Manipati Sridhar

ASJ, Hdp -1- SC 440/2023

APAN060002672023

Presented on : 23-11-2023 Registered on : 23-11-2023 Decided on : 08-04-2025 Duration : 1 years, 4 months, 15 days

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE :: HINDUPUR

Present:- Sri. M.Sridhar, Assistant Sessions Judge

Tuesday, the 08th day of April, 2025

Sessions Case No.440/2023

-----------------------------------

[PRC 16/2019 of PJFCM, Hindupur]

Between::State represented by Inspector of Police, Name of the complaintChilamathur PS.

Crime No.60 of 2017 of Chilamathur PS.

Description of the :1. M.S.Amarnath Reddy, aged 37 years, accusedS/o Sudhakar Reddy, R/o Morasalapalli Village, Chilamathur Mandal (A1).

2. Rajesh Reddy, aged 33 years, S/o Krishna Reddy, R/o Kanchisamudram Village, Lepakshi Mandal (A2).

3. B.R.Somasekhar Reddy, aged 38 years, S/o B.Rami Reddy, R/o Kondi Reddypalli Village, Gorantla mandal (A3).

4. P.J.Shravan Reddy, aged 30 years, S/o Jaya Chandra Reddy, R/o Ooduvaripali Village,BagepalliTaluka, Chickballapura District (A4).

Offences:Sections 324 and 307 R/w 34 IPC against

ASJ, Hdp -2- SC 440/2023 accused No.1 to 4.

Plea of accused:Not guilty

Finding of the Judge :Not guilty

Sentence or Order:In the result, the accused No.1 to 4 found not guilty for the offences u/s.324 and 307 R/w 34 IPC, and they are acquitted for the said charges U/Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 4 shall be in force for period of six months U/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

The unmarked case property, if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

This Sessions case coming on 04.04.2025 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and Sri P.Nagabhushana Rao and Sri B.Nagendra, Advocate

for the accused No.1 to 4 and on perusal of available material on record,

and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

[1].The Inspector of Police, Chilamathur PS laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.60/2017 for the offence punishable under sections 324 and 307 R/w 34 I.P.C.

[2].Brief averments of the charge sheet as follows:

(i).This is a case of attempt to murder with common intention' that occurred on 16-06-2017 at about 7-30 PM near the house of Krishna

Reddy at Morasalapalli village, Chilamathur Mandal and reported in the

ASJ, Hdp -3- SC 440/2023

PS on 18-06-2017 at 5-00 PM (LW 1) the complainant E.Anjan Reddy is the native of Morasalapalli village, Chilamathur Mandal and living by cultivation. The maternal uncle of the LW.1 ie. Venkatarama Reddy S/o

Krishna Reddy is younger father of A-1 Amarnatha Reddy. The said

Venkatarama Reddy has a land an extent of 2-13 acres in the field of

Morasalapalı village to adjacent to that land, there is a land of A-1

Amarnath Reddy is situated. There is a way through the field of A-1 to go to the fields of Venkatarama Reddy but A-1 intercepted the way with keeping thorny bushes to the way since one year and many times he picked quarrel with Venkatarama Reddy.

(ii).As usual on 16.06.2017 at morning while the complainant was going to the fields of his uncle Venkatarama Reddy along with his uncle Venkatarama Reddy and his younger brother Sankar Reddy with a tractor the accused No.1 Amarnatha Reddy kept the thorn branches across the way. Then they asked A1 to why he intercepted the way with thorn branches on that accused No.1 picked up quarrel with them and beat them. After all of them went away from there. On the same day night at about 07.30 PM while L.W.1 was present near the house of his elder brother Krishna Reddy L.W.1 the accused No.1 to 4 came to L.W.1 and accused No.1 picked up quarrel with L.W.1 as why he passed the tractor in the field of accused No.1 and beat L.W.1 with iron rod on his

ASJ, Hdp -4- SC 440/2023 head, right, thigh and on the left hand with intention to murder to L.W.1, accused No.3 and 4 were beat L.W.1 with sticks and caused bleeding injuries on the right side of head, right elbow, on his right thigh and strong dumb injury on his left wrist. Lws.2 to 8 witnessed the offence who are present there are rescued him. Lws.2 and 3 were shifted L.W.1 to Government Hospital, Hindupur for treatment.

