Currently Serving

Smt. M.Ushashree

Addl Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir

Yadadri Bhuvanagiri, PDJ Cout Complex · Yadadri Bhuvanagiri · Telangana

Smt. M.Ushashree, Addl Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir, is posted at Yadadri Bhuvanagiri, PDJ Cout Complex, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri, Telangana, India. 337 court orders on record since 2024. 10 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles H, OS, SC cases.

337

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

H.M.O.P/95/2021

Niligonda Raju vs Niligonda @ Bandarapu Indira

25 Mar 2026

Page 1 of 10 Prl. Senior Civil Judge,

HMOP.No.95 of 2021

Bhuvanagiri

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

AT :: BHUVANAGIRI

Present: Smt M.USHASHREE,

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Bhuvanagiri.

Wednesday, this the 25th day of March, 2026

HMOP.No.95 of 2021

Between :- Niligonda Raju, S/o.Papaiah, aged 36 years, Occ:Labour, R/o.H.No.2-95, Nunegudem Villae, Gundala Mandal, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District.

...Petitioner

A N D

Niligonda @ Bandarapu Indira (D/o.Bandarapu Eswaraiah), W/o.Niligonda Raju, aged 24 years, Occ:Household, R/o.H.No.2-95, Nunegudem Village, Gundala Mandal, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District. Presently at Borrapadu Annaram Village, Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District.

...Respondent

This petition coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri M.A.Raheem, learned counsel for petitioner and of Sri Bomma Venkatesh, learned counsel for respondent, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

: O R D E R :

This petition is filed by the petitioner against the respondent under

Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage dated 24.04.2014 by a decree of divorce.

2.The brief averments of the petition are :-

The respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and their marriage was solemnized on 24.04.2014 at Borrapadu Annaram Village,

Date:25.03.2026

Page 2 of 10 Prl. Senior Civil Judge,

HMOP.No.95 of 2021

Bhuvanagiri

Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District as per the customs and rites prevailing in their community. It is pleaded that no dowry was received by the petitioner from the respondent’s side at the time of marriage. After marriage, both of them lived together for some period at Nunegudem Village, Gundala Mandal, Yadadri

Bhuvanagiri District. The marriage is still subsisting and they were not blessed with any children.

3.It is further submitted that after marriage, the respondent joined the petitioner’s conjugal society and resided with him for some time. However, due to non-blessing of children, the respondent allegedly developed adamant behaviour towards the petitioner and started demanding money to lead a lavish lifestyle. It is alleged that she used to misuse the petitioner’s earnings and frequently insist upon money to satisfy her personal requirements. It is further alleged that whenever the petitioner failed to meet her monetary demands, the respondent used to leave the matrimonial home and go to her parental house at

Borrapadu Annaram Village without the knowledge and consent of the petitioner.

It is pleaded that in the first week of April, 2019, when the petitioner questioned the respondent regarding her frequent visits to her parental house, she left the conjugal society of the petitioner without his consent and has been residing at her parental house since then.

4.It is further submitted that the petitioner approached village elders to resolve the dispute and several panchayats were allegedly held at Borrapadu

Annaram Village and Nunegudem Village. According to the petitioner, the elders

Date:25.03.2026

Page 3 of 10 Prl. Senior Civil Judge,

HMOP.No.95 of 2021

Bhuvanagiri advised the respondent to resume marital life with the petitioner, but she refused to do so. It is contended that the respondent has voluntarily withdrawn from the conjugal society of the petitioner from the first week of April, 2019 without any fault on his part. It is further averred that the petitioner made several attempts through elders during April 2019, June 2019, December 2019, April 2020,

December 2020, April 2021 and July 2021 to bring back the respondent.

However, all such efforts ended in failure. It is alleged that on 02.08.2021, when the petitioner along with elders went to the respondent’s house to bring her back, she refused to join him and allegedly insulted and abused the petitioner and the elders in filthy language. Hence, the petitioner contends that he has been subjected to mental cruelty and that the respondent has deserted him without reasonable cause. The petitioner submits that there is no collusion between the parties and prays for dissolution of marriage dated 24.04.2014 under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Hence, the petition.

5.On the other hand, notice was issued to the respondent and the respondent filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the petition.

The respondent stated that the petition is filed with false allegations, suppressing real facts, for unlawful gain and to harass her and the minor children. The respondent admitted the marital relationship but denied all other allegations. She specifically denied the marriage date mentioned by the petitioner. According to the respondent, the marriage between the parties was not solemnized on 24.04.2014 as stated in the petition, but was solemnized on

Date:25.03.2026

Page 4 of 10 Prl. Senior Civil Judge,

HMOP.No.95 of 2021

Bhuvanagiri 15.11.2015 at Annaram (B) Village, Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District as per the customs and rites prevailing in their community. She contended that immediately after marriage both parties lived together as husband and wife and were blessed with two children, namely Lasya, born on 24.11.2016 at Dr.Raju

Hospital, Miryalaguda, presently aged about 6 years and studying UKG English

Medium, and Abhitej, born on 16.09.2018 at Shishu Matha Samrakshana

Kendram Hospital, Siddipet Road, Janagom Town, presently aged about 4 years and studying LKG English Medium. She contended that the petitioner intentionally suppressed the existence of the children and falsely stated that they were not blessed with any children.

6.The respondent denied the allegation that she developed adamant mentality due to non-blessing of children or that she misused the petitioner’s money or harassed him for fulfilling luxurious desires. She denied that she frequently went to her parental house without the knowledge and consent of the petitioner. She specifically denied that she left the matrimonial home in the first week of April, 2019 voluntarily. She further denied that any panchayats were held finding fault on her or that she refused to join the petitioner.

7.The respondent contended that at the time of marriage, with financial assistance of her relatives including Madugula Nagamani and others, her parents paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner as demanded by him and his parents and also provided household articles. She stated that her parents are poor, her father Bandharapu Eeshwaraiah is physically handicapped, and her mother

Date:25.03.2026

Page 5 of 10 Prl. Senior Civil Judge,

HMOP.No.95 of 2021

Bhuvanagiri

Yallamma is maintaining the family. She further stated that she completed

Intermediate education at N.G. College, Miryalaguda during 2010-2012 and later returned to her village due to financial constraints.

8.The respondent further stated that the petitioner’s mother, Niligonda

Parvathamma, had informed her parents that the petitioner had earlier married

Shobha @ Lavanya of Kolukonda Village, Palakurthi Mandal, Warangal District and that the said marriage was dissolved by divorce. The respondent alleged that after marriage, the petitioner and his parents treated her as a housemaid and continuously demanded additional amounts stating that had he married another woman, she would have brought more dowry. She stated that even at the time of Barasala function of the first child, her parents were forced to conduct the function grandly and threatened with divorce otherwise. The respondent specifically contended that on 21.06.2021 the petitioner and his parents severely beat her and necked her and the two minor children out of the matrimonial home on demand to bring more money from her parents. She stated that neighbours intervened and advised the petitioner not to harass her, but he did not heed. She further alleged that the petitioner and his parents abused her in filthy language stating, “ఏమే లం�జముం�డ నీవు రోజువారీ కూలి కి పోగా వచ్చి�న డబ్బు�లు నీకు భోజన� పెట్ట�డానికే సరిపోతే, నీ పిలం&లంకు భోజన� ఎవడు పెట్టా� లంనే అని, నన్ను-, నా ఇద్ద1రు పిలం&లంన్ను ఇ�టి న్ను�డి గెం�టివేసినారు.”

