Ms. N. Prema Latha

1

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL (I ADDL.DISTRICT

JUDGE) AT KHAMMAM

Dated this, the 25th day of April, 2019

Present:- Ms.N.Prema Latha, Chairman, M.A.C.T.-cum- I Addl. District Judge, Khammam.

M.V.O.P.No. 429 of 2013

BETWEEN::

1. Smt. Mamidala Satyavathi,, W/o.late Nataraju, aged:65 years, occu:House-hold,

2. Mamidala Siva Kumar, S/o.late Nataraju, aged:37 years, occu:Private Employee,

3. Mamidala Srinivas, S/o.late Nataraju, aged:34 years, occu:Private Employee,

4. Mamidala Chandrasekhar, S/o.late Nataraju, aged:32 years, occu:Government Teacher,

5. Nomula Jagadeeswari,

6. Sama Sujatha,

All are permanent residents of H.No.7-4-16, Sriram Hills, Bonakal Road, Khammam corporation, Khammam District. ….Claim Petitioners.

And

1. Garimidi Lakshmaiah, S/o.Poornaiah, age:Major, occu:Owner-cum-driver of Auto bearing registration No.AP.16-TY-5636, r/o.D.No.2-113, Takkelapadu village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District,

2. M/s.Ramanjaneya Auto Finance represented by its Proprietor, A.V.S.Ramanjaneyulu, D.No.24- 16-6, Kundetivari street, Durgapuram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. …Respondents.

This Original Petition is coming before me for final hearing on 26.02.2019 in the presence of Sri S.Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for claim petitioners; Respondent No.1 remained ex parte; Sri M.V.Satyanarayana, Advocate for Respondent No.2; upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal passed the following:

2

O R D E R

1.This petition has been filed u/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rs.Four lakhs only) for the death of Mamidala Nataraju in the Motor Vehicle Accident,. occurred on 10.01.2013.

2.The averments of the Petition show that:

(I).On 10-01-2013 the deceased stood in front of Sri Ram Hills gate at about 8-10 a.m., to go to Khammam, at that time, driver of Auto bearing

No.AP 16 TY 5636 came in rash and negligent manner, at high speed and dashed against the deceased, due to which, the deceased sustained severe injuries on head and other vital parts of the body. Immediately after the accident, the deceased was shifted to Telangana Hospital,

Khammam and thereafter due to severity of the injuries, he was shifted to Vijaya Health Care, Hyderabad, where he was underwent treatment.

Inspite of the better treatment, due to severity of the injuries, the deceased succumbed to injuries in the hospital at Hyderabad.

(ii). On complaint, P.S., Khanapuram Haveli registered a case in

Cr.No.28 of 2013 for the offence u/Sec.337 IPC against the driver of the auto. Subsequently on receipt of information of death, section of law was altered from Sec.337 IPC to Sec.304-A IPC against the driver of crime vehicle and filed the charge sheet.

(iii). Respondent No.1 is the driver-cum-owner of the crime vehicle and Respondent No.2 is Financier of the crime vehicle. As such, both

Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

3.On receipt of summons, Respondent No.1 remained ex parte.

Respondent No.2 filed his counter denying the mode of accident, 3 involvement of the crime vehicle and registration of the criminal case.

Respondent No.2 further denied age and income of the deceased and submitted that Respondent No.1 has paid entire finance amount due to

Respondent No.2 prior to the date of accident and handed over the statement of finance clearance duly signed by Respondent No.2 i.e., notice of termination of agreement of hypothecation along with letter addressed to Registering Authority. As such, Respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation.

5.Basing on the above rival pleadings, the following Issues were settled for trial:

1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e. Mahindra Tractor bearing No.AP-16-TY-5636 by its driver, occurred on 10-01-2013 ?

2. Whether the claim Petitioners are entitled to claim any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief?

6.At the trial, on behalf of the Claim Petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined, Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked. On behalf of the Respondents

R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 copy of Insurance Policy was marked.

7. The Respondent No.2 filed I.A.No.1103 of 2014 u/Sec.170 of

M.V.Act praying to take all or any of the grounds/defences that are available to the Insurer and the same is allowed on 09-01-2019.

8.Learned counsel on both sides submitted oral arguments.

ISSUE NO.1:

9.The Petitioners to support their case got examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.7. As per P.W.1 who is claim Petitioner No.1, the accident occurred on 10-01-2013 at about 8-00 a.m., Information of 4 accident was received by P.S., Khanapuram Haveli on 14-01-2013. Claim

Petitioner No.3 son of the deceased lodged the complaint stating that as the deceased was admitted at Hyderabad for better treatment, as such, there was delay in lodging the complaint. In the circumstances, Ex.A.1 was promptly lodged and is authentic as to the truth of the accident.

Ex.A.1 was investigated and charge sheet was filed which is marked as

Ex.A.2, which reveals that investigation was done in proper lines. As per

Ex.A.2, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the crime vehicle i.e., Auto bearing No.AP 16 TY 5636. As per Ex.A.5

Postmortem Examination Report, the cause of death is Cordio

Respiratory arrest due to sub Arachnoid and cerebral haemorrhage. As per Motor Vehicles Inspector’s Report which was marked as Ex.A.3, the accident was occurred not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle.

Therefore, from the evidence on record, it is proved that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime.