(iii).Basing on the statement of L.W.1 a case in Cr.No.60/2017

U/Sec.307 R/w 34 IPC was registered in the Chilamathur Police Station by

Sub-Inspector of Police L.W.10 and took up investigation During the course of investigation LW-10 examined the LWs.1 to 8 and recorded their detailed statement and visited scene of offence and prepared the rough sketch of the scene of offence. At the time of examination the

LWs.2 to 8 revealed that the alleged accused No.2 came to the scene of offence at the time of occurrence but he did not beat anyone.

(iv).Basing on the witnessing of witnesses i.e., LWs.2 to 8, LW-11 deleted the name of the accused No.2 from the list of accused.

Accordingly a memo was filed before the Hon'ble court. The S.D.P.O

Penukonda issued orders in proceeding C.No.112/Genl/SDPO-P/2018

dated 14-03-2018 with instructions to delete the name of accused No.2

in this case, as his involvement in this case was not proved. The Hon'ble

High Court of Judicature Hyderabad the State of Telangana and State of

ASJ, Hdp -5- SC 440/2023 the Andhara Pradesh was grant anticipatory bail to accused No.1, 3 and 4 vide CRLP No.5932 of 2017, dated 22-08-2017 and Nos.6685 of 2017,

dated 16.10.2017. During the course of investigation on 25.08.2018

LW.10 let off accused No.1 after got sufficient sureties and also on 08.11.2017 LW.10 let off accused No.3 and 4 after got sufficient sureties.

LW-9 who rendered treatment to LW.1 issued wound certificate in which he opined that the injuries sustained by LW.1 are simple in nature, therefore, the accused is liable for punished U/Sec.307, 324 r/w 34 IPC.

Hence the charge.

[3]. The learned Prl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Hindupur took cognizance of the offences U/Sec.324 and 307 R/w 34 IPC, and after furnishing copies of documents to the accused No.1 to 4, committed the case to the Hon’ble Sessions Division, Anantapuramu District as the offence U/Sec.324 and 307 R/w 34 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The Honourable Sessions Judge made over this case to this

Court for disposal according to Law.

[4].The accused No.1 to 4 were examined U/Sec.228(b) of Cr.P.C., charges U/Sec.324 and 307 R/w 34 IPC were framed, read over and explained to them, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

ASJ, Hdp -6- SC 440/2023 [5].In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined 03 witnesses/ P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P8 i.e., Ex.P1 :

Signature of P.W.1 in the complaint, Ex.P2 : 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of the PW.1, Ex.P3 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of the PW.2, Ex.P4 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of the PW.3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW.11-M.Pradeep Kumar SI of Police.

[ 6].After closure evidence of the prosecution, the accused No.1 to 4 examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. explaining to them in Telugu the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against them, for which they denied the same, and have further stated that they have no defence witnesses.

[7]. Heard arguments on both sides.

[8]. Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused No.1 to 4 for the offences under Sections 324 and 307 R/w 34 IPC ?

[9]. Point:-

(i).The learned public prosecutor argued that the evidence of

Pws.1 to 3 are very much corroborated with P.W.9 and with that of investigation officer P.W.10 and nothing to disbelieve the evidence of

P.Ws.1 to 3 coupled with the evidence of P.W.9-Doctor and investigation

ASJ, Hdp -7- SC 440/2023 officer P.W.10. The evidence of prosecution is very much consistent and proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

(ii).On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused argued that the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 coupled with P.W.9-Doctor and

P.W.10-Investigation officer evidence is inconsistent with each other.

There is no explanation about the delay of lodging complaint. He also argued that there was a case and counter case between the prosecution party and accused party they both entered into compromise in respect of case in Cr.Nos.58 and 59 but they intentionally did not come forward for getting compromise in the present case on hand and accused were falsely implicated in this case and prayed this court to acquit all the accused.