9.The respondent further contended that the petitioner is working as an ice- cream seller and earns about Rs.40,000/- per month and also earns about

Date:25.03.2026

Page 6 of 10 Prl. Senior Civil Judge,

HMOP.No.95 of 2021

Bhuvanagiri

Rs.60,000/- per year from agricultural land measuring Ac.1-00 guntas at

Nunegudem Village. She stated that the petitioner’s mother earns about

Rs.10,000/- per month as a Pujari and his father earns about Rs.20,000/- per month from cattle business. She alleged that despite sufficient income, the petitioner failed to maintain her and the children. The respondent stated that after being driven out, she and her children are residing under the shelter of her parents at Bangarugadda locality of Miryalaguda Town. Her mother is working as a housemaid in four houses and paying school fees of Rs.2,500/- per month for the children. The respondent stated that she has no movable or immovable properties and no independent source of income.

10.The respondent denied that she voluntarily withdrew from the conjugal society of the petitioner. She contended that the petitioner filed the present petition suppressing true facts, including the marriage date and existence of children, with an intention to desert her permanently and marry another woman. She also stated that she filed separate petitions seeking litigation expenses and transfer of the HMOP to Miryalaguda Court due to financial hardship and inconvenience. Hence, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the petition with costs and exemplary costs.

11.In support of the case of the petitioner, the petitioner was examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 in his favour and reported no further evidence, hence petitioner’s evidence is closed.

Date:25.03.2026

Page 7 of 10 Prl. Senior Civil Judge,

HMOP.No.95 of 2021

Bhuvanagiri

12.On the other hand, respondent failed to cross-examine petitioner/PW.1 and she did not adduce any evidence and no documents were marked on her behalf hence, respondent’s evidence is closed.

13.Heard petitioner counsel and perused the entire case record.

14.Now the point for consideration is:-

“Whether the marriage in between the Petitioner and

Respondent, dated 24.04.2014 can be dissolved by passing the

decree of divorce as prayed for?”

POINT :

APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE :-

15.The petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and reiterated the averments made in the petition. He relied upon Exs.P1 to P3. Ex.P1 is the wedding card evidencing the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent. Ex.P2 is the marriage photograph, which further corroborates the marital relationship. Ex.P3 consists of affidavits of third parties.

16.It is significant to note that though the respondent filed a counter denying the allegations, she did not choose to cross-examine PW.1. Thus, the testimony of PW.1 has remained unchallenged and uncontroverted. Further, the respondent has not stepped into the witness box nor adduced any oral or documentary evidence to substantiate the allegations made in her counter. Therefore, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the respondent.

Date:25.03.2026

Page 8 of 10 Prl. Senior Civil Judge,

HMOP.No.95 of 2021

Bhuvanagiri

17.The evidence of PW.1 clearly discloses that after the marriage, the respondent joined the petitioner and lived with him for some time. Thereafter, due to her conduct of frequently visiting her parental house without informing the petitioner, disputes arose between the parties. When the petitioner questioned such conduct, the respondent, without any justifiable reason, left the matrimonial home in the first week of April, 2019 and has been residing at her parental house since then.

18.Though the respondent alleged in her counter that she was forced out of the matrimonial home, the same has not been substantiated by any evidence. In the absence of any proof, such a plea cannot be accepted. On the other hand, the unchallenged testimony of PW.1 establishes that the respondent voluntarily withdrew from the conjugal society of the petitioner.

19.The evidence of PW.1 further shows that the petitioner made several sincere efforts to bring back the respondent through elders on multiple occasions.

However, the respondent refused to join him and did not show any inclination to resume matrimonial life. This conduct of the respondent clearly indicates her intention to permanently put an end to the marital relationship.

20.It is well settled that mere trivial reasons or normal wear and tear of matrimonial life do not constitute reasonable cause for withdrawal from conjugal society. In the present case, leaving the matrimonial home merely because the petitioner questioned her conduct cannot be considered a reasonable or sufficient

Date:25.03.2026

Page 9 of 10 Prl. Senior Civil Judge,

HMOP.No.95 of 2021

Bhuvanagiri cause.

21.From the above discussion, this Court is satisfied that:

The respondent left the matrimonial home in April, 2019; 

She has been living separately since then; 

She failed to prove any reasonable cause for such withdrawal; and 

Her conduct reflects clear animus deserendi. 

22.Thus, the petitioner has successfully established that the respondent has deserted him for a continuous period of more than two years preceding the filing of the petition. Accordingly, this Court holds that the petitioner has proved the ground of desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

23.In the result, the petition is allowed. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent, dated 24.04.2014, is hereby dissolved by a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. No order as to costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 25th day of March, 2026.

Sd/-

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bhuvanagiri.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

( WITNESS EXAMINED )

FOR THE PETITIONER : FOR THE RESPONDENT :

P.W.1: Niligonda Raju - NIL -

Date:25.03.2026

Page 10 of 10 Prl. Senior Civil Judge,

HMOP.No.95 of 2021

Bhuvanagiri

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PETITIONER :

Ex.P1: Wedding card, dated 24.04.2014

Ex.P2: Marriage Photograph

Ex.P3: Third party affidavits

FOR THE RESPONDENT : - NIL -

Sd/-

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bhuvanagiri.

Date:25.03.2026

OS/161/2025

Gullani Sukkamma vs Jupally Chandra Mouli

25 Mar 2026

Page 1 of 7 Prl. Senior Civil Judge,

OS.No.161 of 2025

Bhuvanagiri

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

AT :: BHUVANAGIRI

Present: Smt M.USHASHREE,

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Bhuvanagiri.

Wednesday, this the 25th day of March, 2026

O.S.No. 161 of 2025

Between:-

1. Gullani Sukkamma, W/o.Late Ilaiah, aged about 62 years,

2. Gullani Ramesh, W/o.late Ilaiah, aged about 38 years,

BothareAgriculture,R/o.H.No.3-50,CheekatimamidiVillage, Bommalaramaram Mandal, Dist.Yadadri-Bhongir.

...Plaintiffs

A N D

1. Jupally Chandra Mouli, S/o.Malkaiah, aged about 38 years,

2. Jupally Mallaiah, S/o.Balaiah, aged about 55 years, Both are R/o.Cheekatimamidi Village, Bommalaramaram Mandal, Dist.Yadadri- Bhongir.