Therefore, this Issue is answered accordingly.

ISSUE NO.2:

10(i). The pleadings and oral evidence of P.W.1 shows that the deceased was aged about 65 years as on the date of accident. The

Petitioners did not file any document in proof of age of the deceased. In the absence of any such document, Ex.A.3 Postmortem examination report is taken into consideration. As per Ex.A.3 Postmortem

Examination Report, the age of the deceased is 68 years and the same is accepted by this Tribunal.

(ii).The pleadings and oral evidence of P.W.1 shows that the deceased was working as Private Teacher at Vageesha High School, Ballepally and was getting Rs.5,000/- (Rs.Five thousands only) per month and apart from this he was also conducting tuition classes and getting another 5

Rs.5,000/- (Rs.Five thousands only) per month and contributing the same to the welfare of the family. To prove the income of deceased, the petitioners filed Ex.A.6 Salary Certificate issued by S.H.Vageesha High

School, Ballepally. As per Ex.A.6, the deceased was getting Rs.5,000/- (Rs.Five thousands only) per month towards his salary. However, the petitioners did not examine the person or authority issuing Ex.A.6.

There is also no proof to show that the deceased was conducting tuitions and was earning Rs.5,000/- (Rs.Five thousands only) per month towards his salary. In the absence of any such proof, the claim of the petitioners that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- (Rs.Ten thousands only) per month cannot be considered. Considering the minimum wages applicable during the period of accident and also the age of deceased the income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.5,000/- (Rs.Five thousands only) per month and his annual income comes to Rs.5,000 X 12 =

Rs.60,000/- (Rs.Sixty thousands only).

(iii). As per the petition and evidence, the claimants are wife, children of the deceased. As already held supra, the annual income of the deceased was Rs.60,000/- (Rs.Sixty thousands only). Now the question is how much the amount can be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. In this regard, it is appropriate to refer to the land mark judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in “ Sarla Verma v. D.T.C ” reported in (2009) 6 SCC - 121, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

“14. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deduction. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and 6 living expenses of the deceased, should be one- third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fi fth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceed six.”

In the present case, the dependents are six in number and as per the above decision the appropriate deduction is 1/4th.

The annual income of the deceased is determined as

Rs.60,000/- and 1/4th of deduction of it comes to Rs.15,000/-.

So, after deducting Rs.15,000/- from Rs.60,000/-, the Annual contribution comes to Rs.45,000/- (Rs.Forty fi ve thousands only) and the same is considered as loss of dependency.

(iv).In order to determine the appropriate multiplier, it is appropriate to refer the decision of Ho’ble Apex Court in the matter of Sarla Verma’s case (cited supra), wherein it was held as follows;

21. We, therefore, hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying

Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and

Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every fi ve years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every fi ve years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.

(v). As per my fi ndings on age, the age of deceased is arrived at 68 years. The appropriate multiplier for person in the age group of 66-70 is ‘5’. Therefore, the multiplier “5” is adopted for calculation of amounts. By adopting this 7 multiplier I.e., Rs.45,000 X 5 = 2,25,000-00 ( Rs.Two Lakhs and

Twenty fi ve thousands only) is awarded to the petitioners towards loss of dependency.

(vi). The Hon’ble Apex court in National Insurance Company

Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and others (2017 ACJ 2700) has granted an amount of Rs.70,000/- towards loss of estate, loss of love and aff ection and loss of consortium. Following the above binding precedent, this Tribunal awards a sum of

Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of love and aff ection and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium to the spouse. Thus, the petitioner Nos.1 to 6 are awarded the following compensation amount:

Sl.HeadAmountof No.compensation awarded 1Towards loss of dependencyRs.2,50,000-00 2Towards funeral expensesRs. 15,000-00 3Towards consortiumRs. 40,000-00 4Towards loss of love and affection.Rs. 15,000-00 TOTAL COMPENSATION AMOUNTRs.2,95,000-00 (Rupees TwoLakhs and Ninety fi ve thousands only)

(vii). Proprietor of contesting Respondent No.2 examined as

R.W.1 and got marked Ex.B.1 copy of policy valid from 03.10.2010 to 02.10.2011. R.W.1 deposed that Respondent

No.1 has availed fi nance from Respondent No.2 company for purchase of the crime vehicle and the fi nance amount was cleared prior to the date of accident and he handed over the

Form No.35 to Respondent No.1 along with covering letter to the Asst., Licencing Authority to get terminated the 8

Agreement of Hypothecation with them from the Transport

Authorities.

However R.W.1 did not fi le any document to show that fi nance amount was cleared by Respondent No.1 prior to the date of accident except taking a mere plea. R.W.1 further contended that at the time of fi nance, the vehicle was duly insured, as such, Respondent No.2 company is not liable to pay any compensation. In support of his version, he got marked Ex.B.1 copy of policy, which was valid from 03.10.2010 to 02.10.2011. The pleaded accident occurred on 10-01-2013. Therefore, as on the date of accident, the crime vehicle was not duly insured. Therefore, respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

(viii). Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that ‘B’

Register of the crime vehicle consists the name of

Respondent No.2 as Financier during the relevant period, as such, Respondent No.2 company is liable to pay compensation. In support of his version, the petitioner got marked Ex.A.7 Certifi ed copy of ‘B’ Register particulars of crime vehicle issued by Addl. Registering Authority,

Nandigama. A perusal of Ex.A.7 reveals the name of

Respondent No.2 company in the column of Financier from the period 02-09-2011 to 14-03-2013. In support of his version, the Petitioner relied on the decision of Hon’ble Apex

Court in Prakash Chand Daga Vs.Saveta Sharma 2019 (1) Am

L.J 7 (SC), wherein it was held that:

“Even though in law there would be a transfer of ownership of the vehicle, that, by itself, would not absolve the party, in whose name 9 the vehcile stands in RTO records, from liability to a third person…..

