, this the 28th day of May, 2020.

Sessions Case No.467 of 2019

(P.R.C.No.40 of 2019 on the file of Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Rayachoty).

1. Name of the : Forest Range Officer, Sanipaya Range. complainant

2. Name of the accused: 1.PachiguntaAnnamaiah,S/o. P.Chinnaiah, Aged 20 years, Caste – Yanadi (ST), Occupation – Sandal wood smuggling, Resident of Damalacheruvu village, Sreerampuram post, Pakala mandal, Chittoor District. (A.3).

2. Katamanchula Aruna, W/o. P.Krishnaiah, Aged 28 years, Caste – Yanadi (ST), Occupation – Sandal wood smuggling, Resident of Damalacheruvu village, Sreerampuram post, Pakala mandal, Chittoor District. (A.4) Case against A.1 and A.2 is separated and numbered as P.R.C.No.45 of 2019.

3. Charges framed.: U/Section.379 of IPC, Sec.29 (2) (b) (4) (a)

(i) (ii) (b) of A.P. Forest Act 2016, U/sec.32 and 36 of A.P. Forest Act, Sec.3 (1) of A.P. Sandal Wood and Red Sanders wood Transit Rules.

4. Finding of the Judge: Found not guilty.

5. Sentence of order: In the result, the accused 3 and 4 are found not guilty for the offences U/secs.379 IPC, Sec.29 (2) (b) (4) (a) (i) (ii)

(b) of A.P. Forest Act 2016, U/sec.32 and 36 of A.P. Forest Act, Sec.3 (1) of Andhra Pradesh Sandal Wood and Red Sanders wood Transit Rules, as such they are acquitted of the same under section.235 (1) Cr.P.C.The accused 3 and 4 are ordered to be released forthwith, if they are not required in any other case. Since the case against A.1 and A.2 is pending, no property order is passed.

6. Prosecution conducted: Sri T.Jagan Mohan Reddy, byAdditional Public Prosecutor.

Page No 1 of 12

Dt.28.05.2020 2S.C.J. Court, Rayachoty S.C.No.467 of 2019

7. Name of the Advocate : Sri Rayachoty Anand Kumar,

for accusedLegal Aid counsel for the accused.

8. Crime No. and name of: O.R.No.34/2018-19 of Sanipaya Range. the police station.

9. Committed by: Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoty.

10. Date of offence: 21.10.2018

11. Date of report: 21.10.2018

12. Date of remand. : 16.11.2018 (A.3) 21.10.2018 (A.4)

13. Date of release on : A.3 and A.4 are in Judicial custody. bail.

14. Date of committal to : 25.10.2019

Sessions Court.

15. Date of : 11.03.2020. commencement of trial

16. Date of close of trial: 11.03.2020.

17. Date of Judgment. : 28.05.2020.

J U D G M E N T

1. The Forest Range Officer, Sanipaya Range, Rajampeta Division, filed charge sheet against accused 3 and 4, in O.R.No.34/2018-19 for the offences punishable under section.379 of IPC, section.29 (2) (b) and 29 (4) (a) (i) (ii) of A.P. Forest Act, U/sec.32, 36 of A.P. Forest Act 1967 and

Rule.3 (1) of A.P. Sandal Wood and Red Sanders Wood Transit Rules.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on receipt of secret information from the Divisional Forest Officer, Wildlife Division Rajampet and as per instructions of Forest Range Officer, Sanipaya range, on 21.10.2018 at about 6.00 a.m., on illegal cutting and transport of sandalwood (Srigandham) from Mango garden of Upparapalli village.