...Defendants

This suit is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri

Ch.Narendra Prasad, counsel for the plaintiffs, and the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 were set ex-parte, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-

: J U D G M E N T :

This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs for the relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their henchmen, supporters, workmen or any other persons claiming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule properties i.e., the agricultural lands bearing Sy.No.762/E admeasuring Ac.0-23 guntas

Date:25.03.2026

Page 2 of 7 Prl. Senior Civil Judge,

OS.No.161 of 2025

Bhuvanagiri (Suit “A” Schedule) and Sy.No.762/I admeasuring Ac.0-23 guntas (Suit “B”

Schedule), both situated at Cheekatimamidi Village, Bommalaramaram

Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District, and for costs and other reliefs.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that :-

The plaintiff No.1 is the absolute owner, possessor and pattedar of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.762/E admeasuring Ac.0-23 guntas situated at

Cheekatimamidi Village, Bommalaramaram Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District, hereinafter referred to as suit “A” schedule property, and the plaintiff No.2 is the absolute owner, possessor and pattedar of the agricultural land bearing

Sy.No.762/I admeasuring Ac.0-23 guntas situated at the same village and mandal, hereinafter referred to as suit “B” schedule property.

3.It is further contended that the plaintiffs are mother and son. The plaintiff

No.1 acquired the suit “A” schedule property from her husband by way of succession and was issued old ROR pattedar pass book and also new digital e- pass book bearing No.T30070100311 with Khata No.581. The plaintiff No.2 purchased the suit “B” schedule property through a registered sale deed vide

Document No.4126/2014, dated 16.06.2014 from its original owner, and the said transaction was duly implemented in the revenue records and he was issued old

ROR pattedar pass book and also new digital e-pass book bearing

No.T30070100816 with Khata No.1587. Since the date of acquisition, the plaintiffs have been in continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the suit “A” and “B” schedule properties as absolute owners and

Date:25.03.2026

Page 3 of 7 Prl. Senior Civil Judge,

OS.No.161 of 2025

Bhuvanagiri pattedars, raising crops whenever the season favours. The suit schedule properties are situated in one compact block within common boundaries.

4.While so, the defendants, who have no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule properties or their survey numbers, started interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs. It is stated that on 12.08.2025, the defendants illegally trespassed into the suit land and attempted to occupy the same, but the said act was resisted by the plaintiffs with the help of adjacent cultivators and well-wishers. Thereafter, the defendants again on 20.08.2025, with the support of antisocial elements, threatened the plaintiffs with dire consequences and attempted to dispossess them. The plaintiffs lodged a complaint before the SHO, Bommalaramaram, but no action was taken. Taking advantage of the same, the defendants continued to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs, and the police advised the plaintiffs to approach the

Court of law. It is further stated that the plaintiffs are law-abiding citizens, whereas the defendants are influential persons having money and muscle power and support of antisocial elements, as such the plaintiffs prayed for grant of perpetual injunction against the defendants. Hence, the present suit.

5.Summons were served to Defendant Nos.1 and 2 and they failed to appear before the Court nor filed vakalath on their behalf, as such the

Defendant Nos.1 and 2 were set exparte on 07.01.2026.

6.In order to prove the suit claim before this Court, Plaintiff No.2 was examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A12 on behalf of the

Date:25.03.2026

Page 4 of 7 Prl. Senior Civil Judge,

OS.No.161 of 2025

Bhuvanagiri plaintiffs, and thereafter reported no further evidence. Hence, the plaintiffs’ evidence was closed on 06.03.2026.

7.Heard the learned counsel for plaintiffs and perused the entire case record.

8.Now the point for consideration is:-

“Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief as prayed for, if

so, to what relief?

POINT :

9.To substantiate the case, the plaintiffs examined Plaintiff No.2 as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A12 in their favour. Ex.A1 is the C.C. of Pahani for the year 2010-2011. Ex.A2 is the computerized 1-B ROR dated 23.08.2025 pertaining to Plaintiff No.1. Ex.A3 is the specimen copy of new digital e- passbook dated 10.03.2018 relating to Plaintiff No.1. Ex.A4 is the latest Bhu

Bharathi Pahani of Plaintiff No.1. Ex.A5 is the old ROR pattedar passbook of

Plaintiff No.1. Ex.A6 is the new digital e-passbook dated 10.03.2018. Ex.A7 is the original registered sale deed bearing Document No.4126/2014, dated 16.06.2014 in favour of Plaintiff No.2. Ex.A8 is the computerized 1-B ROR dated 23.08.2025 pertaining to Plaintiff No.2. Ex.A9 is the specimen copy of new digital e-passbook dated 10.03.2018 relating to Plaintiff No.2. Ex.A10 is the latest Bhu Bharathi Pahani of Plaintiff No.2. Ex.A11 is the old ROR pattedar passbook of Plaintiff No.2. Ex.A12 is the statement of encumbrance dated 23.08.2025.

Date:25.03.2026

Page 5 of 7 Prl. Senior Civil Judge,

OS.No.161 of 2025

Bhuvanagiri

10.On going through the oral evidence of PW.1 coupled with the documentary evidence i.e., Exs.A1 to A12, it is evident that Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 pertain to Plaintiff No.1 and consist of pahani, 1-B ROR, old and new pattedar passbooks and Bhu Bharathi records, which clearly establish that the name of

Plaintiff No.1 is recorded in the revenue records as pattedar and possessor of the suit “A” schedule property. Ex.A7 is the registered sale deed dated 16.06.2014 standing in the name of Plaintiff No.2, which establishes his title over the suit “B” schedule property. Ex.A8 to Ex.A11 are the revenue records such as 1-B ROR, pattedar passbooks and Bhu Bharathi pahani pertaining to

Plaintiff No.2, which reflect his name as pattedar and possessor of the suit “B” schedule property. Ex.A12 is the encumbrance certificate, which discloses no adverse encumbrances over the suit properties. Thus, the documentary evidence placed on record clearly establishes the title and continuous possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule properties.

11.It is further evident from the material on record that the plaintiffs have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties.

The entries in the revenue records coupled with the oral testimony of PW.1 establish the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit lands. On the other hand, the defendants, though served with summons, failed to appear before the Court and were set ex parte, and did not choose to contest the claim of the plaintiffs.

Therefore, the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs remains unchallenged.

Date:25.03.2026

Page 6 of 7 Prl. Senior Civil Judge,

OS.No.161 of 2025

Bhuvanagiri

12.The plaintiffs have specifically pleaded that the defendants attempted to interfere with their peaceful possession over the suit schedule properties and tried to dispossess them. Though a police complaint was lodged, no action was taken, and the defendants continued their interference. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence from the defendants, the version of the plaintiffs regarding interference stands proved.

13.In a suit for perpetual injunction, the primary requirement is to establish lawful possession and interference. In the present case, the plaintiffs have successfully established their possession over the suit schedule properties through cogent oral and documentary evidence. They have also proved the interference of the defendants. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for.

14.In the result, the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed with costs, granting perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their henchmen, supporters, workmen or any other persons claiming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit “A” and “B” schedule properties.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 25th day of March, 2026.

Sd/-

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bhuvanagiri.