(iii).As seen from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 on 16.06.2017 in order to carry agriculture activities P.W.1 and his uncle Venkatarama

Reddy and his brother Sankar Reddy were going to their fields by tractor.

while they were going by tractor the accused No.1 kept thorny bushes on the way to their fields and blocked the way curtailing them to go into his agricultural fields. Immediately they asked accused No.1 about blocking of the way by thorny bushes. For that accused No.1 replied that they all should not enter into agricultural fields on this way and raised galata and also stated that they got injunction order in respect of their

ASJ, Hdp -8- SC 440/2023 lands. Subsequently accused No.1 armed with stick and beat his uncle

Venkatarami Reddy and his brother Shankar Reddy. Then Immediately he took Venkatarami Reddy and Shankar Reddy to the hospital. On the same day at about 09.30 PM while was at his cousin brother L.W.4's house while PW.1 was standing outside L.W.4 house accused No.1 armed with iron rod and questioned him that he is driving tractor into his fields and gave a blow on his head with iron rod and also he also beat on his right hand on the elbow and as a result his right hand wrist broken and a result of beating by accused No.1 his left hand got injured and received injury on his left thigh. Along with accused No.1 other accused No.2 to 4 also joined with accused No.1 and beat him with the help of sticks and hands as a result he fell down on the ground. Immediately his sister

Pws.2 and 3 shifted him to Government Hospital, Hindupur by way of 108 Ambulance and P.W.1 was in patient at Hindupur Government

Hospital for 16 days. On the same day at about 12.00 AM i.e., on 17.06.2017 and preferred police complaint under Ex.P1 to the police who came to hospital.

(iv).In the present case on hand, as per prosecution on 16.06.2017 P.W.1 and his uncle Venkatarama Reddy and his brother

Sankar Reddy were going to their fields by tractor and accused No.1 kept thorny bushes and blocked the way, when asked by them to

ASJ, Hdp -9- SC 440/2023 accused No.1, then accused No.1 armed with stick and beat his uncle

Venkatarami Reddy and his brother Shankar Reddy. When the prosecution case is such that for the reasons best known to the prosecution they have not examined the said Venkatarami Reddy and his brother Shankar Reddy in this case. Another surprising fact is that on the same day at 09.30 PM while P.W.1 was standiong at his cousin's brother P.W.4 house the accused No.1 along with the accused No.2 to 4 attacked them as stated in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. The prosecution also examined P.W.4 in support of the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 but P.W.4 on coming to the court turned hostile without supporting the version of

P.Ws.1 to 3. The learned public prosecutor though cross examined P.W.4 but nothing was elicited in favour of the prosecution and P.W.1 asserted that while he was standing at P.W.4 house who is none other than his cousin brother all the accused party armed with iron rod and caused injuries on P.W.1. When P.W.4 is his cousin brother turned hostile without supporting the case of P.W.1.

(v).This court found bit inconsistency the injuries said to have been found on P.W.1, as per the P.W.1 he suffered right hand wrist broken as a result of beating by accused No.1 on his left hand, but coming to the evidence of P.W.9 who is a doctor his evidence is silent in that regard. According to him after examination by X-ray they found no

ASJ, Hdp -10- SC 440/2023 fracture on right forearm and left shoulder. As per the evidence of P.W.1 he was in patient at Hindupur Government Hospital for 16 days but as per the evidence of P.W.10 who was examined as investigating officer he stated that the inured P.W.1 is treated as outpatient and not as in patient. The aforesaid facts between the prosecution witnesses are material inconsistencies.