Immediately, LW.1/ Smt. S.Chandrakala, Forest Section Officer, Sanipaya,

LW.2 / T.Saikrishna, Forest Beat Officer, Sanipaya and other two protection watchers proceeded to nearby Chinnagollapalli locality of

Sanipaya beat of Sanipaya range by Government vehicle bearing

Page No 2 of 12

Dt.28.05.2020 3S.C.J. Court, Rayachoty S.C.No.467 of 2019

No.AP04 AU 0327 and reached at 6.10 a.m. and they observed some unknown persons are ran away from the scene of offence by observing their Govt. vehicle, then the forest staff surrounded them and successfully caught hold one person and remaining three persons ran away from the spot. The Forest staff asked the caught hold person about her identity, then she revealed her name as Katamanchaula Aruna i.e.

A.4. They also enquired the caught hold person about the reasons of ran away by them, she confessed that they have illegally cut the sandal wood tree in Mango garden of Upparapalli village and rough dressed them into pieces and carry them in gunny bags. Immediately Lw.1 called two panchayatdars who are working in agricultural lands nearby the scene of offence and opened the gunny bag in the presence of panchayatdars and caught hold person, then they found some sandal wood pieces (three dressed and three undressed), two saws and one billhook and she also revealed the names of remaining ran away persons i.e. Shaik Dilshad (A.1), Pachigunta Krishnaiah (A.2) and Pachigunta Annamaiah (A.3).

Further the Forest Officials asked the caught hold person to whom sold the sandal wood pieces, for which she stated that they sold the sandal wood to A.1 and A.1 paid Rs.2000/- per kg of sandal wood. Further they weighed six sandal wood pieces and it comes 15.24 kgs and total value of sandal wood cut pieces arrives at Rs.30,690/-. At about 6.30 a.m. on 21.10.2018 Forest Section Officer, Sanipaya seized the 15.24 kgs sandal wood and arrested the accused under the cover of panchanama and the said sandal wood were kept in safe custody of Forest Beat Officer,

Sanipaya beat and obtained receipt. Later the case was registered as

O.R.No.34/2018-19 dt.21.10.2018 of Sanipaya range. During the course of investigation, the forest officials arrested the accused No.3 and sent him to judicial remand. After completion of investigation, the forest officials filed charge sheet against the accused 3 and 4 only.

Page No 3 of 12

Dt.28.05.2020 4S.C.J. Court, Rayachoty S.C.No.467 of 2019

3. The learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoty, has taken the cognizance for the offences U/sec.379 of IPC, section.29(2)

(b) and 29 (4) (a) (i) of A.P. Forest Act, U/sec.32, 36 of A.P. Forest Act 1967 and Rule.3 (1) of A.P. Sandal Wood and Red Sanders Wood Transit

Rules against the accused 3 and 4. After appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section.207 of Cr.P.C.

4. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Kadapa as contemplated under section.209 (a) Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Sessions Judge,

Kadapa pleased to made over the case to this Court for conducting trial and to proceed according to law.

5. On production of accused 3 and 4 from the Central Prison,

Kadapa and on hearing of both sides, the accused 3 and 4 were examined under section.228 Cr.P.C. They denied the accusation. On hearing the prosecution and the defence, charges under section.379 of IPC, Sec.29 (2) (b) (4) (a) (i) (ii) (b) of A.P. Forest Act 2016, U/sec.32 and 36 of A.P.

Forest Act, Sec.3 (1) of A.P. Sandal Wood and Red Sanders wood Transit

Rules, were framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.6. The learned Additional Public

Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW.4 / K.Balaiah, who is mediator for panchanama.

7. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused 3 and 4 were examined U/sec.313 of Cr.P.C, explained the incriminating material appeared against them, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

Page No 4 of 12

Dt.28.05.2020 5S.C.J. Court, Rayachoty S.C.No.467 of 2019

8. Heard the arguments of learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the accused.

9. Now the point for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused 3 and 4 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences under sections.379 of IPC, Sec.29 (2) (b) (4) (a)

(i) (ii) (b) of A.P. Forest Act 2016, U/sec.32 and 36 of A.P.

Forest Act, Sec.3 (1) of A.P. Sandal Wood and Red

Sanders wood Transit Rules ?