Date:25.03.2026

Page 7 of 7 Prl. Senior Civil Judge,

OS.No.161 of 2025

Bhuvanagiri

Appendix of Evidence

( Witness examined )

FOR PLAINTIFFS :

P.W.1: Gullani Ramesh

FOR DEFENDANTS :-NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS : Ex.A1C.C. of Pahani for the year 2010-2011 Ex.A2Computerized 1-B ROR dated 23.08.2025/Plaintiff No.1 Specimen copy of new digital e passbook dated 10.03.2018/Plaintiff Ex.A3 No.1 Ex.A4Latest Bhu Bharathi Pahani/Plaintiff No.1 Ex.A5Old ROR pattedar passbook/Plaintiff No.1 Ex.A6New digital e pass book dated 10.03.2018 Original Registered Sale Deed vide Doc.No.4126/2014, Ex.A7

dt:16.06.2014

Ex.A8Computerized 1-B ROR dated 23.08.2025/Plaintiff No.2 Specimen copy of new digital e passbook dated 10.03.2018/Plaintiff Ex.A9 No.2 Ex.A10Latest Bhu Bharathi Pahani/Plaintiff No.2 Ex.A11Old ROR pattedar passbook/Plaintiff No.2 Ex.A12Statement of Encumbrance, dt:23.08.2025

FOR DEFENDANTS : -NIL-

Sd/-

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bhuvanagiri.

Date:25.03.2026

H.M.O.P/38/2024

N.Ravinder vs N.BHavanishree

20 Mar 2025

Page 1 of 6 Senior Civil Judge, New HMOP.No.38 of 2024 (Old HMOP.No.63 of 2024) Ramannapet

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

AT :: RAMANNAPET

Present: Smt M.USHASHREE,

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir

FAC Senior Civil Judge, Ramannapet.

Thursday, this the 20th day of March, 2025

New HMOP.No. 38 of 2024

(Old HMOP.No.63 of 2024)

Between:-

Nerlakanti Ravinder, S/o.Late Rama Laxmaiah, aged about 37 years, Occ:Private Employee, R/o.Neernemula Village, Ramannapet Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District.

...Petitioner No.1

A N D

Nerlakanti @ Vemula Bhavani Sree, W/o.Nerlakanti Ravinder, D/o.Vemula Chenchaiah, aged about 27 years, Occ:Pvt. Employee, R/o.Flat No.307, 3rd Floor, VR Vatika Apartment, Pettanahalli Gate, Near Petrol Bunk, Hosakote, Bangalore Rural, Karnataka State.

...Petitioner No.2

This petition coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri Matta Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel for petitioner Nos.1 and 2, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

:O R D E R :

This petition is filed by the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking the court to dissolve their marriage,

dt:06.04.2017 on mutual consent.

2.It is stated by the petitioners that they are legally wedded husband and wife and their marriage was performed on 06.04.2017 at Sri Lakshmi Narsimha

Date:20.03.2025.

Page 2 of 6 Senior Civil Judge, New HMOP.No.38 of 2024 (Old HMOP.No.63 of 2024) Ramannapet

Swamy Devasthanams, Yadagirigutta Town, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District as per

Hindu rites and customs. The said marriage has been consummated and out of their wedlock, no issues were born to them. Both the petitioners lead their marital life with each other only for a period of three months. Thereafter, some misunderstandings arose in between the petitioner Nos.1 & 2 and they do not want to continue their marital life. Further due to the disputes between the parties they are unable to live together and there is no chance to live together and no possibility of any reconciliation for their reunion. The petitioner No.2 left the society of the petitioner No.1 on 22.07.2017 and thereafter she did not turn up to join the company of the petitioner No.2. Several panchayats were held, but the efforts of the elders went futile in bringing reconciliation in between the parties. As such, the petitioners agreed to take divorce on mutual consent and requested the court to dissolve their marriage by passing decree of divorce. So that they can lead their lives independently and happily and remarry if they so desire.

3.That the petitioners are living separately and it is also settled by the elders that whatever Streedhan amounts etc., presented by the parents of the petitioner No.2 shall be returned by the petitioner No.1, as such both the parties have received their belongings which were presented at the time of their marriage from each other. Further, the petitioner No.1 agreed and paid an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- to the petitioner No.2 towards the permanent alimony and future maintenance under full and final settlement and the petitioner No.2

Date:20.03.2025.

Page 3 of 6 Senior Civil Judge, New HMOP.No.38 of 2024 (Old HMOP.No.63 of 2024) Ramannapet received the said amount and issued a separate receipt. The petitioner No.2 shall not claim any other permanent alimony or future maintenance from petitioner No.1, as both parties have voluntarily obtained a decree of divorce.

Further, the petitioner No.2 agreed that she will withdraw the Criminal case vide

C.C.No.440/2019 on the file of Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhongir for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and Secs.3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act against the petitioner No.1. Furthermore, petitioner No.2 has agreed to withdraw any cases filed against petitioner No.1 and his family members and shall not initiate any future claims or maintenance proceedings against him. If any such cases are pending, petitioner No.2 has agreed to withdraw them.

Hence, the petition.

4.The petitioner No.1 present and examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 in his favour. Ex.P1 is Wedding card, dt:06.04.2017 shows that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 got married on 06.04.2017.

5.The petitioner No.2 examined herself as PW.2.

6.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the entire case record.

7.Now the point for consideration is:-

“Whether the marriage in between the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2,

dated 06.04.2017 can be dissolved by passing the mutual

consent divorce decree as prayed for?”

Date:20.03.2025.

Page 4 of 6 Senior Civil Judge, New HMOP.No.38 of 2024 (Old HMOP.No.63 of 2024) Ramannapet

POINT :

8.Basing on the contents of the petition, chief affidavits and documents, it is proved that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 got married on 06.04.2017 as per

Hindu rites and customs. Hence, as per Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 follows:-

Divorce by mutual consent:- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce may be presented to the district court by both the parties to a marriage together, whether such marriage was solemnized before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (68 of 1976), on the ground that they have been living separately for a period of one year or more, that they have not been able to live together and that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved.

(2) On the motion of both the parties made not earlier than six months after the date of the presentation of the petition referred to in sub-section (1) and not later than eighteen months after the said date, if the petition is not withdrawn in the meantime, the court shall, on being satisfied, after hearing the parties and after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, that a marriage has been solemnized and that the averments in the petition are true, pass a decree of divorce declaring the marriage to be dissolved with effect from the date of the decree.

9. As per the petition affidavit, after the marriage, both the petitioners

Nos.1 and 2 lived together only for a period of three months and thereafter, some misunderstandings arose in between the petitioner Nos.1 and 2, as such the petitioner No.2 left the conjugal society of the petitioner No.1 on 22.07.2017. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have stated that they are unable to live together and there is no no possibility of reconciliation for their reunion.

The case was registered and 6 months’ time was given to both the parties as a

Date:20.03.2025.

Page 5 of 6 Senior Civil Judge, New HMOP.No.38 of 2024 (Old HMOP.No.63 of 2024) Ramannapet statutory period for reconciliation between the parties, but after 6 months of statutory period, the parties have appeared before the court and have stated that they are not willing to withdraw the petition and also they have no chances for reunion.Several panchayaths were also held and the elders of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 tried to resolve their disputes in between the parties, but their efforts went futile.

