sri.M.V.S.Prabhakar

senior civil judge cum Asst.Sessions judge

Court of Prl. Junior Civil Judge,, Kothapet (Taluka) · East Godavari · Andhra Pradesh

sri.M.V.S.Prabhakar, senior civil judge cum Asst.Sessions judge, is posted at Court of Prl. Junior Civil Judge,, Kothapet (Taluka), East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh, India. 50 court orders on record since 2021. 10 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles H, OP, OS cases.

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

H.M.O.P/96/2020

Nadimpalli Venkata Satyanarayana Raju vs Vsnil

16 Apr 2021

1

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: AMALAPURAM

Present: Sri M.V.S.Prabhakar,

Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram

Friday the 16th day of April, 2021

H.M.O.P.No.96/2020

Between:

1) Nadimpalli Venkata Satyanarayana Raju, son of Rajam Raju, Aged 50 years, Hindu, Coolie, R/o.D.No.5-157, Rajupalem, H/o. Mummidivaram.

2)Smt.Nadimpalli Kalyani, w/o.Venkata Satyanarayana Raju, Aged 36 years, Hindu, House Wife, D/o.Pinnamaraju Chiranjeevi Raju, C/o.Kotari Nani, side of

Canal, Jangamvari Street, Muramalla, I.Polavaram Mandal. ... Petitioners

And

Nil… Respondent This petition is coming on 15.04.2021 for final hearing before me, in the presence of Sri N.Satyanarayana Raju, K.Tatam Raju and P.V.Ramana Murthy, Advocates for petitioners and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed by the petitioners 1 and 2, who are husband and wife respectively for dissolution of their marriage by granting a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act.

2.The very brief facts of the petition in a nutshell are that the marriage between the 1st petitioner and 2nd petitioner was performed on 22.03.2008 at Sri

Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Amalapuram as per Hindu Rites and Caste

Customs. At the time of marriage, the petitioner is divorcee and 2nd petitioner is widow. One Chiluvuri Veera Venkata Satya Siva Rama Krishnam Raju of

Pothukurru village is mediator for the marriage and at the time of marriage it is learnt that the son of 2nd petitioner was in the custody of her parents. After the marriage, it was consummated and thereafter differences arose between the petitioners and they are residing separately since two years. The mediation made by elders for reunion of couple went in vain since their ideology is different. The 1st petitioner paid Rs.2,00,000/- and also agreed to pay Rs.4,00,000/- through cheque bearing No.237356, dated 22.10.2020 of State Bank of India,

2

Mummidivaram branch towards permanent alimony of 2nd petitioner and the said amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to be paid to the 2nd petitioner at the time of final hearing. Hence, the petitioners filed the petition for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent.

3.The petition is presented on 20.11.2020. On 15.04.2021 they have filed

I.A.No.187/2021 to waive the waiting period of six months by stating that the petitioners are residing separately for last two years and their marriage was irretrievably broken down and there is no chance for reunion. Further, the waiting period will remain only agony in their minds and on the other hand the marriage of 2nd petitioner is fixed in the month of May, 2021. Upon hearing both the petitioners and also upon hearing the submissions made by their counsel, this court has allowed the said petition by exercising its discretion by following the observations made in the decision between “Amardeep Singh And Harveen Kaur reported in 2017(5) ALT 23 of Hon’ble Apex Court. Further the reconciliation efforts made by this court have also failed.

4.During the course of enquiry, chief affidavits of petitioners are filed before the court stating that they have not withdrawn their consent and they are examined themselves as P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P.1 through P.W.1.

5.Heard the counsel for the petitioners.

6. Now the point for determination is: Whether the petitioners are entitled for dissolution of their marriage by decree of divorce by mutual consent?

7.Point: As per the contents in the petition and the affidavits of P.Ws.1 and 2, the marriage of petitioners took place on 22.03.2008 at Sri Venkateswara Swamy

Temple, Amalapuram as per Hindu Rites and Caste Customs and the marriage was consummated. By the time of marriage, the 1st petitioner is divorcee and 2nd petitioner is widow. At the time of marriage, the 2nd petitioner has got one son and they are in the custody of her parents. After marriage differences cropped up between the petitioners and they are residing separately for the last two years and they are unable to live together and they have mutually agreed that the

3

marriage should be dissolved. The petitioners were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2.

They have categorically stated about the contents in the petition. Through P.W.1

Ex.P.1 is marked, which is marriage certificate issued by the Executive Officer, Sri

Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Amalapuram from which the marriage of the petitioners was established. The 2nd petitioner has categorically stated that earlier she has received Rs.2,00,000/- and she received cheque bearing No.237356 of

State Bank of India, Mummidivaram Branch for Rs.4,00,000/- towards her permanent alimony from 1st petitioner. It seems that both the petitioners have genuinely settled all their differences including the maintenance.