P O I N T: -

10. The case of the prosecution is that on receipt of information from the Divisional Forest Officer, Wildlife Division Rajampet and as per instructions of Forest Range Officer, Sanipaya range, on 21.10.2018 at about 6.00 a.m., on illegal cutting and transport of sandalwood from the

Mango garden of Upparapalli village, immediately, PW.1/ Smt.

S.Chandrakala, F.S.O., Sanipaya, PW.2 / T.Saikrishna, F.B.O., Sanipaya and other two protection watchers proceeded to nearby Chinnagollapalli locality of Sanipaya beat in a Govt. vehicle bearing No.AP04 AU 0327 and reached at 6.10 a.m. and they observed some unknown persons are ran away from the scene of offence by observing their Govt. vehicle, then the forest staff surrounded them and caught hold one person and remaining three persons ran away from the spot. The Forest staff asked the caught hold person about her identity, then she revealed her name as

Katamanchaula Aruna i.e. A.4. They also enquired and caught hold the person about the reasons of ran away on seeing them, she confessed that they have illegally cut the sandal wood tree in Mango garden of

Upparapalli village and rough dressed them into pieces and carry them in gunny bags. Immediately PW.1 opened the gunny bag in the presence of panchayatdars i.e. PW.3 and LW.4 / K.Balaiah, then they found six sandal wood pieces, two saws and one billhook and she also revealed the names of remaining ran away persons i.e. Shaik Dilshad (A.1),

Page No 5 of 12

Dt.28.05.2020 6S.C.J. Court, Rayachoty S.C.No.467 of 2019

Pachigunta Krishnaiah (A.2) and Pachigunta Annamaiah (A.3). Further they weighed six sandal wood pieces and it comes 15.24 kgs and total value of sandal wood cut pieces arrives at Rs.30,690/-. Then PW.1 Forest

Section Officer, Sanipaya seized the 15.24 kgs sandal wood and arrested the accused under the cover of panchanama and the said sandal wood was kept in safe custody of Forest Beat Officer, Sanipaya beat and obtained receipt. Later the case was registered as O.R.No.34/2018-19 dt.21.10.2018 of Sanipaya range.

11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that PWs.1 to 3 stated with regard to the offence, arrest and seizure of property from the possession of A.4, so also the confession statement of A.4 under

Ex.P.1. On the basis of said confession under Ex.P.1, A.3 and A.4 and others were connected to the offence. Hence, the prosecution proved the guilty of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

12. Whereas the learned counsel for the accused 3 and 4 argued that A.3 and A.4 are attached to this offence only basing on the alleged confession made by A.4. So, A.3 has no direct connection with the alleged offence. The confession statement made by A.4 against the accused No.3 is only piece of evidence and it is a very weak evidence.

The prosecution also not produced the property alleged to be seized from the possession of accused No.4 before the Court. Therefore, simply on the basis of alleged confession statement made by A.4, A.3 and A.4 cannot be convicted. Hence, the accused 3 and 4 are entitled for acquittal. The counsel for the accused 3 and 4 further submits that

PWs.1 and 2 are departmental witnesses and PW.3 is the independent witness, whose evidence is testified, their evidence is contrary to one to other witnesses, on that ground only the prosecution did not rely upon.

13. When this Court gone through the evidence and other material available on record, at first PW.1/ Smt. S.Chandrakala, Forest Section

Page No 6 of 12

Dt.28.05.2020 7S.C.J. Court, Rayachoty S.C.No.467 of 2019

Officer, evidence is thoroughly scrutinized, she categorically speaks that on 21.10.2018 at 6.00 a.m., she received phone call from Forest Range