10.Now, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 both have filed this petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking the court to grant divorce on mutual consent. Hence, all the ingredients necessary under Section 13-B have been proved and the point is answered accordingly in favour of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2.

11.In the result, the petition of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 is allowed and the marriage in between the petitioner Nos.1 and 2, dated 06.04.2017 is dissolved by granting divorce under mutual consent from the date of this order.

Accordingly, the decree of divorce on mutual consent is passed.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court, on this the 20th day of March, 2025.

FAC Senior Civil Judge, Ramannapet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

( WITNESS EXAMINED )

FOR THE PETITIONERS:

P.W.1: Nerlakanti Ravinder

P.W.2: Nerlakanti @ Vemula Bhavani Sree

Date:20.03.2025.

Page 6 of 6 Senior Civil Judge, New HMOP.No.38 of 2024 (Old HMOP.No.63 of 2024) Ramannapet

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PETITIONERS:

Ex.P1: Wedding card, dated 06.04.2017

FAC Senior Civil Judge, Ramannapet.

Date:20.03.2025.

H.M.O.P/94/2025

Mangalapally Ramya alias Kokkula Sowjanya vs Kokkula Prashanth

24 Mar 2026

Page 1 of 5 Prl. Senior Civil Judge,

HMOP.No.94 of 2025

Bhuvanagiri

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

AT :: BHUVANAGIRI

Present: Smt M.USHASHREE,

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Bhuvanagiri.

Tuesday, this the 24th day of March, 2026

HMOP.No.94 of 2025

Between:- Mangalapally Ramya @ Kokkula Sowjanya, W/o.Kokkula Prashanth, D/o.Mangalapaly Buchi Ramulu, aged about 27 years, Occ:Household, R/o.Brahmanpally Village, Bibinagar Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District.

...Petitioner No.1

A N D

Kokkula Prashanth, S/o.Late Nagaiah, aged about 33 years, Occ: R/o.11-6- 400/5/15/B, Cherukuthota Colony, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District.

...Petitioner No.2

This petition coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of

Sri Jella Ramesh, learned counsel for petitioner Nos.1 and 2, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following order:

:O R D E R :

This petition is filed by the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking the court to dissolve their marriage,

dt:04.01.2024 on mutual consent.

2.It is stated by the petitioners that they are legally wedded wife and husband and their marriage was performed on 04.01.2024 at Santhosh Function

Hall, old Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Yadagirigutta Town, Yadadri-

Bhuvanagiri District as per Hindu rites and customs prevailed in their community.

Date:24.03.2026.

Page 2 of 5 Prl. Senior Civil Judge,

HMOP.No.94 of 2025

Bhuvanagiri

The said marriage has been consummated and out of their wedlock, no issues were born to them. After the marriage, the petitioner No.1 lived with the petitioner No.2 and lead marital life only for a period of two months. Thereafter, some misunderstandings arose in between the petitioner Nos.1 & 2 and they do not want to continue their marital life and stated that they are unable to live together and there is no possibility of any reconciliation for their re-union in between them. Thus, the petitioner No.1 left the conjugal society of the petitioner No.2 in the month of April, 2024 i.e., 24.04.2024 and thereafter she did not turn up to join the company of the petitioner No.2. Several panchayaths were held and all the efforts made by the elders and parents of both sides were turned futile and the petitioners expressed their inability to lead marital life in future, as such the petitioners have decided to take divorce on mutual consent and requested the court to dissolve their marriage by passing decree of divorce.

So that they can lead their lives independently and happily and remarry if they so desire.

3.Further, the petitioner No.2 agreed to pay an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to the petitioner No.1 towards her permanent alimony and future maintenance at the time of granting decree of divorce and the petitioner No.1 agreed for the same and also stated that she will not file any claim or maintenance case against the petitioner No.2 in any Court of law. That the petitioners are living separately and it is also settled by the elders that whatever Streedhan amounts were presented at the time of their marriage were returned by both the parties vice versa. Hence, the petition.

Date:24.03.2026.

Page 3 of 5 Prl. Senior Civil Judge,

HMOP.No.94 of 2025

Bhuvanagiri

4.The petitioner Nos.1 & 2 present and examined themselves as PWs.1 & 2 and got marked Exs.P1 & P2 in favour of petitioner No.1. Ex.P1 is Wedding

Card, dt:04.01.2024 shows that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 got married on 04.01.2024. Ex.P2 is the Marriage photograph of the petitioner Nos.1 & 2.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the entire case record.

6.Now the point for consideration is:-

“Whether the marriage in between the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2,

dated 04.01.2024 can be dissolved by passing the mutual

consent divorce decree as prayed for?”

POINT :

7.Basing on the contents of the petition, chief affidavits and documents, it is proved that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 got married on 04.01.2024 as per

Hindu rites and customs. Hence, as per Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 follows:-

Date:24.03.2026.

Page 4 of 5 Prl. Senior Civil Judge,

HMOP.No.94 of 2025

Bhuvanagiri hearing the parties and after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, that a marriage has been solemnized and that the averments in the petition are true, pass a decree of divorce declaring the marriage to be dissolved with effect from the date of the decree.

8.As per the petition averments and the evidence, after the marriage, the petitioner No.1 lived with petitioner No.2 and lead marital life only for a period of two moths. Thereafter, some misunderstandings and disputes arose in between them, and the petitioner No.1 left the company of petitioner No.2 on 24.04.2024 and has been residing at her parents’ house. Several efforts were made by elders of both sides to reunite them, including conducting panchayaths, but all efforts failed, and there is no possibility of reunion. Both the petitioners have been living separately since 24.04.2024, and there is no chance of their reunion in future. Both have mutually agreed to dissolve their marriage by way of divorce on mutual consent under Section 13-B of Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955, and petitioner No.2 has agreed to pay Rs.2,50,000/- towards permanent alimony to petitioner No.1 at the time of granting the decree of divorce. The case was registered and 6 months’ time was given to both the parties as a statutory period for reconciliation between the parties, but after 6 months of statutory period, the parties have appeared before the court and have stated that they are not willing to withdraw the petition and also they have no chances for reunion.

9.Now, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 both have filed this petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking the court to grant divorce on mutual consent. Hence, all the ingredients necessary under Section 13-B have been

Date:24.03.2026.

Page 5 of 5 Prl. Senior Civil Judge,

HMOP.No.94 of 2025

Bhuvanagiri proved and the point is answered accordingly in favour of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2.

10.In the result, the petition of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 is allowed and the marriage in between the petitioner Nos.1 and 2, dated 04.01.2024 is dissolved by granting divorce under mutual consent from the date of this order.

Accordingly, the decree of divorce on mutual consent is passed.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 24th day of March, 2026.

Sd/-

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bhuvanagiri.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

( WITNESS EXAMINED )

FOR THE PETITIONERS:

P.W.1: Mangalapally Ramya @ Kokkula Sowjanya

P.W.2: Kokkula Prashanth

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PETITIONERS:

Ex.P1: Wedding Card, dt:04.01.2024 Ex.P2: Joint photograph of the petitioners

Sd/-

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bhuvanagiri.