8.Upon considering the entire material on record, this court has satisfied that the averments in the petition are true and they were proved. As already discussed as there is no possibility for reunion of the couple, this court is inclined to allow the petition since agony will remain if the petition is not allowed.

9.In the result, the petition is allowed and the marriage between the petitioners 1 and 2 held on 22.03.2008 is dissolved by granting decree of divorce by mutual consent. In view of close relationship between the parties, there is no order as to costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 16th day of April, 2021.

Senior Civil Judge,

Amalapuram. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined

For petitioners: For respondent:

P.W.1: Nadimpalli Venkata Satyanarayana RajuNone. P.W.2: Smt.Nadimpalli Kalyani

Documents marked

For petitioners:

Ex.P.1: Marriage certificate issued by the Executive Officer, Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Amalapuram, dated 20.07.2020.

For respondent:Nil.

Senior Civil Judge,

Amalapuram.

4

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: AMALAPURAM

Present: Sri M.V.S.Prabhakar,

Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram

Friday the 16th day of April, 2021

H.M.O.P.No.96/2020

Between:

1) Nadimpalli Venkata Satyanarayana Raju, son of Rajam Raju, Aged 50 years, Hindu, Coolie, R/o.D.No.5-157, Rajupalem, H/o. Mummidivaram.

2)Smt.Nadimpalli Kalyani, w/o.Venkata Satyanarayana Raju, Aged 36 years, Hindu, House Wife, D/o.Pinnamaraju Chiranjeevi Raju, C/o.Kotari Nani, side of

Canal, Jangamvari Street, Muramalla, I.Polavaram Mandal. ... Petitioners

And

Nil… Respondent Petition presented on 20.11.2020 and filed on 20.11.2020 This is an application filed by the petitioners/husband and wife under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for passing of a decree dissolving their marriage dated 22.03.2008 by consent. A fixed court fee of Rs.10/- is paid under Schedule-II, Art.1(vii) of APCF & SV Act. Cause of action for the petition arose on 22.03.2008 at Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Amalapuram when the marriage between the petitioners was performed as per Hindu Caste and Customs and at Rajupalem village, h/o. Mummidivaram Nagara Panchayati where the petitioners last reside within the jurisdiction of the court. This petition is coming on 15.04.2021 for final hearing before me, in the presence of Sri N.Satyanarayana Raju, K.Tatam Raju and P.V.Ramana Murthy, Advocates for petitioners and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:

i) that the marriage between the petitioners 1 and 2, dated 22.03.2008 is dissolved by granting decree of divorce by mutual consent; and ii) that there be no order as to costs. Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 16th day of March, 2021.

Senior Civil Judge,

Amalapuram.

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

No costs memo and fee certificate was filed.

Senior Civil Judge,

Amalapuram.

15.04.2021:

This application has been filed by the 2nd petitioner under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act to waive statutory period of six months under Section 13-B(2) of Hindu Marriage Act. The brief facts of the petition are that the 1st petitioner is her husband and their marriage took place on 22.03.2008 at Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Amalapuram. At the time of marriage, the 1st petitioner is divorcee and the 2nd petitioner is widow and it is learnt that the son of 2nd petitioner was in the custody of her parents. Thereafter disputes arose between them and the mediations of elders went in vain to pacify the disputes and as such they want to take divorce by mutual consent. Both the parties have settled their disputes amicably. Further the marriage of the 2nd petitioner was fixed in the month of May, 2021. Heard the learned counsel for 2nd petitioner. Now the point for determination is: Whether the petition can be allowed as prayed for? POINT: As seen from the facts of the petition, the efforts of elders for reunion of couple went in vain as the differences between the couple were not pacified and there is no likelihood of success in that manner. Further, the petitioners are living separately for last two years. Further the parties have amicably and genuinely settled their disputes including alimony. Above allthe waiting period will prolong their agony. On the other hand as on today four and half months time has been elapsed from the date of filing petition. Considering all these things and as per the citation of Hon’ble Apex court in C.A.No.11158/17 between Amardeep Sing And Harveer Kaur, dated 12.09.2017, this court is inclined to allow this petition by waiving the six months cooling period.

In the result, the petition is allowed and the period of six months as enunciated under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act is waived. Accordingly, this petition is allowed.

SCJ.

H.M.O.P/47/2020

Donga Sri Ratna sekhar vs Vsnil

19 Apr 2021

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: AMALAPURAM

Present: Sri M.V.S.Prabhakar,

Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram

Monday the 19th day of April, 2021

H.M.O.P.No.47/2020

Between: (1) Donga Sri Ratna Sekhar, son of Nageswararao, Aged about 34 years, Coconut Business, R/o.D.No.5-47/2, Peeruvaipalem, Gangalakurru Agraharam, Ambajipeta Mandal. (2) Donga Meenaksheeswari, wife of Sri Ratna Sekhar, Aged about 27 years, House Wife, R/o.Flat No.D-3, Sri Nilayam Apartments, Gandhinagar, Kakinada.