Officer regarding illegal cutting and transportation of sandal wood from

Mango garden of Upparapalli village, immediately herself along with two protection officers proceeded in a Government Jeep bearing No.AP04 AU 0327, while they reaching near Chinnagollapalli colony, there they found two male and two female persons are coming opposite direction, on seeing them one female and two male persons escaped from the spot and they caught hold one female person, then they enquired about her identity, then she disclosed her name as Aruna and also confessed that herself and three persons who are escaped from the spot illegally cutting the sandal tree in mango garden of Upparapalli village and put them in gunny bag and carrying the same. Basing on her confession, they opened the gunny bag and found six sandal wood pieces in the gunny bag, then she deputed LW.2 (PW.2) for securing panch witness for conducting panchanama, then PW.2 brought Lw.3 (PW.3) and LW.4 /

K.Balaiah, in their presence they found two gunny bags and in the said gunny bags there are three sandal wood pieces are in dressed and three sandal wood pieces are in undressed. Then she enquired the accused in the presence of above mediators, then A.4 disclosed the names of ran away persons as Krishnaiah who is her husband, another male person name is Annamaiah who is her brother-in-law and another female person name is Shahida. She further deposed that they measured the said sandal wood pieces in the presence of mediators and recorded the confessional cum seizure panchanama of A.4 under Ex.P.1 and seized the sandal wood pieces, total weight 15 kgs, worth about Rs.30,690/-. Ex.P.2 is the panchanama dt.21.10.2018 at 6.30 a.m. and also found two saws and one knife in the gunny bags and obtained the signatures of PW.3 and

LW.4. Ex.P.1 scribed by her and Ex.P.2 scribed by PW.2 and PW.2 also

Page No 7 of 12

Dt.28.05.2020 8S.C.J. Court, Rayachoty S.C.No.467 of 2019 signed in Ex.P.1 and P.2, so also obtained the signature of A.4 on Exs.P.1 and P.2. Then they brought the accused along with the seized property to Forest Range Office, Sanipaya and they produced the accused before the authorized officer D.F.O.. She also deposed that basing on the panchanama, F.R.O., registered a case in O.R.No.34/2018-19, then she produced the accused before the Court for judicial custody. After she obtained sanction orders from D.F.O., Rajampeta Division, she launched the prosecution U/sec.44 (2) (a) of A.P. Forest Act 1967. Ex.P.4 is the

Form-F. Finally after completion of investigation, she submitted a charge sheet before the Court against the accused and later the Court issued

N.B.W. against A.1 and A.2, since A.1 and A.2 were absconded and subsequently P.T. warrant was issued against A.3 and produced before the Court.

14. PW.2 / T.Sai Krishna, who is incharge Forest Beat Officer,

Sanipaya range, corroborated the evidence of PW.1. Further speaks that he prepared Form-A under Ex.P.5 and handed over the seized property to him by PW.1. Ex.P.6 is the Form-C.

15. PW.3 / T.Jaggaiah, who is panch witness, who also categorically speaks that himself and LW.4 were at agricultural lands, Pw.2 came to them and took them nearer to main road, there they found A.4 in possession of two plastic bags (urea covers) containing six sandal wood pieces in two bags, so also two saws and one knife. PW.2 measured the sandal wood pieces in his presence and PW.2 prepared panchanama and read over the contents to him and LW.4. PWs.1 and 2 took the accused along with the seized property in a jeep to Sanipaya office.

16. From marshalling the entire evidence, the defence set up by the accused is mainly PW.1 prepared Exs.P.1 and P.2 by sitting in the office and obtained the signatures of A.4 by force, so also from the mediators PW.3 and another and the accused are no way concerned with

Page No 8 of 12

Dt.28.05.2020 9S.C.J. Court, Rayachoty S.C.No.467 of 2019 this offence. The main contention of the prosecution is that PWs.1 to 3 along with another mediator were present at the time of seizure of property i.e. three dressed sandal wood pieces and three undressed sandal wood pieces, total six pieces in two gunny bags, so also two saws and one knife under Ex.P.2 panchanama. Further case of the prosecution is that at the first instance even though the forest officials found four persons at the scene of offence and they apprehended only A.4 and other three persons were escaped from the spot, thereby confession statement of A.4 was recorded. Thereafter PW.2 brought PW.3 and another mediator while they were at agricultural land. From marshalling the entire evidence, PWs.1 and 2 were suggested that they never arrested

A.4 at the scene of offence and nothing was seized at the scene of offence and they prepared Exs.P.1 and P.2 at Sanipaya Forest Range office.