Date:24.03.2026.

H.M.O.P/116/2025

Macha Alias Sudhagani Sahithi vs Macha Naresh Goud

30 Mar 2026

Page 1 of 5 Prl. Senior Civil Judge,

HMOP.No.116 of 2025

Bhuvanagiri

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

AT :: BHUVANAGIRI

Present: Smt M.USHASHREE,

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Bhuvanagiri.

Monday, this the 30th day of March, 2026

HMOP.No.116 of 2025

Between:-

Macha @ Sudhagani Sahithi, W/o.Macha Naresh Goud, D/o.Sudhagani Ayyam, aged 23 years, Occ:Household, R/o.H.No.4-105/6, Plot No.135, Laxmi Nagar Colony, near water Tank, Ahmadguda, Cheriyal Village, Keesara Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District. Presently residing at H.No.3-79, Patha Gundlapally Village, Yadagirigutta Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District.

...Petitioner No.1

A N D

Macha Naresh Goud, S/o.Krishna Goud, aged 33 years, Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.4-105/6, Plot No.135. Laxmi Nagar Colony, near water Tank, Ahmadguda, Cheriyal Village, Keesara Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District

...Petitioner No.2

This petition coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri J.Ravindar, learned counsel for petitioner Nos.1 and 2, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

:O R D E R :

This petition is filed by the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking the court to dissolve their marriage,

dt:22.08.2024 on mutual consent.

2.It is stated by the petitioners that they are legally wedded wife and husband and their marriage was performed on 22.08.2024 at Vijaya Laxmi

Date:30.03.2026.

Page 2 of 5 Prl. Senior Civil Judge,

HMOP.No.116 of 2025

Bhuvanagiri (Bharath) Function Hall, Gangasanipally Road, Yadagirigutta Town and Mandal,

Yadadri-Bhongir District as per Hindu rites and customs prevailed in their community. The said marriage is arranged marriage has been consummated and out of their wedlock, no issues were born to them. After the marriage, the petitioner No.1 joined the Petitioner No.2 and lived happily for a period of ten days only. Thereafter, some misunderstandings arose in between the petitioner

Nos.1 & 2 and they do not want to continue their marital life and stated that they are unable to live together and there is no possibility of any reconciliation for their re-union in between them. Thus, the petitioner No.1 left the conjugal society of the petitioner No.2 on 02.09.2024.

3.The matter was placed before the parents of the petitioners and elders of both the parties and the elders also tried to set right things and to see that the married life of both of them is unbroken, but the petitioners did not heed to the advice of the elders and there is no scope of their reunion. All the efforts made by the elders and parents of both sides were turned futile and the petitioners expressed their inability to lead marital life in future as wife and husband, as such the elders advised the petitioners to take divorce by approaching the Court on mutual consent and requested the court to dissolve their marriage by passing decree of divorce. So that they can lead their lives independently and happily and remarry if they so desire. Hence, the petition. Hence, the petition.

4.The petitioner Nos.1 & 2 present and examined themselves as PWs.1 & 2 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2 in favour of Petitioner No.1. Ex.P1 is Wedding

Date:30.03.2026.

Page 3 of 5 Prl. Senior Civil Judge,

HMOP.No.116 of 2025

Bhuvanagiri

Card, dt:22.08.2024 shows that the marriage of the petitioners was performed on 22.08.2024. Ex.P2 is the Marriage photograph of petitioner Nos.1 and 2.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the entire case record.

6.Now the point for consideration is:-

“Whether the marriage in between the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2,

dated 22.08.2024 can be dissolved by passing the mutual

consent divorce decree as prayed for?”

POINT :

7.Basing on the contents of the petition, chief affidavits and documents, it is proved that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 got married on 22.08.2024 as per

Hindu rites and customs. Hence, as per Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 follows:-

Date:30.03.2026.

Page 4 of 5 Prl. Senior Civil Judge,

HMOP.No.116 of 2025

Bhuvanagiri

8.As per the petition affidavit, after the marriage, the petitioner No.1 joined the petitioner No.2 at his matrimonial home and they lived together as wife and husband for a period of ten days only and thereafter, some disputes and misunderstandings arose in between the petitioner Nos.1 and 2, as such the petitioner No.1 left the conjugal society of the petitioner No.2 on 02.09.2024. Both the petitioners have stated that there is no chance to live together and no possibility of reconciliation for their reunion. Several panchayaths were also held and the elders of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 tried to resolve their disputes in between the parties, but their efforts went futile.

Both the petitioners have stated that there is no chance to live together and no possibility of reconciliation for their reunion. The case was registered and 6 months’ time was given to both the parties as a statutory period for reconciliation between them, but after 6 months of statutory period, the parties have appeared before the court and have stated that they are not willing to withdraw the petition and also they have no chances for reunion as well.

10.In the result, the petition of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 is allowed and the marriage in between the petitioner Nos.1 and 2, dated 22.08.2024 is dissolved

Date:30.03.2026.

Page 5 of 5 Prl. Senior Civil Judge,

HMOP.No.116 of 2025

Bhuvanagiri by granting divorce under mutual consent from the date of this order.

Accordingly, the decree of divorce on mutual consent is passed.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 30th day of March, 2026.

Sd/-

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bhuvanagiri.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

( WITNESS EXAMINED )

FOR THE PETITIONERS:

P.W.1: Macha @ Sudhagani Sahithi

P.W.2: Macha Naresh Goud

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PETITIONERS:

Ex.P1: Original Wedding Card, dt:22.08.2024

Ex.P2: Marriage photograph

Sd/-

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bhuvanagiri.

Date:30.03.2026.