And .. Petitioners

Nil .. Respondent

This petition is coming on 16.04.2021 for final hearing before me, in the presence of Sri B.S.R.Krishna, Sri K.Rajeswara Sastry, Advocates for petitioners and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

O R D E R

1.This application has been filed by the petitioners 1 and 2, who are husband and wife respectively for dissolution of their marriage by granting decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act.

2.The very brief facts of the petition in a nutshell are that the marriage between the 1st petitioner and 2nd petitioner was performed on 31.05.2015 as per

Hindu Customs and Rites at Sri Bala Balaji Swamyvari Temple, Appanapalli,

Mamidikuduru Mandal. After the marriage both the petitioners have resided in the house of 1st petitioner at Peeruvaipalem Village and the marriage was immediately consummated. From 1st week of December, 2015 both the petitioners deserted each other and started living separately in different places. The 1st petitioner is residing at Peeruvaipalem village and 2nd petitioner is residing at the house of her parents at Amalapuram. During the wedlock the couple gave birth to a female child on 22.06.2016. During the wedlock the disputes cropped up and ill-feelings and hatred developed against each other and the mediations of elders for reunion of couple went in vain. The petitioners are not interested to continue the marital tie 2 and they have decided to reside separately on their own accord by obtaining divorce on mutual consent. At last the elders also suggested for mutual divorce between the petitioners. In the presence of elders namely Illa Venkata

Satyanarayana, Rayudu Bhushankara Rao and Guttula Trimurthulu both the petitioners have expressed their consent to take mutual consent. The 1st petitioner gave Rs.4,00,000/- to the 2nd petitioner before the above elders for return of amount paid by the parents of 2nd petitioner at the time of marriage of petitioners.

The 1st petitioner also agreed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- each to the 2nd petitioner and his daughter namely Santhoshi towards their permanent alimony. In total the 1st petitioner agreed to pay Rs.14,00,000/-. The 2nd petitioner agreed not to claim any maintenance or alimony for herself and her child from 1st petitioner. The 2nd petitioner agreed to look after the welfare of minor child. The 1st petitioner agreed to withdraw the petition filed by him against the 2nd petitioner under Section 9 of

Hindu Marriage Act vide O.P.No.82 of 2018 on the file of this court. Hence, they filed the present petition.

3.During the course of enquiry, the evidence of chief affidavits of petitioners are filed before the court stating that they have not withdrawn their consent and they are examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2. Ex.P.1 to P.3 were marked through P.W.1.

4.Heard the counsel for the petitioners.

5.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the petitioners are entitled for dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent?

6. Point: Admittedly, the petitioners 1 and 2 are husband and wife respectively and their marriage was held on 31.05.2015 as per Hindu Customs and Rites at Sri

Bala Balaji Swamyvari Temple, Appanapalli, Mamidikuduru Mandal. During the wedlock they were blessed with one female child namely Santhoshi and as disputes arose between them they are residing separately from 1st week of December, 2015.

The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 clearly disclose that they are married and was 3 blessed with a female child namely Santhoshi and as there was no adjustment between the couple in respect of ideology they have decided to live separately from each other and to take divorce since there is no possibility between them for reunion. Their evidence also discloses that the efforts of mediators and elders went in vain to unite the couple. During the evidence of P.W.1 Exs.P.1 to P.3 are marked.

Ex.P.1 is certified copy of Muhurtham paper. Ex.P.2 is certified copy of receipt issued by the Executive Officer, Sri Bala Balaji Devasthanam, Appanapalli, dated 31.05.2015 and

Ex.P.3 is copy of marriage photograph along with compact disc. Exs.P.1 to P.3 clearly disclose the marriage between the petitioners. The 2nd petitioner who was examined as

P.W.2 has categorically stated that she has received Rs.4,00,000/- for return of marriage expenditure and gifts and Rs.5,00,000/- towards her permanent alimony and

Rs.5,00,000/- towards the permanent alimony of her child. She has also stated that she will look after the minor child in the absence of 1st petitioner. In respect of receipt of amounts both the petitioners have filed two receipts, which were recorded by this court. Above all, the record clearly discloses that there is irretrievable break down of the marriage of petitioners and there is no possibility of resuming cohabitation.

Further both the couple has amicably settled their disputes including the alimony of 2nd petitioner and they want to take divorce as there is no possibility for reunion of the couple and they felt that it is desirable to dissolve their marriage. Considering all these things, this court is inclined to allow this petition, more particularly, the petitioners came to the court for grant of divorce through mutual consent.