Further suggested that there is availability of official witnesses, they intentionally avoid to take the assistance of government officials. PW.2 also admits that there is a power station available at a distance of one kilometer of Sanipaya range office. Now the point for consideration is whether the forest officials along with PW.3 and another mediator really found A.4 and recorded her confession statement including seizure of property under Ex.P.2 is true or not, which is crucial aspect. This Court already discussed above, the witnesses who are examined on behalf of the prosecution are departmental witnesses i.e. PWs.1 and 2 are forest officials, PW.3 independent witness who is said to be present at the time of preparation of Exs.P.1 and P.2, so also at the time of arrest of A.4. If really, the case of the prosecution is true and correct, there would not be any inconsistency among them. But in the present case, at the outset, with regard to the preparation of Ex.P.2 panchanama dt.21.10.2018 at 6.30 a.m. is concerned, there is a serious discrepancy in between the department witneses PWs.1 and 2 on one handand PW.3 independent

Page No 9 of 12

Dt.28.05.2020 10S.C.J. Court, Rayachoty S.C.No.467 of 2019 mediator on the other hand i.e. as per PWs.1 and 2 coupled with Ex.P.2 it was prepared at the scene of offence i.e. at Chinnagollapalli village agricultural lands. Whereas PW.3 version is that himself and LW.4 signed on panchanama at Sanipaya Range office, which is contrary to the recitals of Ex.P.1 confession statement of A.4 under Ex.P.2 panchanama.

17. Coming to the another crucial aspect with regard to the improbability of seizure cum confession statement of A.4 is Exs.P.1 and

P.2 are concerned, as per PWs.1 and 2 it clearly admits that the alleged scene of offence is surrounding by the Government offices including

Anganwadi centre, bank and so also power station available at a distance of one kilometer to Sanipaya range office. If really, Exs.P.1 and P.2 are true and correct, what prevented PWs.1 and 2 to secure any public servant from any of the Government offices. There is no proper explanation from PWs.1 and 2 for non-securing of said officials from any

Government offices, which is highly fatal to the prosecution. Even for argument sake, PW.3 who is independent mediator evidence is concerned, he himself admits that he got acquaintance with forest officials and he also admits that basing on the acquaintance with forest officials, they called him and LW.4 and they signed on the panchanama at

Sanipaya Range office, which is contrary to the recitals of Ex.P.2.

Further the prosecution also did not choose to examine the owner of the agricultural land from where accused said to be cut the sandal wood and where the accused were apprehended, so also the prosecution did not choose to examine the another independent witness. As per the prosecution, A.4 along with A.1 to A.3 cut the sandal wood pieces near

Chinnagollapalli village. It is also another point for consideration that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged seized property i.e. sandal wood pieces and the same are original sandal wood or not i.e. the said property were not sent for expert opinion. Apart from that as per the

Page No 10 of 12

Dt.28.05.2020 11S.C.J. Court, Rayachoty S.C.No.467 of 2019 prosecution Ex.P.2 six alleged sandal wood pieces were found in possession of A.4 at the scene of offence and they were not produced

before the Court till today including two saws and one knife, for which

there is no proper explanation from the prosecution. If really, A.3 is connected to this alleged offence, what is the incriminating evidence collected by the prosecution with respect to A.3 involvement in this crime. However, they simply produced A.3 on P.T. warrant basing on the alleged confessional statement of A.4. But the prosecution did not choose to collect any other evidence against A.3 including recording of his confession statement or examination of any other witnesses to connect the accused No.3 with the alleged offence. Moreover, there is no legally acceptable evidence on record to show that A.3 and A.4 are connected with illegal transportation of red sandal logs. Therefore, it can be safely hold that the prosecution has failed to connect the accused 3 and 4 with the alleged seized red sandal wood.