(vi).It is also not out of place to say that as per the evidence of

P.W.1 after the aforesaid incident his sister PWs.2 and 3 shifted him to

Government Hospital, Hindupur by way of 108 ambulance but coming to the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 immediately after the alleged incident police taken P.W.1 to Government Hospital through ambulance. This is also inconsistencies found in evidence Pws.1 to 3. Apart from that the alleged incident said to have taken place on 16.06.2017 at 09.30 PM as per the evidence of P.W.1 on the same day at about 12.00 Am on 17.06.2017 they preferred police complaint under Ex.P1 but coming to the evidence of P.W.10 on 18.06.2017 at about 05.00 PM while he was present at police station he received medical information from the

Government Hospital, Hindupur. Basing on t he statement he registered a case in Cr.No.60/2017 U/Sec.307 R/w 34 IPC, therefore it can be said that it is an inordinate delay and no explanation offered by any of the prosecution party. It is very much on record that the civil disputes

ASJ, Hdp -11- SC 440/2023 prevailing on between the accused and prosecution party that was main background for the registration of criminal proceedings into motion.

However, as discussed supra, there are material inconsistencies found between the prosecution witnesses and no explanation offered for inordinate delay in registration of the complaint. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the firm opinion that prosecution not able to prove the guilt of all the accused beyond reasonable doubt and all the accused are entitled for the benefit of doubt. Therefore, the point is answered accordingly.

[13].In the result, the accused No.1 to 4 found not guilty for the offences u/s.324 and 307 R/w 34 IPC, and they are acquitted for the said charges U/Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 4 shall be in force for period of six months U/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

The unmarked case property, if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period. Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 08th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- M.Sridhar

Assistant Sessions Judge, Hindupur.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined:

For prosecution: For defence

ASJ, Hdp -12- SC 440/2023

PW.1 : E.Anjan Reddy --None-- PW.2 : E.Sukanya PW.3 : K.Subbi Reddy PW.4 : Krishna Reddy PW.5 : Kadiripathi PW.6 : Chinnakadirappagari Anjinappa PW.7 : Nanjannagari Nagesh PW.8 : T.Sathyanarayanappa PW.9 : Dr.Amaresh PW.10: S.Jamal Basha, SI of Police

Exhibits marked on behalf of Prosecution

Ex.P1Complaint of P.W.1. Ex.P2 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of the PW.4. Ex.P3 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of the PW.5. Ex.P4 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of the PW.6. Ex.P5 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of the PW.7. Ex.P6 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of the PW.8. Ex.P7 Wound certificate. Ex.P8 Rough sketch.

Exhibits marked on behalf of Defence:

Nil

Material Objects marked for prosecution :

-Nil-

Ild/- MSD

A.S.J., HUP.

ASJ, Hdp -13- SC 440/2023

Tabular form to be annexed to a Judgment as per Rule 67 of

Cr.P.C.

Sessions Case No.440 of 2023

1 Name of the complaint : State represented by Inspector of with crime No. Police, Chilamathur PS. Crime No.60 of 2017 of Chilamathur PS. 2 Name of the accused : 1. M.S.Amarnath Reddy, aged 37 years, S/o Sudhakar Reddy, R/o Morasalapalli Village, Chilamathur Mandal (A1).

2. Rajesh Reddy, aged 33 years, S/o Krishna Reddy, R/o KanchisamudramVillage, Lepakshi Mandal (A2).

3. B.R.Somasekhar Reddy, aged 38 years, S/o B.Rami Reddy, R/o Kondi Reddypalli Village, Gorantla mandal (A3).

4. P.J.Shravan Reddy, aged 30 years, S/o Jaya Chandra Reddy, R/o Ooduvaripali Village, Bagepalli Taluka, Chickballapura District (A4). 3 Date of offence : 16.06.2017 4 Date of complaint : 18.06.2017 5 Date of apprehension of : obtained anticipatory bail accusedA1 - 22.08.2017 A3 & A4 - 16.10.2017 6 Date of release on bail : A1 - 25.08.2017 A3 & A4 - 08.11.2017 7 Date of committal : 20-10-2023 8 Date of Commencement of : 25-10-2024 trial 9 Date of close of trial : 28-01-2025 10 Date of sentence or order : 08-04-2025