7.In the result, the petition is allowed and the marriage between the petitioners 1 and 2 held on 31.05.2015 is dissolved by granting decree of divorce by mutual consent. In view of close relationship between the parties, there is no order as to costs.

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

by me in open court this the 19th day of April, 2021.

Senior Civil Judge,

Amalapuram.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined

For petitioners: For Respondent:

P.W.1: Donga Sri Ratna SekharNone. P.W.2:Donga Meenaksheeswari

Documents marked

For petitioners:

Ex.P.1: Certified copy of Muhurtham paper Ex.P.2: Certified copy of receipt issued by the Executive Officer, Sri Bala Balaji Devasthanam, Appanapalli, dated 31.05.2015 Ex.P.3: Copy of marriage photograph along with compact disc.

For Respondent: Nil.

Senior Civil Judge,

Amalapuram.

OP/32/2020

Padala Avinash Reddy vs Nill

19 Mar 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: KOTHAPETA

Present: Sri M.V.S.Prabhakar,

Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram

(FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Kothapeta Friday the 19th day of March, 2021

H.M.O.P.No.32/2020

Between:

1) Padala Avinash Reddy, son of Anjaneya Reddy, Aged 31 years, Hindu, Pvt. Employee, D.No.2-424, Chinnam Tatareddy Street, Ubalanka, Ravulapalem.

2) Padala Janananda Lakshmi, wife of Padala Avinash Reddy, Aged 26 years, C/o.Tetali Naga Venkata Rama Reddy, Hindu, House Wife, Ambar Charakha Road, Badra Makallamma Temple back side, Ravulapalem.

... Petitioners

And

Nil… Respondent This petition is coming on 18.03.2021 for final hearing before me, in the presence of Sri P.Venkata Reddy, Advocate for petitioners and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

O R D E R

2.The very brief facts of the petition in a nutshell are that the marriage between the 1st petitioner and 2nd petitioner was performed on 09.05.2015 at 10.23 pm at T.T.D.Kalyana Mandapam, Ravulapalem as per Hindu Rites and Caste

Customs in the presence of elders. After the marriage, the 2nd petitioner joined the 1st petitioner at Ubalanka village to lead marital life and during the wedlock the couple was blessed with male child namely P.Arush Reddy in the year 2017.

Thereafter disputes were developed between the couple and on the advice of elders and parents of both the petitioners they were pacified. Thereafter the disputes again cropped and the matter was placed before caste elders namely

G.Muni Reddy, Padala Peda Venkata Reddy and on their advise the petitioners set up family at Hyderabad. Despite it the disputes between the couple were not pacified. On 15.05.2018 there were disputes between the couple resulting which 2 the 2nd petitioner went to her parents house at Ravulapalem and did not turn up.

At last, the petitioners 1 and 2 are residing separately and the marriage between the petitioners is irretrievably broken down. The efforts of mediators and caste elders went in vain as the petitioners 1 and 2 are not amenable to reason. The 1st petitioner agreed to pay Rs.8,00,000/- towards final settlement of 2nd petitioner at the time of granting divorce and he also agreed to pay Rs.8,00,000/- to minor child

P.Arush Reddy. Till the minor attains majority the 2nd petitioner agreed to look after the welfare of P.Arush Reddy. Both the couple has decided to reside separately since their disputes were not pacified. Hence, the petitioners filed the petition for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent.

3.The petition is presented on 23.10.2020. On 18.03.2021 they have filed

I.A.No.22/2021 to waive the waiting period of six months by stating that the petitioners are residing separately since 15.08.2018 and their marriage was irretrievably broken down and there is no chance for reunion. Upon hearing both the petitioners and also upon hearing the submissions made by their counsel, this court has allowed the said petition by exercising its discretion by following the observations made in the decision between “Amardeep Singh and Harveen Kaur reported in 2017(5) ALT 23 of Hon’ble Apex Court. Further the reconciliation efforts made by this court have also failed.

4.During the course of enquiry, chief affidavits of petitioners are filed

before the court stating that they have not withdrawn their consent and they are

examined themselves as P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P.1 and P.2 through P.W.1.

5.Heard the counsel for the petitioners.

6.Now the point for determination is: Whether the petitioners are entitled for dissolution of their marriage by decree of divorce by mutual consent?