18. In view of the above discussion, it could be safely hold that the evidence on record is not sufficient to rope the accused 3 and 4 with the charged offence and the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused 3 and 4 for the offences U/secs.379 of IPC, Sec.29 (2) (b) (4) (a)

(i) (ii) (b) of A.P. Forest Act 2016, U/sec.32 and 36 of A.P. Forest Act,

Sec.3 (1) of A.P. Sandal Wood and Red Sanders wood Transit Rules, beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, the accused 3 and 4 are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, this point is answered.

19. In the result, the accused 3 and 4 are found not guilty for the offences U/secs.379 of IPC, Sec.29 (2) (b) (4) (a) (i) (ii) (b) of A.P. Forest

Act 2016, U/sec.32 and 36 of A.P. Forest Act, Sec.3 (1) of Andhra Pradesh

Sandal Wood and Red Sanders wood Transit Rules, as such they are acquitted of the same under section.235 (1) Cr.P.C.The accused No.3

Page No 11 of 12

Dt.28.05.2020 12S.C.J. Court, Rayachoty S.C.No.467 of 2019 and 4 are ordered to be released forthwith, if they are not required in any other case. Since the case against A.1 and A.2 is pending (PRC

No.45 of 2019), no property order is passed.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 28th day of

May, 2020.

Sd/- M.Sudha.

Assistant Sessions Judge, Rayachoty.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for prosecution

P.W.1: Smt. S.Chandrakala, Forest Section Officer, Sanipaya Section.

P.W.2: Sri T.Sai Krishna, Forest Beat Officer, Sanipaya Beat.

P.W.3: Sri T.Jaggaiah.

Witnesses examined for defence Nil -

Exhibits marked for prosecution

Ex.P.1: Confession statement of A.4.

Ex.P.2: Panchanama dt.21.10.2018 at 6.30 a.m.

Ex.P.3: Sanction orders from D.F.O., Rajampeta Division.

Ex.P.4: Form - F.

Ex.P.5: Form - A.

Ex.P.6: Form - C.

Exhibits marked for defence - NIL -

Material objects marked - Nil -

Id/- M.S. A.S.J., Rcty.

Page No 12 of 12

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAYACHOTY.

Present:- Smt. M.Sudha, Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty.

Friday, this the 20 th day of March, 2020

H.M.O.P. No.10 of 2020

Smt. Raghavaraju Pavani.

... Petitioner

V/s.

Sri Raghavaraju Narasimha Raju. … Respondent

This petition is coming on 19.03.2020 for disposal before me in the presence of Sri U.Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate for the petitioner and the respondent called absent and remained exparte, upon perusing petition and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

This is a petition filed by the petitioner (wife) U/sec.13 (1) (ia) of

Hindu Marriage Act, praying the court to grant a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of petitioner with the respondent (husband), dt.10.12.2010 and for costs of the petition.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner and respondent are wife and husband and their marriage was performed on 10.12.2010 at Sri Abaya Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Kummarapalli,

T.Sundupalli – Rajampeta cross road, Rayachoty, Kadapa District as per

Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, the petitioner’s parents presented five tulas of gold and Rs.1,00,000/- cash towards dowry to the respondent in the presence of elders. Out of their wedlock, both the petitioner and respondent begot two children namely Jeevan Joyal Raju who is studying 4th class and Varshitha who is studying 2nd class. The respondent being adamant and irregular in nature and failed to lead his 2 marital life with the petitioner happily. The petitioner lead her marital life with the respondent happily for few years and later disputes arose in between them. Since the date of marriage, the respondent suspected her character and beat her indiscriminately with hands and legs without any reason and he also used filthy language against her and her family members without any fault on the petitioner and also defame her in the street and relatives. Further submits that the respondent is having bad habits like alcohol, vagabond etc and that the respondent and his family members harassed her both physically and mentally and sent her to her parents house. Further submits that the respondent married one lady

before petitioner’s marriage, that lady also divorced from the respondent,

but the said fact was not known to her and the respondent and his family members cheated her and her parents. The respondent is having illegal contacts with one lady namely Lakshmi Devi. Finally she filed a criminal case agianst the respondent and his family members before the S.H.O.,