Order Record 312 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
H.M.O.P/79/2025	Ponniboyina Nirmala Alias Sandla Nirmala vs Sandla Mahesh	06 Apr 2026	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/116/2025	Macha Alias Sudhagani Sahithi vs Macha Naresh Goud	30 Mar 2026	Petition is allowed	—
OS/161/2025	Gullani Sukkamma vs Jupally Chandra Mouli	25 Mar 2026	Decreed with Costs	—
H.M.O.P/95/2021	Niligonda Raju vs Niligonda @ Bandarapu Indira	25 Mar 2026	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/94/2025	Mangalapally Ramya alias Kokkula Sowjanya vs Kokkula Prashanth	24 Mar 2026	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/111/2025	Kontham alias Kotagiri Bhavana vs Vs	18 Mar 2026	Petition is allowed	—
OS/406/2024	Aluri Vijaya Bhaskar vs Y.Shekhar Chowdary	17 Mar 2026	Dismissed	—
SC/101/2019	SHO PS Bhongir Town vs Kadamanchi Bala Prabhu	17 Mar 2026	Acquitted	—
H.M.O.P/176/2024	Chindam Venkatesham vs Badugu Keerthi alias Pranathi	17 Mar 2026	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/148/2025	Gangireddy Ram Chandra Reddy vs Gongireddy aliyas Marri Mounika	11 Mar 2026	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/136/2025	Vadlaonda alias Sangem Sravani vs Vadlakonda Srikanth	05 Mar 2026	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/126/2025	P Swapna alias Jahnavi vs Mallameni Jagadish	03 Mar 2026	Petition is allowed	—
OS/132/2025	M s Five Star Business Finance Ltd Bhongir Branch rep by Arjun Bangaru vs Vanaganti Vamshi	02 Mar 2026	Decreed with Costs	—
OS/137/2016	Y DHANAMMA vs Y UMA RANI	27 Feb 2026	Decreed as prayed for	—
H.M.O.P/118/2025	Gande Santhosh vs Vs	27 Feb 2026	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/100/2025	Yelaga Anvesh vs Smt Pasham Sneha	25 Feb 2026	Petition is allowed	—
OS/183/2025	Balda Krishna vs The Tahsildar	24 Feb 2026	Decreed	—
H.M.O.P/91/2025	Mote alias Regu Jhansi vs Mote Upender	24 Feb 2026	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/103/2025	Chintapandu Alias Baggi Nageshwari vs Chinthapandu Chakradhar	24 Feb 2026	Petition is allowed	—
OS/81/2025	ETTABOINA VIJAYALAXMI vs BUNGAPATLA RAJYALAXMI	20 Feb 2026	Partly Decreed	—
OS/112/2024	SBI Bhongir old bus stand branch rep by N.Ashok Sai vs Vallapudasu Hanookraju	20 Feb 2026	Decreed with Costs	—
H.M.O.P/102/2025	Palvai Alias Alwala Poojitha vs Palvai Sreekanth	20 Feb 2026	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/114/2025	CHEDADEEPU Alias SAMALA RAMYA vs Chedadeepu Mohan	20 Feb 2026	Petition is allowed	—
OS/57/2014	C RAJU BOIES ADAMS vs W S MAHESH KUMAR	19 Feb 2026	Decreed with Costs	—
H.M.O.P/113/2025	Gundlapally Mahesh vs Gundlapally alias Kanugu Gangothri	19 Feb 2026	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/32/2025	Boga Navaneetha alias Boda Rani vs Boga Laxman	17 Feb 2026	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/93/2025	Jogu alias Karre Baitha vs Jogu Raju	17 Feb 2026	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/18/2025	Sudagoni alias Kola Maheswari vs Sudagani Ramesh Goud	13 Feb 2026	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/87/2025	Chandragiri Bharath Kumar vs Chandragiri alias Devarakonda Shravani	13 Feb 2026	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/85/2025	Doosari Suresh vs Doosari lavanya alias Pujari Varalaxmi	10 Feb 2026	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/101/2025	Thotakuri Deepika vs Vallala Karthik Yadav	10 Feb 2026	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/59/2025	KANDADI Alias KANDAKATLA KAVYA Alias KAVYASRI vs Kandakatla Mahesh Reddy	09 Feb 2026	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/88/2025	Etikala alias Erapaka Laxmi vs Erapaka Srinivas	09 Feb 2026	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/108/2025	Buduma Raju vs Baira Kalyani	09 Feb 2026	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/74/2025	Surgu Alias Survi Alias Matta Sandhya vs Surgu alias Suvi Linga Swamy alias Linga Swamy Goud	05 Feb 2026	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/82/2025	Palugula Alias Gajula Nikhitha vs Palugula Raju	05 Feb 2026	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/105/2025	kuthadi alias rasthapuram anusha vs Rasthapuram Kumar	05 Feb 2026	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/58/2025	GOTTEMUKKULA NAVEEN CHARY vs GOTTEMUKKULA alias PAMULAPARTHI SWATHI	29 Jan 2026	Petition is allowed	—
OS/128/2017	CANARA BANK REP BY ITS MANAGER vs R SRISAILAM	28 Jan 2026	Decreed with Costs	—
H.M.O.P/70/2025	Durgam Paramesh vs Durgam alias Kadari Sandhya	28 Jan 2026	Petition is allowed	—
S.O.P/1/2025	Nuchhu Mani Teja vs The Chairman, the Nalgonnda, Ragareddy Milk Producers	28 Jan 2026	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/92/2025	Bollam Karunakar vs Bollam alias Kondagalla Gnana Saraswathi	23 Jan 2026	Petition is allowed	—
OS/172/2025	Syed Vaseem vs Nagulapalli Archana	21 Jan 2026	Decreed	—
OP/69/2017	T SUDHAKAR vs T SRILATHA	19 Jan 2026	Petition is dismissed	—
OS/32/2014	Som Ramchander @ Soma Ramchandram vs M/s Kanthammas Sumathi Traders, Rep. by Partners	19 Jan 2026	Decreed with Costs	—
OS/138/2024	Nallamasu Andalu vs The Commissioner	06 Jan 2026	Decreed	—
H.M.O.P/41/2024	Darshanam Sreeja (Swathi) vs Darshanam Praveen Kumar	06 Jan 2026	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/179/2024	A.Raju vs A.Srilatha	06 Jan 2026	Petition is allowed	—
OS/44/2025	Ravi. Narsimha Reddy vs Ravi Prabhakar reddy	29 Dec 2025	Decreed with Costs	—
H.M.O.P/53/2025	SIDDENKI SURESH vs SIDDENKI alias BOGARAM SHILPA	29 Dec 2025	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/63/2025	JITTA Alias NAKKA SUMATHA vs Jitta Ramesh	29 Dec 2025	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/67/2025	Gorla Alias Jeeripothula Narmadha vs Gorla Naresh	29 Dec 2025	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/76/2025	Poosa Srinivas vs Poosa Swetha alias Kadaboina Bhargavi	29 Dec 2025	Petition is allowed	—
SC/452/2022	RPS Nalgonda vs Abdula Gaffar	23 Dec 2025	Acquitted	—
H.M.O.P/35/2025	Jeedimatla Ganesh Reddy vs Jeedimatla Ankitha	23 Dec 2025	Petition is allowed	—
OS/390/2024	S.K.Sajeed vs S.K.Gore Miya and 2 others	22 Dec 2025	Dismissed	—
OS/187/2024	Rasala Mallaiah vs Pulimamidi Janardhan Reddy and another	18 Dec 2025	Dismissed for Default	—
OS/193/2024	Bollepally Madhusudhan Reddy vs Sri Sai Vani Ventures Real Estates	17 Dec 2025	Decreed with Costs	—
OS/271/2024	Voriganti Surya rep. by his GPA holder Voriganti Madhusudan vs Shaik Yakub and 5 others	10 Dec 2025	Decreed with Costs	—
SC/272/2021	SHO BIBINAGAR vs Soma Ramakrishna @ Ramu Shetu	08 Dec 2025	Acquitted	—
SC/308/2015	S.H.O Bibnagar vs Syed Maqbool Hussain Jaffery	08 Dec 2025	Acquitted	—
EP/29/2016	Sri Sai Prabha Enterprises,GunjBhongir vs N.Goplam	03 Dec 2025	Dismissed	—
SC/2/2023	Stat of Telangana SHO Bhongir Town vs Maccha Mamatha	03 Dec 2025	Acquitted	—
H.M.O.P/65/2025	Kuthadi Alias Veligi Kavya Sri vs Kuthadi Bharath	03 Dec 2025	Petition is allowed	—
OS/168/2016	CH RAMULAMMA vs T DHANAMMA AND OTHERS	02 Dec 2025	Dismissed	—
OS/289/2024	Madhugoni Venkatesham vs Pittala Satyanarayana alias Sathaiah	02 Dec 2025	Dismissed	—
H.M.O.P/17/2025	Rangolla alias Nallavelli Shravani vs Nallavelli Srikanth	02 Dec 2025	Petition is allowed	—
SC/188/2020	Jupalli Yadagiri vs Gandla Srinu and Others	27 Nov 2025	Acquitted	—
OS/125/2017	CANARA BANK, G RAGURAM vs N CHANDRAIAH	26 Nov 2025	Decreed with Costs	—
OS/82/2016	G GOVARDHANA CHARY vs D JANGAIAH	24 Nov 2025	Decreed with Costs	—
OS/288/2019	S.V Rupendranath and others vs Y.Goverdana and others	24 Nov 2025	Dismissed	—
OS/26/2025	Gullapelly Bharathamma vs To whomsoever it may concern	21 Nov 2025	Decreed	—
H.M.O.P/60/2025	Bandari Alias Nandigama Shivaleela vs Bandari Venkat Reddy	20 Nov 2025	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/102/2023	Aelgala Ravinder vs Dachepally Nishitha	20 Nov 2025	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/37/2025	Malloju Ramya alias Chennoju Shanvi vs Malloju Phanidhar	19 Nov 2025	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/109/2025	BABBURI VIMALA vs BELLAM KONDA KRANTHI Goud	19 Nov 2025	Petition is allowed	—
OS/102/2015	RAHEEMUNNISA BEGUM AND OTHERS vs MD GAFFAR AND OTHERS	18 Nov 2025	Decreed	—
OS/355/2024	Yerrabothu Anjaneyulu vs Poddaturi Venkatesh and 2 others	12 Nov 2025	Decreed with Costs	—
H.M.O.P/51/2025	Korni Alias Binduri Mamatha vs Korni Suresh	04 Nov 2025	Petition is allowed	—
SC/190/2020	SHO BIBINAGAR vs Mekala Naveen Kumar and Another	31 Oct 2025	Acquitted	—
H.M.O.P/22/2025	Inti alias Pallerla Jyothi vs Inti Gangaraju	31 Oct 2025	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/45/2025	Thota Soujanya vs Y.Sampath ALIAS Yelipeddi Sampath Reddy	31 Oct 2025	Petition is allowed	—
OS/31/2017	K ANJI REDDY vs A SARALA	28 Oct 2025	Decreed with Costs	—
H.M.O.P/47/2025	BADDAM VIDYA SAGAR REDDY vs Baddam alias Kommidi Soni	28 Oct 2025	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/48/2025	Kontham Prudhvraj vs Kontham alias Ranga Sowmya	28 Oct 2025	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/26/2025	B.Ramya vs B.Mahesh	24 Oct 2025	Petition is allowed	—
OS/135/2022	Ramidi Damodar Reddy vs The Tahsildar	22 Oct 2025	Decreed	—
H.M.O.P/133/2024	Kakalla @ Doke Parijatha vs Kakalla Vinod	22 Oct 2025	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/38/2025	Veeravelli alias Panthangi Sony vs Veeravelli Shyamsundar	14 Oct 2025	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/43/2025	Punna ALIAS Pendem Mounika vs Punna Santhosh Babu	14 Oct 2025	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/37/2023	Meesa Nagaraju vs Meesa Himaja @ Bandari Sandhya	13 Oct 2025	Petition is allowed	—
OS/25/2025	Gummula Mallesh vs Thaduri Mallesh	08 Oct 2025	Decreed with Costs	—
H.M.O.P/61/2024	Thaviti Divyasri vs Gilakathula Pavan Kalyan	08 Oct 2025	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/182/2024	Palugula alias Borra Mamatha vs Palugula Srinivas	08 Oct 2025	Petition is allowed	—
OS/102/2009	P MADAVAREDDY vs CH HARINATH REDDY	07 Oct 2025	Dismissed	—
OS/211/2008	Muthyala Ramchandra Prasad vs Muthyala Veera Raghava Prasad	07 Oct 2025	Dismissed	—
SC/169/2020	Doddi Kavitha vs Doddi Jyothi	06 Oct 2025	Acquitted	—
SC/56/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Jupelli Mallesh @ Mallesham	29 Sep 2025	Convicted	—
H.M.O.P/81/2025	Putta Alias Vallala Kalyani vs Putta Vamshi	29 Sep 2025	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/3/2025	Bandi Aravind vs Bandi alias Dusari Vani	26 Sep 2025	Petition is allowed	—