7.Point: As per the contents in the petition and the affidavits of P.Ws.1 and 2, the marriage of petitioners took place on 09.05.2015 at 10.23 pm at

T.T.D.Kalyana Mandapam, Ravulapalem and during the wedlock they were blessed with one male child namely P.Arush Reddy was born in the year 2017. Thereafter disputes cropped up between the couple and they are not pacified despite 3 indulgence of elders and parents of petitioners. During the evidence of 1st petitioner Exs.P.1 and P.2 are marked. Ex.P.1 is the Marriage invitation card and

Ex.P.2 is the marriage photographs two in number along with compact disc discloses the fact of relationship between the petitioners. Further the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 would clearly show that they do not want to reside under one roof since their differences could not be pacified in spite of indulgence of elders. Further the 2nd petitioner has categorically stated that she received Rs.9,00,000/- from 1st petitioner towards maintenance of her minor child and she agreed to look after his welfare till he attains majority. She has in her evidence in unequivocal terms stated that she received Rs.9,00,000/- cash from 1st petitioner towards her final settlement besides Rs.9,00,000/- towards maintenance of minor child P.Arush

Reddy. All this clearly goes to show that there is irretrievable break down of marriage and there is no possibility of parties resuming cohabitation and the petitioners have genuinely settled the differences.

8.Upon considering the entire material on record, this court has satisfied that the averments in the petition are true and they were proved through the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. As already discussed as there is no possibility for reunion of the couple, this court is inclined to allow the petition since agony will remain if the petition is not allowed.

9.In the result, the petition is allowed and the marriage between the petitioners 1 and 2 held on 09.05.2015 is dissolved by granting decree of divorce by mutual consent. In view of close relationship between the parties, there is no order as to costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 19th day of March, 2021.

Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram

(FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Kothapeta.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined

For petitioners: For respondent:

P.W.1: Padala Avinash Reddy P.W.2: Padala Janananda Lakshmi

Documents marked

For petitioners: For respondent:

Ex.P.1: Marriage invitation card Ex.P.2: Marriage Photographs two in number along with Compact Disc.

Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram

(FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Kothapeta.

OP/41/2020

Sathi Poorna Chandra Rao and another one vs NIL

08 Mar 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: KOTHAPETA

Present: Sri M.V.S.Prabhakar,

Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram.

(FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Kothapeta Monday the 8th day of March, 2021

H.M.O.P.No.41/2020

Between:

1) Sathi Poorna Chandrarao, son of Srinivas, Aged 35 years, Hindu, R/o.D.No.16-28/1, Tekivari Veedhi, Old Town, Tanuku Municipality, West Godavari District.

2) Smt.Sathi Satyaveni, wife of Poorna Chandrarao, D/o.Veerayya, Aged 28 years, Hindu, House Wife, R/o.D.No.1-216, Near Pedda Nuyya, Utchili Village,

Atreyapuram Mandal... Petitioners

And

Nil .. Respondent

This petition is coming on 04.03.2021 for final hearing before me, in the presence of Sri N.Ramesh, Advocate for petitioners and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

O R D E R

2.The very brief facts of the petition in a nutshell are that the marriage between the 1st petitioner and 2nd petitioner was performed on 18.10.2019 at Sri

Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Dwaraka Tirumala, as per Hindu Rites and Caste

Customs. After the marriage 2nd petitioner joined the 1st petitioner at Tirumala.

From the beginning the petitioners are not willing to marry together and at the force of elders, the marriage was performed and as such the marriage was not consummated. The elders advised the petitioners to lead marital life at Utchili village near the house of 2nd petitioner. There the petitioners resided for ten days and even then there was no interest for the petitioners to consume their marriage. Then the 1st petitioner left Utchili village in the last week of November, 2019 and expressed his intention that he cannot lead marital life with the 2nd petitioner. On the other hand the 2nd petitioner also expressed her unwillingness towards 1st petitioner and the efforts of elders to tie up the marital link went in vain. The petitioners have decided to take divorce by mutual consent and they want to live separately. Further the 1st petitioner agreed to pay Rs.4,00,000/- to the 2nd petitioner towards her permanent alimony at the time of passing decree and it was deposited with elders. The 2nd petitioner agreed for the same. Hence, the petitioners filed the petition for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent.

3.The petition is presented on 27.11.2020. On 05.03.2021 they have filed

I.A.Nos.19/2021 and 20/2021 to waive the waiting period of six months by stating that the petitioners are residing separately since November, 2019 and their marriage was irretrievably broken down and there is no chance for reunion. Upon hearing both the petitioners and also upon hearing the submissions made by their counsel, this court has allowed the said petition by exercising its discretion by following the observations made in the decision between “Amardeep Singh Vs.

Harveen Kaur reported in 2017(5) ALT 23 of Hon’ble Apex Court. Further the reconciliation efforts made by this court have also failed.

4.During the course of enquiry, the evidence of chief affidavits of petitioners are filed before the court stating that they have not withdrawn their consent and they are examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2. Ex.P.1 and P.2 were marked through

P.W.1.

5.Heard the counsel for the petitioners.

6.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the petitioners are entitled for dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent?