ASJ, Hdp -14- SC 440/2023

Explanation for the delay in committal Court :- On 24-09-2019 this case was taken on file and numbered as P.R.C.No.16/2019 on the file of Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur. On appearance of the accused No.1 to 4 copies of documents furnished and the case was committed to the court of Sessions, Ananthapuramu. Explanation for the delay in Trial Court :- On 22-11-2023 this case was made over by the Hon'ble Sessions

Judge, Ananthapuramu for disposal according to law. On appearance of

accused No.1 to 4, charges U/Sec.324 and 307 r/w 34 of IPC against accused No.1 to 4 are framed and case was posted to 14-05-2024 for trial. On 25.10.2024 trial was commenced. Prosecution side evidence closed on 28.01.2025 and U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. examination was dispenses with as there is no incriminating material found. Heard both side arguments. Judgment pronounced on 08.04.2024. In the result, the accused No.1 to 4 found not guilty for the offences u/s.324 and 307 R/w 34 IPC, and they are acquitted for the said charges U/Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 4 shall be in force for period of six months U/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Sd/- M.Sridhar

Assistant Sessions Judge,

Hindupur.

To The Prl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur.

SCJ, Hdp -1- HMOP 184/2023

APAN060002782023

Presented on : 02-12-2023

Registered on : 02-12-2023

Decided on : 10-04-2025

Duration : 1 years, 4 months, 8 days

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HINDUPUR

Present: Sri M.Sridhar,

Senior Civil Judge.

Wednesday, this the 10th day of April, 2025

H.M.O.P.No.184 of 2023

Between:-

Smt. V.Krishna devika W/o T.Sreeramulu, Aged about 22 years, House wife, D.No.14-3-25, Boyn Peta, Hindupuram, Sri Sathya Sai District, Cell No 8977125035.

... Petitioner

AND

T.Sreeramulu, S/o Totappam, Aged 30 years, D.No.1-69, Business, Maluguru Village, Hindupuram Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District.

... Respondent

This petition coming on 29.03.2025 this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri C.Nagaraju, Advocate for the petitioner and the respondent having been called absent and set exparte, and upon hearing and considering the material on record, the petition having been stood over to this day for consideration, this Court made the following:-

SCJ, Hdp -2- HMOP 184/2023

O R D E R

[1].This application is filed by the petitioner against the respondent

U/Sec.13 (1)(ia)(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of their marriage that was held on 20.04.2017 by way of decree of divorce and for costs.

[2].The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:-

(i).The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. The petitioner and the respondent loved each other. After agreeing the love of the petitioner and the respondent, both side the parents, relatives of the petitioner and the respondent performed their marriage on 20-4-2017 at

Mudalapuram Anjaneya Swamy Devasthanam, Near Charlopalli,

Hindupuram Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District. The parents of the petitioner incurred Rs.1,00,000/- to perform the petitioner and the respondent marriage in a grand manner, as per Hindu caste and customs prevailed in their community. After the marriage the petitioner joined the respondent and the marriage has been consummated. Due to the illiteracy and lack of knowledge the marriage of the petitioner and respondent has not been registered. After the marriage the respondent and the petitioner lived happily at Malugur for 2 years only. During that period the petitioner blessed with two children namely Revanth aged about 6 years, Harani aged about 5 years. The respondent started harassing the petitioner and

SCJ, Hdp -3- HMOP 184/2023 tortured the petitioner mentally and physically without any reasonable cause.

(ii).The petitioner bore all harassment's of the respondent and requested the respondent like anything to change his attitude and pave way for happy marital life of the petitioner and caused lot of mental agony and the respondent. The respondent has subjected the petitioner to cruelty. The respondent addicted to the bad habits like drinking and gambling and the respondent used to beat the petitioner indiscriminately without fault of the petitioner. The respondent was always suspecting fidelity of the petitioner and beat the petitioner indiscriminately. In addition to that, the respondent used to demand the petitioner to bring money from her parents and abused the petitioner in vulgar language and beat her mercilessly. On that the petitioner gave Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent on demand of the respondent. The respondent lavishly spent that amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for his bad habits. Inspite of that, the petitioner did not question the respondent, but the respondent did not change his attitude. About 3 years back the petitioner gave complaint against the respondent in Spandana Program at the Superintendent of

Police office, Anantapuram. On that the Superintendent of Police,

Anantapuram refer the same to Hindupuram Rural Police station,

Hindupuram. On that CI of Hindupuram Rural Police station called the respondent and enquiry into the matter and chastised the respondent

SCJ, Hdp -4- HMOP 184/2023 and the advised the respondent to look after the petitioner well and lead happy marital life with her.