Showing 100 of 312 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2026		1
Mar 2026		12
Feb 2026		24
Jan 2026		11
Dec 2025		19
Nov 2025		12
Oct 2025		19
Sep 2025		4
Aug 2025		26
Jul 2025		22
Jun 2025		50
May 2025		12

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt. M.Ushashree handled?

Smt. M.Ushashree has handled 337 court orders since 2024 at Yadadri Bhuvanagiri, PDJ Cout Complex. The average disposal rate is 17 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt. M.Ushashree hear?

Based on available records, Smt. M.Ushashree primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Sessions Cases, SCC) at Yadadri Bhuvanagiri, PDJ Cout Complex.

Where is Smt. M.Ushashree currently posted?

Smt. M.Ushashree is posted as Addl Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir at Yadadri Bhuvanagiri, PDJ Cout Complex, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri, Telangana.

Are judgments by Smt. M.Ushashree available online?

Yes. 10 judgments by Smt. M.Ushashree are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt. M.Ushashree dispose cases?

Smt. M.Ushashree disposes approximately 17 cases per month, based on 337 orders handled over their tenure at Yadadri Bhuvanagiri, PDJ Cout Complex.

Since when is Smt. M.Ushashree serving?

Smt. M.Ushashree has been serving at Yadadri Bhuvanagiri, PDJ Cout Complex since 2024. and is currently posted there.

Case Types

H 47%

OS 34%

SC 16%

S 2%

EP 1%

SCC 0%

OP 0%

Posting History

Apr 2026 — Present

Addl Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir
Oct 2024 — Present

Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir · 303 orders
Oct 2024 — Apr 2025

Senior Civil Judge · 34 orders

Outcomes on Record

Compromised 1

Other Judges at this Court

Smt. Gedam Swathi

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Bhongir

82 orders

Mr. Shaik Arif

Addl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir

0 orders

Sri A Jaya Raju

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhongir

421 orders

Sri. Milind Kamble

Fast Track Special Court for Trial of Rape and POC...

41 orders

Smt. P.Mukthida

I Additional District and Sessions Court, Bhongir

301 orders

← View all judges at Yadadri Bhuvanagiri, PDJ Cout Complex