Rayachoty U/G P.S. in Cr.No.999/2019 U/sec.498-A IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act. So, the petitioner suffered to mental agony, physical torture in the hands of respondent due to cruel behaviour of respondent. The elders also made several mediations for their reunion, but in vain and therefore there is no change of reunion between the petitioner and respondent. Hence she was constrained to file the divorce petition against the respondent.

3. Notice was served to the respondent (Raghavaraju Narasimha

Raju), but he did not appear before the Court. Hence, he was remained exparte.

4. In order to prove her case, the petitioner (Raghavaraju Pavani) examined herself as PW.1 and Exs.P.1 to P.3 are marked.

5. Heard and perused the record.

3

6. Now the point for determination is : “Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of decree of divorce against the respondent on the ground of cruelty ?”

7. POINT :- The petitioner / wife herein filed the present petition seeking for divorce against the respondent / husband. In order to prove her case, the petitioner examined herself as PW.1 and reiterated her contention in total and in accordance with her pleadings in the chief affidavit filed by her. In addition to her oral statement, the petitioner as

PW.1 also marked Exs.P.1 to P.3. Ex.P.1 is the Notary affidavit, Ex.P.2 is the wedding card of petitioner and respondent and Ex.P.3 is the photo of petitioner and respondent. The marriage in between the petitioner and respondent took place on 10.12.2010 at Sri Abaya Anjaneya Swamy

Temple, Kummarapalli, T.Sundupalli – Rajampeta cross road, Rayachoty as per the Hindu rites and customs. Out of their wedlock, both the petitioner and respondent blessed with two children. The main allegation of the petitioner against the respondent is that since the date of marriage, the respondent suspected her character and used to beat her indiscriminately without any reason and he also used filthy language against her and her family members without any fault. Further the respondent addicted to bad vices like drinking alcohol and having illegal contacts with one lady namely Lakshmi Devi and harassed her both physically and mentally. If at all there is no truth in the allegations of petitioner, the respondent would have come to the Court and resist the petitioner by way of filing any counter, but he did not do so and did not appear before the Court.

8. On these above aspects, taken into consideration that the petitioner proved her case against the respondent particularly through the ground of cruelty. The oral and documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner remained unchallenged and is not resisted by the respondent, 4 thereby the petitioner is able to prove her claim against the respondent and that she is entitled for a decree of divorce as prayed for.

9. In the result, the petition is allowed, by granting decree of divorce in favour of the petitioner against the respondent by dissolving their marriage which was took place on 10.12.2010.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 20thday of March, 2020.

Sd/- M.Sudha.

Senior Civil Judge,

Rayachoty.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for the petitioner:

P.W.1: Raghavaraju Pavani.

Witnesses examined for the respondent: Exparte.

Exhibits marked for the petitioner:

Ex.P.1: Notary affidavit.

Ex.P.2: Wedding card of petitioner and respondent.

Ex.P.3: Photo of petitioner and respondent.

Exhibits marked for the respondent: -NIL-

Id/- M.S. S.C.J., Rcty

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAYACHOTY.

Present:- Smt. M.Sudha, Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty.

Friday, this the 20 th day of March, 2020

H.M.O.P. No.02 of 2020

Macha Jyoshna.

... Petitioner

V/s.