(iii).In the month of May 2023, the respondent beat the petitioner indiscriminately and kicked out the petitioner from his house mercilessly.

With great difficulty, the petitioner reached her grandmother house and on the same day the petitioner gave complaint in Hindupuram Rural

Police station, against the respondent. On that CI of Hindupuram Rural

Police station called the respondent and enquired into the matter and warned the respondent and the advised the respondent to look after the petitioner well and lead happy marital life with the petitioner. In spite of that, the respondent did not change his attitude and continued to abuse the petitioner in vulgar language and beat the petitioner Indiscriminately for want of money. On 20-11-2023 the respondent abused the petitioner in vulgar language and beat the petitioner Indiscriminately, took away amount of Rs.6,000/- and cell phone of the petitioner from her. On that the petitioner gave complaint in Hindupuram Rural Police station against the respondent. On that CI of Hindupuram Rural Police station called the respondent and enquired into the matter and chastised the respondent and the advised the respondent to return the amount of Rs.6,000/- and the cell phone of the petitioner. On that the respondent only returned cell phone to the petitioner. The petitioner vexed with the attitude of respondent and with his cruel behavior and the petitioner suffered with

SCJ, Hdp -5- HMOP 184/2023 lot of mental agony since the date of marriage. Now there is no possibility of the petitioner and the respondent living together as wife and husband and the petitioner is living in her grandmother's house at Boya peta, in

Hindupuram, Sri Sathya Sal District and the respondent is living with his parent's house at Maluguru Village, Hindupuram, Sri Sathya Sai District.

Since 7 months the petitioner and respondent are living separately.

Hence, the petition.

[3].The respondent remained exparte.

[4].During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1 i.e., Original marriage Wedding Card of the petitioner and respondent dated 20.04.2017.

[5].Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

[6].Now the point for determination is:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for decree of divorce on

the ground of cruelty and desertion u/s.13(1)(ia) & (ib) of

Hindu Marriage Act ?

[7]. POINT:-

The petitioner filed her chief affidavit as P.W.1. She has almost reiterated the averments of the petition from her chief examination which is filed by way of an affidavit and as per her chief- examination, there is no possibility for reunion between herself and the

SCJ, Hdp -6- HMOP 184/2023 respondent, therefore, his marriage with the respondent is to be dissolved by granting a decree of divorce by relying on Ex.A1.

[8].As per the evidence of P.W.1, The respondent has subjected the petitioner to cruelty. The respondent addicted to the bad habits like drinking and gambling and the respondent used to beat the petitioner indiscriminately without fault of the petitioner by suspecting fidelity of the petitioner. The respondent also harassed the petitioner for want of

additional dowry for his bad vices. In the month of May 2023, the

respondent beat the petitioner indiscriminately and kicked out the petitioner from his house mercilessly. The petitioner vexed with the attitude of respondent and with his cruel behavior and the petitioner suffered with lot of mental agony since the date of marriage. Now there is no possibility of the petitioner and the respondent living together as wife and husband and the petitioner is living in her grandmother's house at

Boya peta, in Hindupuram, Sri Sathya Sal District and the respondent is living with his parent's house at Maluguru Village, Hindupuram, Sri Sathya

Sai District. Since 7 months the petitioner and respondent are living separately The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is irrevocably broken on account of the above said reasons. There is absolutely no chance of reunion of the petitioner and respondent to lead marital life. The evidence of P.W.1 further shows that the respondent also

SCJ, Hdp -7- HMOP 184/2023 not interested to lead the marital life with the respondent, and therefore, it is a fit case to grant divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

[9].As the respondent remained exparte, the evidence of PW.1 remains unchallenged. Under the above facts and circumstances and in the considered view of this court the petition is to be allowed on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The point is answered accordingly.