…..Merely because the vehicle was transferred does not mean that such registered owner stands absolved of his liability to a third person. So long as his name continues in RTO records, he remains liable to a third person.”

In view of the Law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the above decision, this Tribunal opined that Respondent No.2 company being registered owner is equally liable to pay compensation along with Respondent No.1. This Issue is answered accordingly.

18.ISSUE No. 3 :

(I).In the result, the claim is allowed in part awarding a sum of Rs.2,95,000/- (Rs.Two Lakhs and Ninety fi ve thousands only) with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum on the awarded compensation from the date of petition till date of deposit. Rest of claim of the Petitiones is dismissed without costs, (II).The Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and the Respondents are hereby directed to deposit the above said amount into Court within one month from the date of this Order,

(iii) APPORTIONMENT:

The claim petitioners No.1 to 6 are wife and children of the deceased.

Claim Petitioner No.1 is awarded Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.One lakh only) with total costs and interest, 10

Claim Petitioners No.2 to 6 each are awarded an amount of Rs.39,000/- (Rs.Thirty nine thousands only).

(iv). On such deposit, all the petitioners are permitted to withdraw their share amounts,

(v). The fee of Advocate is fi xed at Rs.3,000/- (Rs.Three thousands only).

Dictated to the Stenographer (Gr.I), transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court on this, the 25th day of APRIL, 2019.

CHAIRMAN, M.A.C.T.-CUM-

I ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS: FOR RESPONDENTS:

PW.1. Mamidala Satyavathi,- None - PW.2. Sk.Fasi.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS

Ex.A.1. Certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.28/13, dt.14-01-2013,

Ex.A.2. Certified copy of charge sheet in Cr.No.28/13, dt.29-01-2013,

Ex.A.3. Certified copy of MVI Report, dt.08-02-2013,

Ex.A.4. Certified copy of Inquest Panchanama, dt.29-01-2013,

Ex.A.5. Certified copy of PME Report, dt.29-01-2013,

Ex.A.6. Salary Certificate of the deceased, dt.19-03-2013,

Ex.A.7. Certified copy of B-Register particulars of crime vehicle issued by RTA, dt.20-10-2018.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR RESPONDENT No.2:

Ex.B-1.Copy of policy bearing No.1803702339000215 valid from 03.10.2010 to 02.10.2011.

CHAIRMAN, M.A.C.T.-CUM-

I ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

Corrections carried out by:

11 12

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL (I ADDL.DISTRICT

JUDGE) AT KHAMMAM

Dated this, the 25th day of April, 2019

Present:- Ms.N.Prema Latha, Chairman, M.A.C.T.-cum- I Addl. District Judge, Khammam.

M.V.O.P.No. 429 of 2013

Presented on:17-04-2013, Filed on:22-04-2013. BETWEEN::

1.Smt. Mamidala Satyavathi,, W/o.late Nataraju, aged:65 years, occu:House-hold, 2.Mamidala Siva Kumar, S/o.late Nataraju, aged:37 years, occu:Private Employee, 3.Mamidala Srinivas, S/o.late Nataraju, aged:34 years, occu:Private Employee, 4.Mamidala Chandrasekhar, S/o.late Nataraju, aged:32 years, occu:Government Teacher,

5. Nomula Jagadeeswari,

6. Sama Sujatha, All are permanent residents of H.No.7-4-16, Sriram Hills, Bonakal Road, Khammam corporation, Khammam District. ….Claim Petitioners.

And

1. Garimidi Lakshmaiah, S/o.Poornaiah, age:Major, occu:Owner-cum-driver of Auto bearingregistrationNo.AP.16-TY-5636, r/o.D.No.2-113, Takkelapadu village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District,

2. M/s.Ramanjaneya Auto Finance represented by its Proprietor, A.V.S.Ramanjaneyulu, D.No.24- 16-6,Kundetivaristreet,Durgapuram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. …Respondents. CLAIM FOR: This petition has been filed u/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rs.Four lakhs only) for the death of Mamidala Nataraju in the Motor Vehicle Accident,. occurred on 10.01.2013 with future interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident till the date of realization and to award costs of the petition.

CAUSE OF ACTION AND TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION: The cause of action arose on 10-01-2013 at about 8-10 a.m., in front of Sriram Hills gate, Khammam town, Khammam district, where the accident took place which falls within the jurisdiction of P.S., Khanapuram Haveli and this court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition. COURT FEE: That on the claim of Rs.4,00,000/- Court fee of Rs.3,360/- was paid u/Rule 475 (1)(b) of A.P.M.V.Rules. on dt.17-04-2013 at State Bank of Hyderabad, Rotary Nagar Branch, Khammam.