7.Point: Admittedly, the petitioners 1 and 2 are husband and wife respectively and their marriage was held on 18.10.2019 at Sri Venkateswara

Swamy Temple, Dwaraka Tirumala, as per Hindu Rites and Caste Customs in the presence of elders and since the beginning of marriage they are not willing to live together and as such marriage was not consummated and even though they lived at Utchili village for ten days at the instance of elders, there was no cohabitation and as such the 1st petitioner left the 2nd petitioner and 2nd petitioner is also unwilling to reside with the 1st petitioner. On the other hand, the 1st petitioner has paid Rs.4,00,000/- to the 2nd petitioner towards her permanent alimony and 2nd petitioner who received the same has expressed that she will not file any case for future maintenance or any criminal case against the 1st petitioner. In the evidence of 1st petitioner Exs.P.1 and P.2 are marked. Ex.P.1 is the Marriage invitation card and

Ex.P.2 is the marriage photographs four in number along with compact disc disclose the fact of relationship between the petitioners. Both the parties have categorically deposed in respect of the contents in the petition and through their evidence the contents in the petition were established. Further the petitioners filed memo stating that 1st petitioner gave Rs.4,00,000/- and 2nd petitioner received the same towards her permanent alimony and the same was recorded by this court. It shows that both the petitioners have amicably settled their disputes including alimony. When the petitioners are not willing to reside together and amicably settled their disputes before elders, this court did not find any reason to dismiss the petition.

9.In the result, the petition is allowed and the marriage between the petitioners 1 and 2 held on 18.10.2019 is dissolved by granting decree of divorce by mutual consent. In view of close relationship between the parties, there is no order as to costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of March, 2021.

Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram,

(FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Kothapeta.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined

For petitioners: For respondent:

P.W.1: Sathi Poorna ChandraraoNone. P.W.2: Smt.Sathi Satyaveni

Documents marked

For petitioners: For respondent:

Ex.P.1: Marriage Invitation cardNil. Ex.P.2: Marriage photographs four in number along with compact disc.

Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram,

(FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Kothapeta.

OP/25/2020

Karri Swathi and another one vs NIL

19 Mar 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: KOTHAPETA

Present: Sri M.V.S.Prabhakar,

Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram.

(FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Kothapeta Friday the 19th day of March, 2021

H.M.O.P.No.25/2020

Between:

1) Karri Swathi, wife of Venkata Reddy, Aged 42 years, House Wife, D.No.1-125, Umamaheswara Street, Ravulapalem Village and Mandal, presently at C/o.Kovvuri Krishna Reddy, D.No.8-118, Anaparthi Village of Anaparthi Mandal.

2) Karri Venkata Reddy, son of Kamala Reddy, Aged 43 years, Business, D.No.1- 206, near: Vinayaka Temple, Ravulapalem Village and Mandal.

.. Petitioners

And

Nil .. Respondent

This petition is coming on 18.03.2021 for final hearing before me, in the presence of Sri P.Venkata Reddy, Advocate for petitioners and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed by the petitioners 1 and 2, who are wife and husband respectively for dissolution of their marriage by granting a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act.

2. The very brief facts of the petition in a nutshell are that the marriage between the 1st petitioner and 2nd petitioner was performed on 14.02.2013 at Sri

Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamyvari Devastanam, Annavaram, as per Hindu

Customs and Rites in the presence of elders and relatives. After the marriage, 1st petitioner joined with the 2nd petitioner at his house at Ravulapalem. In fact, it is second marriage of both petitioners. The 1st petitioner earlier married one Sathi

Veera Venkata Mallikarjuna Reddy and begotten one female child namely Surya

Pravija Reddy and later she obtained divorce from her husband. Earlier 2nd petitioner married one Karri Achayamma and begotten male child namely Karri

Kamala Reddy and said Achayamma died due to blood cancer. Hence, the 1st petitioner is divorced wife and wife of the 2nd petitioner is no more on the date of marriage of petitioners 1 and 2. After the marriage the petitioners could not co- exist with each other and live together. The elders advised them not to spoil their marital life. The efforts of elders to subside the disputes between the petitioners 2 went in vain as the likes and dislikes of the petitioners are different including their ideology. As there is no compatibility between them and difference of opinions there was disharmony in the home and as such both the petitioners decided to take divorce. Both the petitioners have no right against each other including their movable and immovable properties. The petitioners are living separately since 05.02.2018. The 2nd petitioner agreed to pay Rs.10,00,000/- to the 1st petitioner at the time of granting divorce towards her permanent alimony. Hence, the petitioners filed this petition for grant of divorce through mutual consent.

4.Heard the counsel for the petitioners.

5.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the petitioners are entitled for dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent?

6. Point: Admittedly, the petitioners 1 and 2 are wife and husband respectively and their marriage was held on 14.02.2013 at Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana

Swamyvari Devastanam, Annavaram, as per Hindu Rites and Caste Customs. The 1st petitioner is a divorcée and 2nd petitioner previously married Karri Atchayamma and said Atchayamma died due to blood cancer. The marriage of petitioners was consummated and both the petitioners resided at Ravulapalem. Later, disputes arose between them and they could not adjust with each other despite intervention of elders and as such they decided to reside separately. The evidence of chief affidavits of P.Ws.1 and 2 clearly disclose that there was no adjustment between the couple in respect of ideology and they have peacefully decided to reside from each other and to take divorce since there is no possibility between them for reunion. Exs.P.1 and P.2 which are marriage invitation card and photographs marked through evidence of P.W.1 clearly prove the fact of relationship between the petitioners. Through the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the contents in the petition 3 are proved. Above all, the record clearly discloses that there is irretrievable break down of the marriage of petitioners and there is no possibility of resuming cohabitation. Their evidence also discloses that 1stpetitioner received

Rs.10,00,000/- from the 2nd petitioner towards her permanent alimony. It seems that both the couple has amicably settled their disputes and they want to take divorce as there is no possibility for reunion of the couple and they felt that it is desirable to dissolve their marriage.Considering all these things, this court is inclined to allow this petition, more particularly, the petitioners came to the court for grant of divorce through mutual consent.

7.In the result, the petition is allowed and the marriage between the petitioners 1 and 2 held on 14.02.2013 is dissolved by granting decree of divorce by mutual consent. In view of close relationship between the parties, there is no order as to costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 19th day of March, 2021.

Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram

(FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Kothapeta.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined

For petitioners: For Respondent:

P.W.1: Karri Swathi None. P.W.2: Karri Venkata Reddy

Documents marked

For petitioners:

Ex.P.1: Marriage invitation card (Wedding card) Ex.P.2: Marriage photographs two in number along with compact disc.

For Respondent: Nil.

Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram

(FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Kothapeta.

Order Record 49 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
H.M.O.P/43/2021	Ryali Durga Nageswara rao vs Ryali Subbalakshmi Bhavani	30 Jun 2021	Order	Petition Dismissed
EP/13/2017	Tirumunadham Raja Ramesh vs Chettem manoharam	29 Apr 2021	Order	—
H.M.O.P/47/2020	Donga Sri Ratna sekhar vs Vsnil	19 Apr 2021	Order	—
H.M.O.P/82/2018	Donga Sri Ratna Sekhar vs Donga Meenaksheeswari	16 Apr 2021	Order	—
H.M.O.P/96/2020	Nadimpalli Venkata Satyanarayana Raju vs Vsnil	16 Apr 2021	Order	—
H.M.O.P/55/2019	Chappidi Satya prasad vs Nil	15 Apr 2021	Order	—
H.M.O.P/14/2021	Peyyala Ravi Kumar vs Peyyala Veera Veni	06 Apr 2021	Order	—
SC/12/2019	State-S.I. of Police, Amalapuram Town P.S. vs Chatla Josephreddy @ Johnny	30 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/78/2020	Pulagala(busi) Likitha@ Srilakshmi vs Pulagala gopvindu	30 Mar 2021	Order	—
OS/18/2020	Kumpatla Venkata Ramesh vs Darapureddi Sridhar	26 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/68/2020	Ramayanam Sudheer vs Vsnil	24 Mar 2021	Order	—
OP/25/2020	Karri Swathi and another one vs NIL	19 Mar 2021	order	—
OP/32/2020	Padala Avinash Reddy vs Nill	19 Mar 2021	order	—
SC/68/2020	The State Sub Inspector of Police Ambajipeta P.S. vs Ganta Venkata Giri	17 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
SC/307/2017	Inspector of police vs Anyam Shiva	16 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/107/2019	Penumala Bala Raju vs Nil	16 Mar 2021	Order	—
H.M.O.P/176/2019	Kandregula Teja Sri vs Vsnill	16 Mar 2021	Order	—
OS/24/2020	Nalla Ganga Bhavani vs Boyidi Ammanaraju naidu	15 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/124/2019	Chinta Naga Durga vs Chinta Raja Manikanta	12 Mar 2021	Order	—
SC/95/2019	State-Inspector of Police, Amalapuram Town P.S. vs Pinisetti Ravi Raja	09 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
OP/22/2020	Sundanedi Pavan @ Pallamraju and another one vs Nil	08 Mar 2021	order	—
OP/41/2020	Sathi Poorna Chandra Rao and another one vs NIL	08 Mar 2021	order	—
SC/243/2018	State Sub-Inspector of Police, Katrenikona P.S. vs Angani Sesharao	05 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/11/2021	Revu Veera Venkata Prasad vs Vsnil	05 Mar 2021	Order	—
EP/48/2019	Vemana Veera Venkata Ratnam vs Gangula Nageswara rao	03 Mar 2021	Order	—
OP/13/2021	Kommisetti Divya Sri and another one vs NIL	02 Mar 2021	order	—
OP/18/2020	Bheemireddy Manasa vs Nill	02 Mar 2021	order	—
OP/49/2019	Gudala Chandralakshmi vs Nil	02 Mar 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/112/2020	Samatham Kedara Naga Venkataa Ramana vs Samatham Somanadh	25 Feb 2021	Order	—
OS/75/2015	Tamri Radha vs Pirate Chinna Rao	24 Feb 2021	Other	—
IP/19/2018	Gudimetla Rama Chandra Reddy vs Akula Naga Prasad	23 Feb 2021	Order	—
H.M.O.P/125/2019	Geddam Sailaja vs Vsnill	23 Feb 2021	Order	—
H.M.O.P/177/2019	Rambala Veera Venkata Satyanarayana@veera venkta Satyanrayana murthy@chanti vs Vsnill	23 Feb 2021	Order	—
OS/165/2017	Medidi Venkateswara rao vs Golla Srinivasa rao	18 Feb 2021	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/62/2020	Vasamsetti Veera Durga Rao @ Chinna vs Nil	18 Feb 2021	Order	—
OS/78/2017	Pericherla Nirmala valli vs Bonam Satyanarayana murthy	15 Feb 2021	Order	—
H.M.O.P/95/2020	nagabathula durga Prasad vs Vsnil	15 Feb 2021	Order	—
OP/15/2020	Chalamalasetti Sumanth Kumar vs Nil	15 Feb 2021	order	—
OP/52/2019	Karri Venkata Surendra Reddy vs Nil	15 Feb 2021	order	—
SC/34/2018	Inspector of police vs Gosangi Kumaraswamy	11 Feb 2021	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/51/2020	Chappagaddi Venkata Sanyasi Rao vs Nil	11 Feb 2021	Order	—
OP/53/2019	Kommisetti Divya Sri vs Kommisetti Veera Venkata Sri Krishna Narayana	11 Feb 2021	order	—
OS/19/2017	State Bank of India vs Avanigadda Satyalinga Naikar	09 Feb 2021	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/57/2020	Bhupathiraju Nagendhra Mithra Varma vs Vsnil	09 Feb 2021	Order	—
OS/66/2019	Madeti Bhujanga RAo vs Pandu GAngavathi	02 Feb 2021	Other	—
H.M.O.P/5/2020	Boppe Lakshmi Durga Malleswari vs Vsnill	01 Feb 2021	Order	—
H.M.O.P/14/2020	Annadevara Divyeswari Naga Anitha vs Vsnil	01 Feb 2021	Order	—
EP/7/2020	Moka Venkateswararao vs Polisetti Srinivasarao	25 Jan 2021	Order	—
H.M.O.P/196/2019	Ravva pushpa vs Vsnil	22 Jan 2021	Order	—

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Jun 2021		1
Apr 2021		6
Mar 2021		22
Feb 2021		19
Jan 2021		2

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has sri.M.V.S.Prabhakar handled?

sri.M.V.S.Prabhakar has handled 50 court orders since 2021 at Court of Prl. Junior Civil Judge,, Kothapet (Taluka). The average disposal rate is 19 orders per month.

What types of cases does sri.M.V.S.Prabhakar hear?

Based on available records, sri.M.V.S.Prabhakar primarily handles Civil matters (Original Petitions, Original Suits) and Criminal matters (Sessions Cases) at Court of Prl. Junior Civil Judge,, Kothapet (Taluka).

Where is sri.M.V.S.Prabhakar currently posted?

sri.M.V.S.Prabhakar is posted as senior civil judge cum Asst.Sessions judge at Court of Prl. Junior Civil Judge,, Kothapet (Taluka), East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by sri.M.V.S.Prabhakar available online?

Yes. 10 judgments by sri.M.V.S.Prabhakar are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does sri.M.V.S.Prabhakar dispose cases?

sri.M.V.S.Prabhakar disposes approximately 19 cases per month, based on 50 orders handled over their tenure at Court of Prl. Junior Civil Judge,, Kothapet (Taluka).

Since when is sri.M.V.S.Prabhakar serving?

sri.M.V.S.Prabhakar has been serving at Court of Prl. Junior Civil Judge,, Kothapet (Taluka) since 2021.

Case Types

H 44%

OP 22%

OS 14%

SC 12%

EP 6%

IP 2%

Posting History

Jan 2021 — Mar 2021

senior civil judge cum Asst.Sessions judge · 11 orders
Jan 2021 — Jun 2021

Asst. Sessions and Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram · 39 orders

Outcomes on Record

Petition Dismissed 1

Other Judges at this Court

A.sai Kumari

senior civil judge cum Asst.Sessions judge

199 orders

B. Jaswanthi Yadav

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

2,373 orders

← View all judges at Court of Prl. Junior Civil Judge,, Kothapet (Taluka)