[10].In the result, the petition is allowed without costs by granting decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage performed in between the petitioner and respondent on 20-4-2017 at Mudalapuram Anjaneya

Swamy Devasthanam, Near Charlopalli, Hindupuram Mandal, Sri Sathya

Sai District.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 10th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- M.Sridhar

Senior Civil Judge,

Hindupur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER:FOR RESPONDENT:

PW1 : V.Krishna Devika-Nil-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Ex.A1 : Original marriage Wedding Card of the petitioner and respondent

dated 20.04.2017.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

-Nil-

Ild/- MSD

SCJ., HUP.

SCJ, Hdp --1— HMOP 111/2024

APAN060001802024

Presented on : 02-09-2024

Registered on : 02-09-2024

Decided on : 09-04-2025

Duration : 0 years, 7 months, 7 days

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HINDUPUR

Present:- Sri M.Sridhar,

Senior Civil Judge

Wednesday, the 09th day of April, 2025

H.M.O.P. No.111 of 2024

Between:

Smt. P. Divya, aged about 19 years, W/O. P. Suresh, D/o. Gudibandappa, House wife. R/o.D.No. 7-698, Vadde Chennam Palli, Chilamathur Mandalam, Sri Sathya Sai District, Cell. 7675948403.

... Petitioner.

and

P.Suresh, S/o. Gangulappa, aged about 29 years, Tractor Driver, R/o. Kamalavandia Palli Village, Kondapuram Post, Gorantla Mandalam, Sri Sathya Sai District.

... Respondent.

This petition is coming on 26-03-2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt B.Rathnamma, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri

Dharmendra Reddy, Advocates for the respondent, upon hearing on both sides and upon perusing the material on record, and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

[1].This application is filed under Section 13 (i)(ia)(ib) of Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 by the petitioner (wife) praying to dissolve the

SCJ, Hdp --2— HMOP 111/2024 marriage between the petitioner and respondent that took place on 11.05.2022 for decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

[2].The averments of the petition are as follows:-

(i).The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent had taken place at Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swami Devasthanam, Somagatta,

Chilamathur Mandalam, on 11-05-2022 according to Hindu sastras and cast custom at the cost of parents of petitioner and both governed by

Hindu marriage act. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent is an arranged marriage. At the time of marriage on the demand of respondent the parents of the petitioner gave Gold ring to the respondent and gold ornaments to the petitioner and respondent and cash of

Rs.50,000/- to the respondent. After the marriage the petitioner and respondent are went to parents house of the respondent. The marriage was consummated. After the marriage the petitioner and the respondent lived as a husband and wife for 6 months at Kamalavandla Palli Village,

Gorantla Mandal. After that the respondent started demanding additional dowry from the parents of the petitioner. As the parents of the petitioner did not meet the demands of the respondent on that respondent harassed the petitioner. The respondent addicted to bad wices, like drinking alcohol, gambling etc and harassed the petitioner and willfully neglected.

(ii).The petitioner stayed for 6 months only at the house of respondent, in those 6 months also the respondent, for want of additional

SCJ, Hdp --3— HMOP 111/2024 dowry harassed and tortured the petitioner like anything. Every day the respondent drinking alcohol bet the petitioner with black and blue and made her life a hell, under these unbearable situations to save the life, the petitioner reached her parents house. The parents of the petitioner convened panchayaths, but all panchayaths proved futile due to squeezing attitude of respondent. The respondent developed hatredness against the petitioner and started harassing for no fault of her and demanded amount from the parents, and necked out of the house mercilessly in spite of requests made by the petitioner, about 1 1/2 year back for no fault. The respondent swallowed the gold omaments and money given by the parents of the petitioner for his bad vices. All the above facts clearly show that the respondent will fully neglected and harassed the petitioner without providing food and shelter and did not care the life of the petitioner intentionally.