13

DECREE: This Original Petition is coming before me for final hearing on 26.02.2019 in the presence of Sri S.Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for claim petitioners; Respondent No.1 remained ex parte; Sri M.V.Satyanarayana, Advocate for Respondent No.2; upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal doth order and decree:

1.That the claim be and is hereby allowed in part with proportionate costs,

2.That a sum of Rs.2,95,000-00 (Rs. Two Lakhs and Ninety five thousands only) be and is hereby awarded in favour of the claim petitioners and interest @ 7.5% per annum on the awarded compensation from the date of petition till the date of deposit,

3. That rest of the claim Petitioners be and is hereby dismissed,

4.That the Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and the Respondents be and are hereby directed to deposit the above said amount into Court within one (1) month from the date of this order,

5. APPORTIONMENT:

That the claim Petitioners No.1 to 6 wife and children of the deceased,

Claim Petitioner No.1 be and is hereby awarded Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.One Lakh only) with total costs and interest,

Claim Petitioners No.2 to 6 each be and are hereby awarded an amount of Rs.39,000/- (Rs.Thirty nine thousands only),

6.On such deposit, all the Petitioners be and hereby permitted to withdraw their share amounts,

7.That fee of Advocate be and is hereby fixed at Rs.3,000/- (Rs.Three thousands only).

8.That the Respondents No.1 and 2 do pay an amount of Rs.6,436.00 (Rs.Six thousands four hundred and thirty six only) to the Claim petitioners towards proportionate costs of the Petition.

Given under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on this the 25th day of April, 2019.

Chairman, M.A.C.T.-cum- I Addl.District Judge, Khammam.

14

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

Sl.DescriptionoftheForFORFOR R2 Nodocument Petitioners R-1 1Stamps on petition3,360-00E-- 2Stamps on power 2-00X2-00 3Stamps on process 90-00P-- 4Stamps on documents 5-00A-- 5Stamps on petitions 2-00R-- 6Advocate’s Fee 3,000-00T-- 7Commissioner’s fee 1,000-00E-- 8Misc. & Type Charges 200-00----

Total:Rs.7,659-00--2-00

Chairman, M.A.C.T.-cum- I Addl.District Judge, Khammam.

15

1 Spl.S.C.No.207 of 2017, dt.25-04-2019

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT-CUM-I

ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE AT KHAMMAM

Dated, this the, 25th day of April, 2019

Present: Ms.N.Prema Latha, Spl. Sessions Judge for trial of cases for offences under protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 cum-I Addl. Sessions Judge, Khammam.

SPL. SESSIONS CASE NO.207 OF 2017

Prosecution : Accused Learned Spl. Public Prosecutor:Islavath Jayaram Nayak, S/o.Venkata Rao conducted prosecution.Nayak, 20 years, Sugali by caste, r/o.Yetukuru road, Chakalikunta, Guntur town, Andhra Pradesh State. Defence: Sri P.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for Accused. Charges:Under Secs.363, 376 IPC, Sec.4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sec.3 of Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty. Finding of the court.: Find not guilty. Sentence or order:In the result, I find the Accused not guilty for the offences Under Secs.363, 376 IPC, Sec.4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sec.3 of Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 and accordingly, he is acquitted in terms of Sec.232 of Cr.P.C.

Bail bond of accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time.

PROPERTY: The un-marked case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 18-04-2019 in the presence Spl. Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and of Sri P.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for Accused; upon perusing the material papers on record; having heard both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Spl. Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.This is a case on police report, filed by the Inspector of Police, P.S.

Sathupalli in Cr.No.413 of 2014 of P.S., Sathupalli against the Accused for offences u/Secs.363, 376 IPC, Secs.4 and 5 of POCSO Act, 2012 and

Secs.4 and 5 of Child Marriage Act.

2 Spl.S.C.No.207 of 2017, dt.25-04-2019

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that:

(i).The victim girl was aged about 17 years and was studying in

Intermediate Second year. The accused is resident of Guntur town and is relative of the victim girl.

(ii). That on 11-08-2014 mother of the victim girl along with the victim girl and her sister went to Guntur to attend a function at the house of their relatives. After attending the function, the victim girl, her elder sister went to their house at Sathupalli. On 13-08-2014 mother of the victim girl asked the victim girl to again come to Guntur on 14-08-2014.

Accordingly the victim girl started from her house at Sathupalli, but did not reach Guntur, as such, mother of the victim girl enquired for her and came to know that accused who is the nephew of mother of the victim girl took the victim girl along with him. As such, a complaint was lodged with P.S., Lalapeta, Guntur town.

(iii).On receipt of complaint, police registered a case in Cr.No.391 of 2014 u/Sec.363 IPC, took up the investigation and recorded the statements of witnesses. On 16-08-2014 the victim girl came to police station and her statement was recorded. Basing on her statement,

Section of Law was altered and added Sec.376 IPC and Secs.4 and 5 of

POCSO Act and interrogated the accused who confessed to have committed the offence. Police after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet.

3. One of my learned predecessors in office took cognizance against the Accused for the offences u/Secs363, 376 IPC, Secs.4 and 5 of Child

Marriage Act and Secs.4 and 5 of POCSO Act, 2012.

4.Accused is represented by his own learned Counsel. On his appearance, copies of documents were furnished to him.

3 Spl.S.C.No.207 of 2017, dt.25-04-2019

5. After hearing both sides and on perusing the record, charges

Under Secs.363, 376 IPC, Sec.4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sec.3 of Child

Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 against the Accused have been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu. He denied the allegations, pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

6. At the trial, to prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.12.

7.Examination of accused u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with as there is no incriminating evidence available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

8.Heard both sides.

9. POINT FOR DETERMINATION:

Whether conduct of the Accused fall within the ambit of Secs.363, 376 IPC, Sec.4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sec.3 of Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 and whether prosecution proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt?

10.POINT ANSWERED:

(i).The victim girl is testified as P.W.3, who deposed that her date of birth is 16-01-1997. Thus, by the date of incident, she was aged 17 years and thus, a minor.

(ii).Mother of the victim girl is testified as P.W.1, who is the defacto- complainant in this case. The averments of complaint indicate that the victim girl went to the house of her relatives at Guntur on 11-08-2014 and again returned back to her home at Sathupalli on 13-08-2014. On 14.08.2014 the victim girl again started for Guntur, but did not reach to her parents at Guntur, on which, her parents enquired and came to know that the victim girl was kidnapped by the accused who is their relative.

However, during the course of evidence, P.W.1 deposed that the accused never kidnapped her daughter and never committed any offence against 4 Spl.S.C.No.207 of 2017, dt.25-04-2019 her prior to their marriage. Her Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement which was marked as Ex.P.3 was suggested to her, she denied the same.

(iii).P.W.2 is father of the victim girl who also did not support the prosecution version and when his Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement which was marked as Ex.P.5 was suggested to him, he denied the same.

(iii). The victim girl is testified as P.W.3 who deposed that the accused present in the court is her husband and their marriage was performed one year back. She further deposed that accused never kidnapped her and never committed any offence against her when she was studying her

Intermediate. Her Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement which was marked as Ex.P.5 was suggested to her, she denied the same.

(v). Learned Spl. Public Prosecutor filed a petition u/Sec.294 Cr.P.C.

and the same was allowed. Copy of SSC certificate is marked as Ex.P.8,

Sec.164 Cr.P.C. statement is marked as ex.P.9, Potency certificate is marked as Ex.P.10, Crime Details Form is marked as Ex.P.11, First

Information Report is marked as Ex.P.12, Medical certificate is marked as

Ex.P.13. Since there is no incriminating material available against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, examination of accused u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

(v).Since the material witnesses including the victim girl did not support the prosecution version and turned hostile, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, all the charge fail.

11. In the result, I find the accused not guilty for the offences Under

Secs.363, 376 IPC, Sec.4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sec.3 of Child Marriage 5 Spl.S.C.No.207 of 2017, dt.25-04-2019

Restraint Act, 1929 and accordingly, he is acquitted in terms of Sec.232 of

Cr.P.C.

Bail bond of the accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time.

PROPERTY:

The un-marked case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr.I, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 25th day of April, 2019.

Spl. Sessions Judge for trial of cases under Protection of Children from SexualOffencesAct,2012-cum- I Addl. Sessions Judge, Khammam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

P.W.1. Ramavath Parvati, P.W.2. Ramavath Sardar Naik, P.W.3. Ramavath Laxmi Priya.

FOR DEFENCE: - NONE –

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1. Signature of P.W.1 on Complaint, dt.15-08-2014, Ex.P.2. Signature of P.W.1 on Sec.164 Cr.P.C. statement, dt.20-06-2015, Ex.P.3. Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1, dt.22-1-2014, Ex.P.4. Signature of P.W.2 on Sec.164 Cr.P.C. statement, dt.20-06-2015, Ex.P.5. Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2, dt.23-11-2014, Ex.P.6. Signature of P.W.3 on Sec.164 Cr.P.C. statement, dt.20-06-2015, Ex.P.7. Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3, dt.23-11-2014, Ex.P.8. SSC Certificate, dt.10-06-2014, Ex.P.9. Sec.164 Cr.P.C. statement, dt.20-06-2015, Ex.P.10. Potency Certificate, dt.16-06-2016, Ex.P.11. Crime Details Form, dt.22-11-2014, Ex.P.12. Medical Certificate, dt.16-08-2014.

FOR DEFENCE: - NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: - nil -

Spl. Sessions Judge for trial of cases under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012-cum- I Addl. Sessions Judge, Khammam. Corrections carried out by:

6 Spl.S.C.No.207 of 2017, dt.25-04-2019

1 Spl.S.C.No.111 of 2015, dt.24-04-2019

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT-CUM-I

ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE AT KHAMMAM

Dated, this the, 24th day of April, 2019

Present: Ms.N.Prema Latha, Spl. Sessions Judge for trial of cases for offences under protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 cum-I Addl. Sessions Judge, Khammam.

SPL. SESSIONS CASE NO.111 OF 2015

Prosecution : Accused Learned Spl. Public Prosecutor:Banoth Laxman, S/o.Panthulu, age:31 yrs., conducted prosecution.caste:Lambadi, occu:coolie, r/o.Suraram (V), Julurpad. Defence: Sri O.Seshagiri Rao, Advocate for Accused. Charges:Under Sec.8 of POCSO Act. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty. Finding of the court.: Find not guilty. Sentence or order:In the result, I find the Accused not guilty for the offence Under Sec.8 of POCSO Act, 2012 and accordingly, he is acquitted in terms of Sec.232 of Cr.P.C.

Bail bond of accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time.

PROPERTY: The un-marked case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 18-04-2019 in the presence Spl. Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and of Sri O.Seshagiri Rao, Advocate for Accused; upon perusing the material papers on record; having heard both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Spl. Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.This is a case on police report, filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

P.S.Julurupad in Cr.No.59 of 2015 of P.S., Julurupad against the Accused for offences u/Secs.354 IPC and Sec.8 of POCSO Act.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that:

(i).The victim girl was aged about 11 years and was studying in 8th class. The accused also belongs to the same village.

(ii). That on 29-05-2015 at about 8-00 p.m., the victim girl went to bring rice from the Rice Mill and when she was on the way to the Rice Mill, 2 Spl.S.C.No.111 of 2015, dt.24-04-2019 the acused came and caught hold of her and touched her body parts by pressing. The victim girlraised hue and cry, on which, L.Ws.3 and 4 (Maloth Narasimha Rao @ Swamy and Tekalapati Krishna) went to her and by seeing them, the accused tried to hide himself beside the wall.

When L.Ws.3 and 4 enquired with the accused, he escaped from that place without giving answer. Thereafter, a complaint was lodged with

P.S., Julurupad and the police registered a case in Cr.No.59 of 2015 u/Sec.354 IPC and Sec.10 of POCSO Act.

(iii).During the course of investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded, Crime Details Form was prepared, Study certificate of the victim girl was collected. Thereafter, Section of Law was altered to Sec.8 of POCSO Act and statement of the victim girl was recorded through

L.W.6 ( Buggavarapu Shiva Kumari) which was videographed. On 19.06.2015 the accused was arrested and produced before the court. The police after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet.

3. This office took cognizance against the Accused for the offences u/Sec.354 IPC and Sec.8 of POCSO Act, 2012.

4.Accused is represented by his own learned Counsel. On his appearance, copies of documents were furnished to him.

5. After hearing both sides and on perusing the record, charge Under

Sec.8 of POCSO Act against the Accused has been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu. He denied the allegations, pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

6. At the trial, to prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.10.

3 Spl.S.C.No.111 of 2015, dt.24-04-2019

7.Examination of accused u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with as there is no incriminating evidence available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

8.Heard both sides.

9. POINT FOR DETERMINATION:

Whether conduct of the Accused fall within the ambit of Sec.8 of POCSO Act and whether prosecution proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt?

10.POINT ANSWERED:

(i).Mother of the victim girl is testified as P.W.1, who is also defacto complainant in this case. The averments of the complaint indicate that on 29-05-2015 while the victim girl was going to the rice mill, the accused caught hold of her and pressed her body parts. On which, the victim girl raised hue and cry. On hearing the cries of the victim girl L.Ws.3 and 4 came to that place and enquired with the accused, but the accused escaped from that place without answering. However, during the course of evidence, P.W.1 deposed that her daughter never informed about any incident to her and she do not know the contents of her complaint. Her

Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement which was marked as ExP.3 was suggested to her, she denied the same.

(ii).P.W.2 is husband of P.W.1 who aldo deposed in the same lines as that of his wife/P.W.1 and pleaded ignorance of the facts of the case and his Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement which was marked as Ex.P.4 was suggested to him, he denied the same.

(iii).P.Ws.3 and 4 are the eye witnesses to the incident,but they did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. Their Sec.161 Cr.P.C.

statements marked as Exs.P.5 and P.6 respectively were suggested to them, they denied the same.

4 Spl.S.C.No.111 of 2015, dt.24-04-2019

(iv).P.W.5 is the victim girl who deposed that accused never committed any offence against her when she was studying in 7th class Her Sec.161

Cr.P.C. statement which was marked as Ex.P.7 was suggested to her, she denied the same.

(v). Since the material witnesses turned hostile, learned Spl. Public

Prosecutor has given up the evidence of L.Ws.8 and 9 and evidence of remaining witnesses was closed as no purpose would serve. Learned Spl.

Public Prosecutor filed a petition u/Sec.294 Cr.P.C. and the same was allowed. Crime Details Form was marked as Ex.P.8, First Information

Report is marked as Ex.P.9, Study and conduct certificate is marked as

Ex.P.10. Since there is no incriminating material available against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, examination of accused u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

(v).Since the material witnesses including the victim girl did not support the prosecution version and turned hostile, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the charge fail.

11. In the result, I find the accused not guilty for the offence U/Sec.8 of POCSO Act, 2012 and accordingly, he is acquitted in terms of Sec.232 of Cr.P.C.

Bail bond of the accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time.

PROPERTY:

The un-marked case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr.I, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 24th day of April, 2019.

Spl. Sessions Judge for trial of cases under Protection of Children from SexualOffencesAct,2012-cum- I Addl. Sessions Judge, Khammam.

5 Spl.S.C.No.111 of 2015, dt.24-04-2019

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

P.W.1. Lakavath Devi, P.W.2. Lakavath Ramlal, P.W.3. Tekalapati Krishna, P.W.4. Maloth Narasimha Rao @ Swamy, P.W.5. Lakavath Kusuma.

FOR DEFENCE: - NONE –

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1. Signature of P.W.1 on Complaint, dt.30-05-2015, Ex.P.2. Signature of P.W.1 on First Information Report, dt.30-05-2015, Ex.P.3. Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1, dt.30-05-2015, Ex.P.4. Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2, dt.30-05-2015, Ex.P.5. Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3, dt.30-05-2015, Ex.P.6. Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4, dt.30-05-2015, Ex.P.7. Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5, dt.30-05-2015, Ex.P.8. Crime Details Form, dt.30-05-2015, Ex.P.9. First Information Report , dt.30-05-2015, Ex.P.10. Study and Conduct certificate, dt.19-06-2015.

FOR DEFENCE: - NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: - nil -

Spl. Sessions Judge for trial of cases under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012-cum- I Addl. Sessions Judge, Khammam. Corrections carried out by:

6 Spl.S.C.No.111 of 2015, dt.24-04-2019

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT­CUM­VI ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE 

KHAMMAM.

Dated this, the 1st day of MARCH, 2017.

Present:­ Ms.N.Prema Latha,

Judge, Family Court­cum­

VI Addl. District Judge, Khammam. 

D.O.P.No.890 of 2015

Between:

Etta @ Thimmasathi Durga W/o Kiran, aged: 25 yrs, Occ: household, R/o H.No.3­36, Market Yard, Madhira town and Mandal, Khammam District. 

...Petitioner.

And 

Thimmasathi Kiran S/o Nageswar Rao, aged: 33 yrs, Occ: Coolie, R/o Kondapalli village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Krishna District. 

...Respondent.

This petition coming before me on 27.02.2017 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Yedunuthala Srinivasa Rao, Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent having chosen to set ex parte, remained ex parte; upon perusing the material papers on record, on hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court passed the following:

O R D E R

1.The petitioner filed this petition under Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869 seeking dissolution of her marriage with respondent by way of a decree of divorce and for costs and such other reliefs.

2(a).In the petition, it is stated that the marriage between petitioner and the respondent took place on 30.05.2010 at Baptist Church, Madhita Town and Mandal,

Khammam District, as per the rites and customs prevailing in Christian community.

The parents of petitioner gave an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards dowry and paid

Rs.50,000/- towards gold ornaments to the respondent. After marriage, the petitioner and the respondent lead happy marital life for two years. There are no issues during their marital life. Thereafter, the respondent used to come to home late in nights in drunken condition and used to beat the petitioner indiscriminately stating that his parents forcibly performed his marriage with petitioner and he is not interested to continue marital tie with petitioner as he is in love affair with another woman and so saying the respondent insulted the petitioner stating that the petitioner is not beautiful when compared to his his lover.

2(b).It is also stated in the petition that when the parents of petitioner held a panchayat, the parents of respondent stated that as the respondent was in need of money, he behaved like that and demanded for additional dowry amount. Then the parents of petitioner gave Rs.10,000/- to the respondent and asked him to adjust with that amount. Even thereafter also, there is no change in the conduct and attitude of the respondent towards the petitioner. On 10.08.2013, the respondent came to the home and beat the petitioner indiscriminately and necked her out from his house. Having no other go, the petitioner reached the house of her parents. The petitioner waited all these days with a hope that the respondent would change his attitude towards the petitioner,but recently the petitioner came to know that the parents of the respondent are trying to perform the marriage of respondent with another girl. When the parents of the petitioner tried to convince the respondent and his parents, but the respondent is not willing to lead marital life with the petitioner. Hence, this petition.

3.On receipt of summons, the respondent make his appearance before this Court, but failed to file counter despite grant of time and inspite of passing conditional order and the respondent was called absent and there was no representation on his behalf.

Hence, the respondent was set ex parte on 25.01.2017. Even thereafter also, he did not turn up and participate in the trial.

4. The petitioner testified as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3.

5. Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted oral arguments.

6. Now the point for determination is whether the petitioner made out grounds for dissolution of Christian marriage?

POINT ANSWERED:

The petitioner got herself examined as PW1 by filing her chief affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A3. Ex.A1 is the original marriage certificate. Ex.A2 is the marriage photograph and Ex.A3 is the attested photostat copy of Aadhar Card of the petitioner. The petitioner as PW1 has reiterated the contents of the petition. According to her, the respondent used to subject the petitioner to cruelty both physically and mentally. PW1 stated that the respondent stated to her that he is not interested to continue the marital ties with petitioner because he is already in love affair with another woman and that the petitioner is not beautiful when compared with his lover. According to PW1, on 10.08.2013, the respondent came to the house and beat the petitioner indiscriminately and necked her out from the house and she reached her parents house.

PW1 also stated that when her parents tried to convince the respondent, the respondent stated that he is not willing to lead marital life with the petitioner and she came to know that the parents of respondent are trying to perform the marriage of respondent with another girl, who is their close relative. The evidence of PW1 show that the petitioner was subjected to cruelty and she was deserted by the respondent from 10.08.2013 onwards. Deserting a wife for more than two years and subjecting her to cruelty are sufficient grounds for grant of divorce. Evidence on record indicate cruelty desertion that evidence of PW1 remained unchallenged. Therefore, this Point is answered in favour of the petitioner.

8.In the result, this petition is allowed dissolving the Christian marriage of petitioner Smt.Etta @ Thimmasathi Durga solemnized with respondent Sri Thimmasathi

Kiran on 30.05.2010 and a decree of divorce shall be passed. No costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this, the 1st day of MARCH, 2017.

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-

VI ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

For Petitioner: For Respondent:

PW-1: Etta @ Thimmasathi DurgaEx parte

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PETITIONER;

Ex.A1: The original marriage certificate.

Ex.A2: The marriage photograph. Ex.A3: The attested photostat copy of Aadhar Card of the petitioner.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR RESPONDENT

NIL

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-

VI ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

Read by :

Comparped by :

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT­CUM­VI ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE 

KHAMMAM.

Dated this, the 1st day of MARCH, 2017.

Present:­ Ms.N.Prema Latha,

Judge, Family Court­cum­

VI Addl. District Judge, Khammam. 

D.O.P.No.890 of 2015

Between:

Etta @ Thimmasathi Durga W/o Kiran, aged: 25 yrs, Occ: household, R/o H.No.3­36, Market Yard, Madhira town and Mandal, Khammam District. 

...Petitioner.

And 

Thimmasathi Kiran S/o Nageswar Rao, aged: 33 yrs, Occ: Coolie, R/o Kondapalli village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Krishna District. 

...Respondent.

This petition coming before me on 27.02.2017 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Yedunuthala Srinivasa Rao, Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent having chosen to set ex parte, remained ex parte; upon perusing the material papers on record, on hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court passed the following:

O R D E R

1.The petitioner filed this petition under Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869 seeking dissolution of her marriage with respondent by way of a decree of divorce and for costs and such other reliefs.

2(a).In the petition, it is stated that the marriage between petitioner and the respondent took place on 30.05.2010 at Baptist Church, Madhita Town and Mandal,

Khammam District, as per the rites and customs prevailing in Christian community.

The parents of petitioner gave an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards dowry and paid

Rs.50,000/- towards gold ornaments to the respondent. After marriage, the petitioner and the respondent lead happy marital life for two years. There are no issues during their marital life. Thereafter, the respondent used to come to home late in nights in drunken condition and used to beat the petitioner indiscriminately stating that his parents forcibly performed his marriage with petitioner and he is not interested to continue marital tie with petitioner as he is in love affair with another woman and so saying the respondent insulted the petitioner stating that the petitioner is not beautiful when compared to his his lover.

2(b).It is also stated in the petition that when the parents of petitioner held a panchayat, the parents of respondent stated that as the respondent was in need of money, he behaved like that and demanded for additional dowry amount. Then the parents of petitioner gave Rs.10,000/- to the respondent and asked him to adjust with that amount. Even thereafter also, there is no change in the conduct and attitude of the respondent towards the petitioner. On 10.08.2013, the respondent came to the home and beat the petitioner indiscriminately and necked her out from his house. Having no other go, the petitioner reached the house of her parents. The petitioner waited all these days with a hope that the respondent would change his attitude towards the petitioner,but recently the petitioner came to know that the parents of the respondent are trying to perform the marriage of respondent with another girl. When the parents of the petitioner tried to convince the respondent and his parents, but the respondent is not willing to lead marital life with the petitioner. Hence, this petition.

3.On receipt of summons, the respondent make his appearance before this Court, but failed to file counter despite grant of time and inspite of passing conditional order and the respondent was called absent and there was no representation on his behalf.

Hence, the respondent was set ex parte on 25.01.2017. Even thereafter also, he did not turn up and participate in the trial.

4. The petitioner testified as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3.

5. Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted oral arguments.

6. Now the point for determination is whether the petitioner made out grounds for dissolution of Christian marriage?

POINT ANSWERED:

The petitioner got herself examined as PW1 by filing her chief affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A3. Ex.A1 is the original marriage certificate. Ex.A2 is the marriage photograph and Ex.A3 is the attested photostat copy of Aadhar Card of the petitioner. The petitioner as PW1 has reiterated the contents of the petition. According to her, the respondent used to subject the petitioner to cruelty both physically and mentally. PW1 stated that the respondent stated to her that he is not interested to continue the marital ties with petitioner because he is already in love affair with another woman and that the petitioner is not beautiful when compared with his lover. According to PW1, on 10.08.2013, the respondent came to the house and beat the petitioner indiscriminately and necked her out from the house and she reached her parents house.

PW1 also stated that when her parents tried to convince the respondent, the respondent stated that he is not willing to lead marital life with the petitioner and she came to know that the parents of respondent are trying to perform the marriage of respondent with another girl, who is their close relative. The evidence of PW1 show that the petitioner was subjected to cruelty and she was deserted by the respondent from 10.08.2013 onwards. Deserting a wife for more than two years and subjecting her to cruelty are sufficient grounds for grant of divorce. Evidence on record indicate cruelty desertion that evidence of PW1 remained unchallenged. Therefore, this Point is answered in favour of the petitioner.

8.In the result, this petition is allowed dissolving the Christian marriage of petitioner Smt.Etta @ Thimmasathi Durga solemnized with respondent Sri Thimmasathi

Kiran on 30.05.2010 and a decree of divorce shall be passed. No costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this, the 1st day of MARCH, 2017.

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-

VI ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

For Petitioner: For Respondent:

PW-1: Etta @ Thimmasathi DurgaEx parte

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PETITIONER;

Ex.A1: The original marriage certificate.

Ex.A2: The marriage photograph. Ex.A3: The attested photostat copy of Aadhar Card of the petitioner.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR RESPONDENT

NIL

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-

VI ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

Read by :

Comparped by :