M. Yesurathnam

1 of 4

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AT

NAGARKURNOOL

On Thursday, this the 20th day of December, 2018

Present:- SRI M. YESURATNAM,

Senior Civil Judge,

Wanaparthy, FAC Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool.

HM.OP. No. 39 of 2018

Between:-

K. Sulthan @ Sudheer s/o K. Swamy, age : 30yrs, Occ : Pvt. Employee,

Caste : Mudiraj, r/o Nagarkurnool proper

...Petitioner

And

1. K. Shalini w/o K. Sulthan, age : 30yrs, Occ : House wife, Caste : Balija, r/o

H.No.2-23, Matoor village of Ravulapally, Dauthabad mandal, Vikarabad

District

2. A. Raju s/o A. Balaiah, r/o H.No.6-144/8, Ambedkar Street, Telkapally proper.

... Respondents

-0o0-

This petition came up before me for hearing on 20.12.2018 for disposal in the presence of Sri. Bhavani Bhai, Advocate for the petitioner and respondetn No.1 being set exparte and Sri. M. Srinivas Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2 and the matter having stood over for determination till this day, the court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent u/s 13(1) (ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for decree of divorce.

2.The brief avernments of the petition are as under :

The marriage of the couple took place on 02.04.2012 at Aryasamaj, 2 of 4

Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad without the consent of their parents and they lived happily till 2014 at Hyderabad. Thereafter they shifted to Nagarkurnool due to the ill-health of respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 developed love affair with respondent No.2 who is their house owner and their love affair was caught up redhandedly by the petitioner by way of SMS and phone calls, on which the respondent No.1 left the company of petitioner and evenafter request of the parents of petitioner, she did not join the company of petitioner saying that he is not a good match for her. Petitioner further submitted that the respondent No.1 never cooperated with petitioner to perform their conjugal life and behaved cruelly with him. After that the petitioner got issued a legal notice to respondent No.1 to join his company, but did not gave any reply to that effect and subsequently she filed a false criminal case against the petitioner, but the police, Daulthabad have tried to settle the matter by way of conselling, but the respondent No.1 did not cooperate to them and telephoned the petitioner and threatened that if they insist the respondent

No.1 join his company, she will commit suicide and as he lost the hope of their reunion, he filed the present petition for decree of divorce.

3. Having received summons, the respondent No.1 failed to appear

before this court and as such she was set exparte. Respondent No.2

appeared before this court and filed his counter denying all the allegation levelled by the petitioner in his petition against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has filed the present petition to harass the respondent No.2 as such he prayed to dismiss the petition with exemplary costs.

4.During the course of trial, petitioner himself examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. The details of which are noted at the appendix of evidence.

5.Heard the arguments from the counsel for plaintiff.

3 of 4

6. Now the point for consideration is :

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

7. Point :

The petitioner examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to

P6. Chief affidavit of the petitioner is replica of petition averments. PW1 reiterated the contents of petition averments as regard his marriage with the respondent No.1 and her love affair with respondent No.2 and harassment made by respondent No.1 towards the petitioner by way of diserting him.

In view of above facts and circumstances, it is held that this is a fit case to consider the petition. The point for consideration is answered accordingly.

In the result, the petition is allowed by granting the decree of divorce to the petitioner by dissolving the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent which was solemnized on 02.04.2012, without costs.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, on this the 20 th day of December, 2018.

Senior Civil Judge,

FAC Nagarkurnool.

4 of 4

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For petitioner:-

PW1 K. Sulthan @ Sudheer

For respondents:-

NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

For petitioner :

Ex.P1 is the office copy of legal notice

Ex.P2 is the postal receipts

Ex.P3 is the acknowledgement received by Police, Daulthabad

Ex.P4 is the enquiry of served notice of respondent No.1

Ex.P5 is the marriage photo of couple

Ex.P6 is the original marraige certificate

For respondents :

NIL

Senior Civil Judge,

FAC Nagarkurnool.