(iii).There has been no restitution of conjugal relationship between the petitioner and the respondent from the past 1 year. Hence the very purpose of marriage got frustrated. This is causing any amount of mental agony to the petitioner. No useful purpose is served by keeping the marital tie alive and undergoing untold misery. Keeping the marital tie alive will unnecessarily lead to bad blood and ultimately to undesirable consequences. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is broken irretrievably and there is no chance of reconciliation. This is the first petition filed by the petitioner and no similar petition is filed nor

SCJ, Hdp --4— HMOP 111/2024 pending any other court. There is no collusion between the petitioner and the respondent. Hence, the petition.

[3].The respondent filed his counter denying the material averments of the Petition and further contended as follows:-

(i).The petition is bad in law and not maintainable either in law or on facts. the petitioner herein filed the above petition against the respondent for dissolution of marriage dated 11-05-2022. The respondent further submit that after filing of this petition the village elders are intervened and made panchayath and settled the matter for dissolution of the marriage. For the last two years misunderstandings arose between the petitioner and respondent for various reasons and these misunderstandings could not be restores even by the elders. The petitioner and respondent living separately for the last two years and there is no matrimonial relationship between them. Hence the marriage tie broken irretrievable and there is no possibility of reunion of petitioner and respondent and there is absolutely no possibility of reconciliation. Under these circumstances taking decree of divorce is the only option for the petitioner and the respondent to have peaceful life in future and prays to allow the petiton.

[4].During the course of enquiry, on behalf of petitioner, P.W.1 examined herself and Exs.A.1 and A.2 i.e., Ex.A.1 : Marriage photo of petitioner and respondent and pendrive and Ex.A.2 : Wedding card of the

SCJ, Hdp --5— HMOP 111/2024 petitioner and respondent dt.11.05.2022. On behalf of the Respondent, the respondent himself examined as R.W.1 and no documents are marked.

[5].Heard on both sides.

[6].Now the points for determination is “Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief to dissolve her marriage with the respondent celebrated on 11.05.2022 by way of decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion as prayed for”?

[7]. Point:-

(i).In the present case on hand, the petitioner filed her chief affidavit and stated that after marriage the respondent started demanding

additional dowry from the parents of the petitioner. The respondent

addicted to bad wices, like drinking alcohol, gambling etc and bet the petitioner with black and blue and made her life a hell, under these unbearable situations to save the life, the petitioner reached her parents house. Inspite of several panchayaths the respondent developed hatredness against the petitioner and necked out of the house mercilessly and wilfully negelected and deserted the petitioner.

(ii).On the other hand, the respondent examined himself as R.W.1 and in his chief affidavit almost reiterated the contents of his counter and stated that For the last two years misunderstandings arose between the petitioner and respondent for various reasons and these

SCJ, Hdp --6— HMOP 111/2024 misunderstandings could not be restores even by the elders. The petitioner and respondent living separately for the last two years and there is no matrimonial relationship between them. Hence the marriage tie broken irretrievable and there is no possibility of reunion of petitioner and respondent and there is absolutely no possibility of reconciliation and prayed this Hon’ble court to pass a decree of divorce as prayed by the petitioner.

(iii).On considering the petition and counter filed by the petitioner and respondent, I am of the firm opinion that both the petitioner and respondent have no objection to get the divorce and lead happily by living separately. Therefore, this point is answered accordingly.

[8].In the result, the petition is allowed without costs by granting decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage performed in between the petitioner and respondent on 11-05-2022 at Sri Lakshmi Narasimha

Swamy Devasthanam, Somagatta, Chilamathur Mandal.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 09th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- M.Sridhar

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HINDUPUR.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner: For Respondent:

P.W.1: P.DivyaRW.1: P.Suresh

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

SCJ, Hdp --7— HMOP 111/2024

Ex.A.1 : Marriage photo of petitioner and respondent and pendrive. Ex.A.2 : Wedding card of the petitioner and respondent dt.11.05.2022.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

-Nil- Ild/- MSD

S.C.J., HUP.