Bommadi Kalyan Kumar Reddy. … Respondent

This petition is coming on 18.03.2020 for disposal before me in the presence of Sri B.Narasimha Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner and the respondent called absent and remained exparte, upon perusing petition and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

This is a petition filed by the petitioner (wife) U/sec.13 (1) (ia) of

Hindu Marriage Act, praying the court to grant a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of petitioner with the respondent (husband), dt.23.01.2016 and for costs of the petition.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was performed on 23.01.2016 before the

Marriage Registrar Sri A.Vijay Kumar in the presence of three witnesses and have declared that a ceremony of marriage has been performed between them under Hindu Marriage Act 1955 as 13 of 2016, to that effect certificate of marriage issued on the same day on 23.01.2016 at

Rayachoty. After completion of honeymoon period, the respondent searched for job for their livelihood, but no fruitful for a period of six months and his efforts are in vain. The parents of petitioner providing food and shelter to the petitioner family while searching job trails. The 2 respondent addicted to bad vices like drinking and other bad habits which are unable to bear by the petitioner and also the respondent came to house at late nights. The parents of petitioner warned the respondent in view of his behaviour, for that the respondent left the house of his mother- in-law. The mother of the respondent not allowed the petitioner to her house as the petitioner is ‘Balija’ caste and whereas the respondent belongs to ‘Reddy’ caste. The respondent was traveled in bad route in view of his family position and he also involved in many criminal cases including red sanders. The respondent behaviour and involvement of criminal cases leads to cause mental agony which amounts to cruelty.

The elders also made several mediations, but in vain. Hence she was constrained to file the divorce petition against the respondent.

3. Notice was served to the respondent (Bommadi Kalyan Kumar

Reddy), but he did not appear before the Court. Hence, he was remained exparte.

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

PW.1 and Exs.P.1 and P.2 are marked.

5. Heard and perused the record.

6. Now the point for determination is : “Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of decree of divorce against the respondent on the ground of cruelty ?”

7. POINT :- The petitioner / wife herein filed the present petition seeking for divorce against the respondent / husband. In order to prove her case, the petitioner examined herself as PW.1 and reiterated her contention in total and in accordance with her pleadings in the chief affidavit filed by her. In addition to her oral statement, the petitioner as

PW.1 also marked Exs.P.1 and P.2. Ex.P.1 is the original marriage certificate dt.23.01.2016 and Ex.P.2 is the Marriage photos (2 in number).

The marriage in between the petitioner and respondent took place on 3 23.01.2016 at marriage registrar office, to that effect the certificate of marriage also issued by the Marriage Registrar. The main allegation of the petitioner against the respondent is that the respondent addicted to bad vices like drinking and other bad habits and harassed her both physically and mentally and also the respondent involved in some many criminal cases including red sandal cases. If at all there is no truth in the allegations of petitioner, the respondent would have come to the Court and resist the petitioner by way of filing any counter, but he did not do so.

On these above aspects, taken into consideration that the petitioner proved her case against the respondent particularly through the ground of cruelty. The oral and documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner remained unchallenged and is not resisted by the respondent, thereby the petitioner is able to prove her claim against the respondent and that she is entitled for a decree of divorce as prayed for.

8. In the result, the petition is allowed, by granting decree of divorce in favour of the petitioner against the respondent by dissolving their marriage which was took place on 23.01.2016

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 20thday of March, 2020.

Sd/- M.Sudha.

Senior Civil Judge,

Rayachoty.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for the petitioner:

P.W.1: Macha Jyoshna.

Witnesses examined for the respondent: Exparte.

Exhibits marked for the petitioner:

Ex.P.1: Original Marriage Certificate dt.23.01.2016.

Ex.P.2: Marriage photos of petitioner and respondent (2 in number).

Exhibits marked for the respondent: -NIL-

Id/- M.S. S.C.J., Rcty

Daily Status

In the Court of :Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty

Case No. :EP/0000002/2019 Redlapalli Badrinath Vs Nama Gangadhara Gupta and another

Date  : 19-03-2020

Business: DHR filed FS memo.Stating that he received EP amount. hence EP is terminated Nature of Disposal: TERMINATED Disposal Date: 19-03-2020

Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty