N. Santosh Kumar

Senior Civil Judge

Nirmal, SCJ Court Complex · Nirmal · Telangana

N. Santosh Kumar, Senior Civil Judge, is posted at Nirmal, SCJ Court Complex, Nirmal, Telangana, India. 1,045 court orders on record since 2017. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, EP, H cases.

1,045

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

H.M.O.P/22/2020

Nalla @ Mamidi Kavya @Lasya vs Raj Kumar Reddy

17 Nov 2020

Page No. 1 of 6 Order in H.M.O.P.No.22/2020

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NIRMAL

Present: Sri N. Santosh Kumar,

Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal.

Tuesday, the 17th day of November, 2020.

H.M. O.P.No.22/2020

Between:

Smt. Nalla @ Mamidi Kavya @ Lasya, W/o. Raj Kumar Reddy, Aged: 24 years, R/o. Komanpally Village of Armoor Mandal, District: Nizamabad, presently residing at her parents Dharmora Village, Lokeshwaram Mandal, District: Nirmal. …Petitioner.

// AND //

Nalla Rajkumar Reddy S/o. Srinivas Reddy, Aged: 31 years, Caste: OC, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Komanpally Village of Armoor Mandal, District: Nizamabad. …Respondent.

This Petition is coming on 16-11-2020 before me in the presence of Sri. D.Rajashekhar and Sri. T. Ravinder Singh, Advocates for the Petitioner and of Sri. V. Mahender, Advocate for the Respondent, having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This Original Petition is filed by the Petitioner Under

Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of

Marriage of the Petitioner with the Respondent.

2(a).The brief case of the Petitioner as disclosed in the

Petition is that the Petitioner is the wife and the Respondent is the husband; and the marriage of both the Petitioner and Respondent was solemnized on 15-04-2015 at Sri Rama Mandir, Pochampad of

Mendora Mandal, District Nizamabad as per caste and customs prevailing in their community and at the time of marriage, the parents of Petitioner gave three acres of land and household utensils to the Respondent. The Petitioner further submitted that soon after

Page No. 2 of 6 Order in H.M.O.P.No.22/2020 the marriage, she joined with the company of Respondent at her in- laws house and led conjugal life, but on 04.07.2019 the Petitioner came to know through the pathological laboratory reports that she will not procure children in future due to low sperm count (fertility) and it will be not possible to develop, hence the Respondent developed adverse interest against the Petitioner and used to harass her both physically and mentally as she is a barren woman and that the Respondent constantly forced her to give divorce.

2(b). The Petitioner further submitted that unable to tolerate the mental and physical harassment of Respondent since 2016 and due to lot of differences, she is not interested to lead conjugal life with the Respondent. Hence the Petitioner filed the Petition for dissolution of her marriage with the Respondent.

03.After proper service of notice, the Respondent filed counter, wherein the Respondent did not dispute his marriage with the Petitioner, but submitted that the Petitioner is not interested to live with him and at the same time, he also not interested to lead the conjugal life with the Petitioner. The Respondent further submitted that soon after their marriage, there were lot of differences and that there is no possibility of reunion of conjugal life with the Petitioner, hence the Respondent finally prayed to grant decree of divorce as prayed for by the Petitioner.

04.In order to prove the case, the Petitioner examined herself as PW.1 and Exs.A1 to A3 are marked in support of the case of Petitioner. The Respondent examined himself as RW-1, but no documents are marked on his behalf.

Page No. 3 of 6 Order in H.M.O.P.No.22/2020

05.Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the record.

06.Basing on the contentions of both sides, now the point for consideration before this Court is :

“Whether the decree of divorce is to be granted to the Petitioner by dissolving the marriage between the Petitioner and Respondent ? ”

07. POINT : The undisputed facts of the present case on hand that the Petitioner and Respondent are wife and husband respectively and that their marriage was performed on 15.04.2015 as per the rites and customs of Hindu Religion. It is also not in dispute that after the marriage, the Petitioner joined the conjugal society of the Respondent at her in-laws house.

08.The Petitioner in her evidence as PW.1 deposed that after their marriage in the year 2015, she joined the society of

Respondent and led happy marital life, but she did not bless any children even though their marriage was consummated, hence she got the reports of Pathological laboratory on 04.07.2019 and confirmed that she will not get the pregnancy due to her sperm count below the normal level and taking the same as advantage, the Respondent started harassing her both physically and mentally, but anyhow she tolerated the same.

09.The avernments of the petition and the testimony of

PW.1 reveals that the Respondent taking advantage of the reports of pathological laboratory that the Petitioner is a barren woman, started harassing her both mentally and physically. It is

Page No. 4 of 6 Order in H.M.O.P.No.22/2020 pertinent to note that the Respondent though filed counter admitting his relationship with the Petitioner, but did not deny the serious allegations of cruelty leveled by Petitioner against him.

Even the Respondent in his counter stated that there were lot of differences between them after the marriage and that it is not possible to lead conjugal life with the Petitioner and that he too not interested to lead conjugal life with the Petitioner and finally prayed in his counter to dissolve his marriage with the Petitioner.

Moreover, the Respondent did not choose to cross examine PW.1 to disprove the allegations made by PW.1 in her evidence.

Therefore, it can be said that the testimony of PW.1 remain unchallenged.

10.The Respondent who examined as RW-1 also deposed that he also not interested to lead marital life with the Petitioner and that there is no possibility to resume the conjugal life between them and he finally deposed to dissolve his marriage with the Petitioner. During the course of enquiry before this

Court, this court has also made its efforts for possibility of reunion of both parties, but in vain.

11.The main contention of the Petitioner is that when the

Petitioner did not conceive Pregnancy, she undergone the medical test and accordingly on 04.07.2019 she came to know through the Pathological laboratory reports that she will not procure children in future due to low sperm count (fertility) and that it will be not possible to develop, hence the Respondent developed adverse

Page No. 5 of 6 Order in H.M.O.P.No.22/2020 interest against her and used to harass her both physically and mentally by treating her as a barren lady.

12.The Respondent in his counter submitted that the

Petitioner is not interested to live or reunion conjugal life with him and at the same time, he is also not interested to lead conjugal life with the Petitioner and that soon after their marriage, there were lot of differences aroused and that there is no possibility of reunion of conjugal life with the Petitioner; and both of them voluntarily expressed unwillingness for reunion due to lot of misunderstandings. The act of Respondent by not challenging or not denying the allegations of Petitioner that he harassed the

Petitioner both physically and mentally by taking advantage that the Petitioner is barren woman, is amounts to cruelty with in the meaning of Section 13 (1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which enables the Petitioner for grant of divorce.

13.Considering all the above said facts, circumstances and in the interest of justice, I am of the view that the contents of the petition have been proved by the petitioner. The testimony of

PW.1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A3 and the admission made by the

Respondent in his counter proves that the Petitioner is entitled for decree of divorce from the Respondent. Thus, Point is answered in favour of Petitioner.

14.In the result, the Petition is allowed and accordingly the decree of divorce is granted by dissolving the marriage between the Petitioner and Respondent with effect from the date

Page No. 6 of 6 Order in H.M.O.P.No.22/2020 of decree. In view of the relationship of parties, there is no order as to cost.

Typed to my dictation directly on the Computer by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 17th day of November, 2020.

Senior Civil Judge,

Nirmal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner For Respondent

PW-1Smt. Nalla Kavya @ RW-1Sri. Nalla Rajkumar Reddy Lasya (Respondent/Husband) [Petitioner/Wife]

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

For Petitioner For Respondent

Ex.A1Marriage Invitation Card Ex.A2Two positive colour photographs Nil. of marriage of Petitioner and Respondent in wedding dress. Ex.A3Original pathological Report.

Senior Civil Judge,

Nirmal.

H.M.O.P/8/2020

Nalla Ramgopal reddy vs Nalla Shravani

20 Nov 2020

Page No. 1 of 4 Order in H.M.O.P.No. 08/2020

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NIRMAL

Present: Sri N. Santosh Kumar,

Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal.

Friday, the 20th day of November, 2020.

H.M.O.P.No.8/2020

Between:

Nalla Ramgopal Reddy S/o. Srinivas Reddy, Aged about 36 years, Occ: Private Lecturer, R/o. Kalva Village, Dilawarpur Mandal, District: Nirmal, Presently at H.No.1-4-130/C, Adarshnagar, Nirmal. …Petitioner No.1/Husband. AND

Nalla Shravani W/o. Ramgopal Reddy, D/o. Thummala Surender Reddy, Aged: 32 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Kalva Village, Dilawarpur Mandal, District: Nirmal. Presently at Flat No.402, 4th Floor, Raja Rajeshwara Nilayam Apartments, KLR Vijayanagar Colony, Medchal, Medchal District. …Petitioner No.2/Wife.

This Petition is coming on 19.11.2020 before me in the presence of Sri. S. Goverdhan, Counsel for the Petitioner No.1 and Petitioner No.2, having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

O R D E R

This Original Petition filed by the Petitioners No.1 and 2 jointly Under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying this

Court to grant a Decree of Divorce between both the Petitioners on mutual consent by dissolving their marriage.

2.The brief case of the Petitioners is that Petitioner No.1 is the husband and Petitioner No.2 is the wife and their marriage was solemnized on 08.04.2012 at Munnurukapu Sangam, Dubba Road,

Nizamabad, as per caste and customs prevailing in their community and that after the marriage, the Petitioner No.2 joined the society of

Page No. 2 of 4 Order in H.M.O.P.No. 08/2020

Petitioner No.1 at her in-laws house at Kalva Village and led matrimonial life and out of their wedlock, they blessed with a female child on 09.08.2013 by name Niharika. The Petitioners further submitted that from the day of their marriage, the Petitioner No.2 showed her reluctance to live with the Petitioner No.1 in the village atmosphere and thereby she frequently started to go to her parents house without any permission and information and used to stay for long time. The Petitioners further submitted that the Petitioner No.1 keeping in view of welfare of his family and the future of his daughter, he had shifted his residence to Nirmal Town from Kalva Village and secured a private job, but the Petitioner No.2 did not change her attitude and demanded the Petitioner No.1 to shift to Hyderabad and that on 03.04.2015 the Petitioner No.2 voluntarily left the company of

Petitioner No.1 along with her child and belongings including valuables and after that the Petitioner No.1, his parents and village elders made several efforts to convince the Petitioner No.2, but in vain. The

Petitioners further submitted that on 22.01.2019 the Petitioner No.1 filed a petition in HMOP.No.2 of 2019 on the file of this Court for restitution of conjugal rights and the said Petition was allowed on 23.12.2019 directing the Petitioner No.2 to join the company of

Petitioner No.1, but the Petitioner No.2 showed her intention to take divorce from the Petitioner No.1. Hence, the Petitioners have mutually agreed and decided to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent as there is no chance of reconciliation. Therefore, both the Petitioners have filed the present Petition for decree of divorce by mutual consent.

4.Heard the arguments of counsel of both parties and perused the material on record.

Page No. 3 of 4 Order in H.M.O.P.No. 08/2020

5.Basing on the contention of Petitioners, now the point for consideration is :

“Whether the decree of divorce by mutual consent is to be granted to Petitioners by dissolving their marriage”.

6. POINT :

Petitioner No.1 examined as PW.1 and Petitioner No.2 examined as PW.2. Ex.A1 is the Marriage Invitation Card (2 in number), Ex.A2 is the Positive Colour photograph of Petitioners No.1 and 2 and Ex.A3 is the Certified Copy of Decree in HMOP. No.2/2019,

dated: 23.12.2019 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nirmal,

shows the proof of marriage of Petitioners. During course of enquiry, both the Petitioners present and both of them voluntarily deposed that their marriage was performed as per Hindu rites and customs, but later due to some misunderstandings between them, they have decided to take decree of divorce by mutual consent and that there was no cohabitation between them and that Mediation took place, but it was failed to make both the parties live together. PW.2 testified that as per the terms of settlement outside the Court, she received an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) from the Petitioner

No.1 towards her life maintenance and permanent alimony.

7.In view of the contents of the petition and the testimonies of PWs. 1 and 2 before this Court, the ingredients required U/sec.13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are complied with, both the petitioners willing to take divorce on mutual consent by dissolving their marriage.

The statutory waiting period of six months as required U/Sec.13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is also elapsed. During the course of

Page No. 4 of 4 Order in H.M.O.P.No. 08/2020 enquiry, this Court also made efforts for re-union of both the

Petitioners, but in vain.

8.In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, this Court holds that it is just and proper to grant decree of divorce on mutual consent by dissolving the marriage between both the

Petitioners No. 1 and 2.

9. In the result, the Petition is allowed and accordingly, the decree of divorce is granted on mutual consent by dissolving the marriage between the Petitioners No.1 and 2 with effect from the date of decree.

Typed to my dictation directly on the Computer by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 20 th day of November, 2020.

Senior Civil Judge,

Nirmal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS NO.1 AND 2

Nalla Ramgopal Reddy PW-1 [Petitioner No.1/Husband].

PW-2Nalla Shravani [Petitioner No.2/Wife].

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS NO.1 AND 2

Ex.A1Marriage Invitation Card (2 in number). Ex.A2Positive Colour photograph of Petitioners No.1 and 2. Ex.A3Certified Copy of Decree in HMOP. No.2/2019, dated: 23.12.2019 of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nirmal.

Senior Civil Judge,

Nirmal.

H.M.O.P/50/2019

Sherla SAntosh vs Swathi alias Uma Jyothi

20 Nov 2020

Page 1 of 4 Order in H.M.O.P.No.50/2019

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NIRMAL

Present: Sri N. Santosh Kumar,

Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal.

Friday, the 20th day of November, 2020.

H.M.O.P.No.50/2019

Between:

Sri. Sherla Santosh, S/o. Sherla Rajanna, Age: 30 years, Occ: Private Employee, Caste: S.C. (Mala), R/o. Kankapur Village, R/M. Laxmanchanda, District: Nirmal.

…Petitioner No.1/Husband. // AND // Smt. Swathi @ Uma Jyothi, W/o. Sherla Santosh, D/o. Kondar Muthanna, Age: 25 years, Occ: Household, Caste: S.C. (Mala), R/o. Kanakapur Village, R/M. Laxmanchanda, District: Nirmal. Presently residing at her parent’s house R/o. Kanakapur Village, R/M. Laxmanchanda, District: Nirmal.

…Petitioner No.2/Wife.

This Petition is coming on 19.11.2020 before me in the presence of Sri. D. Rajashekhar and Sri. B. Ranjith Kumar, Counsel for the Petitioner No.1 and Petitioner No.2, having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

O R D E R

This Original Petition filed by the Petitioners No.1 and 2

Under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying this court to grant a Decree of Divorce between both the Petitioners on mutual consent by dissolving their marriage.

02.The brief case of the Petitioners is that Petitioner No.1 is the husband and the Petitioner No.2 is the wife; and both the

Petitioners were married on 31.05.2013 at Kankapur, as per caste and customs prevailing in their community and that during their wed-luck, they blessed with a male child by name Akheera Nandan, now his aged about 6 years, is under custody of the Petitioner No.1. The Petitioners

Page 2 of 4 Order in H.M.O.P.No.50/2019 further submitted that both the Petitioners lead happy marital life till they blessed with first child, thereafter severe disputes started between them, hence several reconciliations were made by caste and village elders on both sides, but in vain. The Petitioners further submitted that they were not interested to lead marital life together and accordingly the Petitioner No.2 has been residing separately from the company of Petitioner No.1 since 05.11.2018 and since then there was no relationship between them. The Petitioners further submitted that the Petitioner No.1 returned an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rupees

One Lakh Twenty Thousnad only) to the Petitioner No.2 towards her permanent alimony and that both parties have exchanged their respective articles, which were presented at the time of their marriage.

The Petitioners further submitted that the Petitioner No.2 shall not claim custody of child by name Akheera Nandan from the Petitioner

No.1 and the Petitioner No.1 shall take care and welfare of his son.

Hence, the Petitioners have mutually agreed and decided to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent as there is no chance of reconciliation. Therefore, both the Petitioners have filed the present

Petition for decree of divorce by mutual consent.

03.Heard the arguments and perused the material on record.

04.Basing on the contention of Petitioners, now the point for consideration is :

“Whether the decree of divorce by mutual consent is to

be granted to Petitioners by dissolving their marriage? ”

Page 3 of 4 Order in H.M.O.P.No.50/2019

05. POINT :

Petitioner No.1 examined as PW.1 and Petitioner No.2 examined as PW.2. Ex.A1 is the Wedding Invitation Card of Petitioners and Ex.A2 is the Marriage positive colour photograph of Petitioner No.1 and Petitioner No.2 in wedding dress shows the proof of marriage of

Petitioners. During the course of enquiry, it is revealed that the marriage of Petitioners was performed as per Hindu rites and customs, but later due to some misunderstandings between them, they have voluntarily decided to take decree of divorce by mutual consent and that there is no cohabitation between them after filing this petition and that Mediation took place, but it was failed to make both the parties live together.

06.In view of the contents of the petition and the testimonies of PWs. 1 and 2 before this Court, the ingredients required U/Sec.13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are complied with, both the Petitioners are willing to take divorce on mutual consent by dissolving their marriage. The statutory waiting period of six months as required

U/sec.13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is also elapsed. During the course of enquiry, this Court also made efforts for re-union of both the

Petitioners, but in vain.

07.In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, this Court holds that it is just and proper to grant decree of divorce on mutual consent by dissolving the marriage between both the

Petitioners No. 1 and 2 with effect from the date of decree. Thus the point is answered in favour of Petitioners.

Page 4 of 4 Order in H.M.O.P.No.50/2019

08. In the result, the Petition is allowed and accordingly, the decree of divorce is granted on mutual consent by dissolving the marriage between the Petitioners No.1 and 2 with effect from the date of decree.

Typed to my dictation directly on the Computer by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20th day of November, 2020.

Senior Civil Judge,

Nirmal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS NO.1 AND 2

PW-1Sri. Sherla Santhosh [Petitioner No.1/Husband] PW-2Smt. Swathi @ Uma Jyothi [Petitioner No.2/Wife]

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS NO.1 AND 2

Ex.A1Wedding Invitation Card. Ex.A2Marriage positive colour photograph of Petitioner No.1 and Petitioner No.2 in wedding dress.

Senior Civil Judge,

Nirmal.

H.M.O.P/48/2019

Nalla Sridhar Reddy vs Nalla @ Aindla Sudharani

20 Nov 2020

Page No.1 of 4 Order in H.M.O.P.No.48/2019

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NIRMAL

Present: Sri N. Santosh Kumar,

Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal.

Friday, the 20th day of November, 2020.

H.M.O.P.No.48/2019

Between:

Nalla Sridhar Reddy, S/o. Anand Reddy, Age: 46 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. Jowly Village, R/M. Sarangapur, District Nirmal, Telangana State. …Petitioner No.1/Husband. // AND //

Nalla @ Aindla Sudharani, W/o. N. Sridhar Reddy, D/o. Aindla Potha Reddy), Age: 42 years, Occ: House hold, R/o. Jowly Village, R/M. Sarangapur, District: Nirmal, Presently residing at Shastrinagar, Nirmal, District Nirmal, Telangana State. …Petitioner No.2/Wife.

This Petition is coming on 18.11.2020 before me in the presence of Sri. N. Gangadhar and Ch. Archana, Counsel for the Petitioners No.1 and 2, having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This Original Petition filed by the Petitioners No.1 and 2 jointly Under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying this court to grant a Decree of Divorce between both the Petitioners on mutual consent by dissolving their marriage.

02.The brief case of the Petitioners is that Petitioner No.1 is the husband and the Petitioner No.2 is the wife and that both the

Petitioners were married on 05.03.2001 at Nirmal as per caste and customs prevailing in their community and after the marriage, the

Petitioner No.2 immediately joined the company of Petitioner No.1 at her in-laws house. The Petitioners further submitted that there are

Page No.2 of 4 Order in H.M.O.P.No.48/2019 several disputes aroused between them during their conjugal life and that the Petitioners started disliking each other and that it was practically became impossible to live together as husband and wife.

The Petitioners further submitted that several times mediation took place between them in the presence of caste elders and village elders for reunion of both the Petitioners, but in vain. The Petitioners further submitted that they have been residing separately since 10.08.2012 and that there is no cohabitation in between them. Hence the

Petitioners have mutually agreed and decided to dissolve their marriage by granting divorce by mutual consent as there is no chance of reconciliation. Therefore, both the Petitioners have filed the present

Petition for decree of divorce by mutual consent.

03.Heard the arguments of counsel of both parties and perused the material on record.

04.Basing on the contention of Petitioners, now the point for consideration is :

“Whether the decree of divorce by mutual consent is to

be granted to Petitioners by dissolving their marriage”.

05. POINT :

The Petitioner No.1 examined as PW.1 and Petitioner No.2 examined as PW.2. Ex.A1 is the Marriage Invitation Card and Ex.A2 is the marriage Positive colour Photograph of Petitioners No.1 and 2 in wedding dress, shows the proof of marriage of both the Petitioners.

During the course of enquiry, both the Petitioners present and both of them voluntarily deposed that their marriage was performed as per

Hindu rites and customs, but later due to some misunderstandings

Page No.3 of 4 Order in H.M.O.P.No.48/2019 between them, they have decided to take decree of divorce by mutual consent and that there is no cohabitation between them after filing of the Petition and that Mediation took place, but it was failed to make both the parties live together.

U/sec.13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is also elapsed. During the course of enquiry, this Court also made efforts for re-union of both the

Petitioners, but in vain.

07.In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, this Court holds that it is just and proper to grant decree of divorce on mutual consent by dissolving the marriage between both the

Petitioners No. 1 and 2. Thus the point is answered in favour of

Petitioners.

Typed to my dictation directly on the Computer by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 20th day of November, 2020.

Senior Civil Judge,

Nirmal.

Page No.4 of 4 Order in H.M.O.P.No.48/2019

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS No.1 AND 2

PW-1Nalla Sridhar Reddy [Petitioner No.1/Husband] PW-2Nalla @ Aindla Sudharani [Petitioner No.2/Wife]

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.A1Marriage Invitation Card. Ex.A2Marriage Positive colour Photograph of Petitioners No.1 and 2 in wedding dress.

Senior Civil Judge,

Nirmal.

H.M.O.P/62/2019

Loka Chandra Sagar Reddy vs Loka Kavya alias ANusha

17 Nov 2020

Page No.1 of 4 Order in H.M.O.P.No. 62/2019

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NIRMAL

Present: Sri N. Santosh Kumar,

Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal.

Tuesday, the 17th day of November, 2020.

H.M.O.P.No.62/2019

Between:

Loka Chandra Sagar Reddy, S/o. Ram Reddy, Age: 35 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Kallur Village, Mdl: Kuntala, District: Nirmal. …Petitioner No.1/Husband. // AND //

Loka Kavya @ Anusha, W/o. Chandra Sagar Reddy, Age: 22 years, Occ: House hold, R/o. Bandla Nagpur, R/M. Tamsi, District: Adilabad. …Petitioner No.2/Wife.

This Petition is coming on 12.11.2020 before me in the presence of Sri. K. Santosh Kumar, Counsel for the Petitioners No.1 and 2, having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

02.The brief case of the Petitioners is that Petitioner No.1 is the husband and the Petitioner No.2 is the wife and that both the

Petitioners were married on 18.06.2017 at Adilabad as per caste and customs prevailing in their community and after their marriage, both the Petitioners lived together as husband and wife and led a marital life for few months and thereafter due to ideological and temperamental differences, some troubles were started between them, due to which

Page No.2 of 4 Order in H.M.O.P.No. 62/2019 they have been living separately at their respective places since 15.03.2019. The Petitioners further submitted that the parents, caste elders and well wishers of the Petitioners tried their level best to reunion of both the Petitioners, but in vain. Hence the Petitioners have mutually agreed and decided to dissolve their marriage by granting divorce by mutual consent as there is no chance of reconciliation.

Therefore, both the Petitioners have filed the present Petition for decree of divorce by mutual consent.

03.Heard the arguments of counsel of both parties and perused the material on record.

04.Basing on the contention of Petitioners, now the point for consideration is :

“Whether the decree of divorce by mutual consent is to

be granted to Petitioners by dissolving their marriage”.

05. POINT :

The Petitioner No.1 examined as PW.1 and Petitioner No.2 examined as PW.2. Ex.A1 is the Marriage Invitation Card, Ex.A2 is the

Marriage certificate dated 12.07.2017 issued by Marriage Registrar,

Adilabad and Ex.A3 is the marriage Positive colour Photograph of

Petitioners No.1 and 2 in wedding dress, shows the proof of marriage of both the Petitioners. During the course of enquiry, both the Petitioners present and both of them have voluntarily deposed that their marriage was performed as per Hindu rites and customs, but later due to some misunderstandings between them, they have decided to take decree of divorce by mutual consent and that there is no cohabitation between

Page No.3 of 4 Order in H.M.O.P.No. 62/2019 them after filing of the Petition and that Mediation took place, but it was failed to make both the parties live together.

06.In view of the contents of the petition and the testimonies of PWs. 1 and 2 before this Court, the ingredients required U/Sec.13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are complied with, both the Petitioners willing to take divorce on mutual consent by dissolving their marriage.

The statutory waiting period of six months as required U/sec.13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is also elapsed. During the course of enquiry, this Court also made efforts for re-union of both the

Petitioners, but in vain.

07.In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, this Court holds that it is just and proper to grant decree of divorce on mutual consent by dissolving the marriage between both the

Petitioners No. 1 and 2. Thus the point is answered in favour of

Petitioners.

Typed to my dictation directly on the Computer by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 17th day of November, 2020.

Senior Civil Judge,

Nirmal.

Page No.4 of 4 Order in H.M.O.P.No. 62/2019

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS No.1 AND 2

PW-1Loka Chandra Sagar Reddy [Petitioner No.1/Husband] PW-2Loka Kavya @ Anusha [Petitioner No.2/Wife]

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.A1Marriage Invitation Card. Ex.A2Marriage certificate dated 12.07.2017 issued by Marriage Registrar, Adilabad. Ex.A3Marriage Positive colour Photograph of Petitioners No.1 and 2 in wedding dress.

Senior Civil Judge,

Nirmal.

Order Record 986 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
H.M.O.P/8/2020	Nalla Ramgopal reddy vs Nalla Shravani	20 Nov 2020	Order	—
H.M.O.P/48/2019	Nalla Sridhar Reddy vs Nalla @ Aindla Sudharani	20 Nov 2020	Order	—
H.M.O.P/50/2019	Sherla SAntosh vs Swathi alias Uma Jyothi	20 Nov 2020	Order	—
H.M.O.P/22/2020	Nalla @ Mamidi Kavya @Lasya vs Raj Kumar Reddy	17 Nov 2020	Order	—
H.M.O.P/62/2019	Loka Chandra Sagar Reddy vs Loka Kavya alias ANusha	17 Nov 2020	Order	—
H.M.O.P/36/2020	Thokala Ashok vs Thokala Prasanna @ Lasya	16 Nov 2020	Order	—
H.M.O.P/57/2019	Sangyam Saraswathi @ Sanjana vs Kudurkapuram Rajith Kumar @ Ranjith	10 Nov 2020	Order	—
H.M.O.P/43/2019	Patti REddy Sai Krishna vs Atla Manasa Reddy	05 Nov 2020	Order	—
H.M.O.P/16/2020	Bandi Ravi vs Vsbandi Veena	04 Nov 2020	Order	—
H.M.O.P/16/2020	Bandi Ravi vs Vsbandi Veena	03 Nov 2020	Order	—
IP/2/2017	Puli Venkataramana Goud vs Kurichenga Jayavanth Rao and others	02 Nov 2020	Order	—
OS/44/2019	Sirgarapu Linganna and another vs Sirgarapu Shanker	13 Oct 2020	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/7/2020	Salde Bhasker vs Salde Susmitha	01 Oct 2020	Order	—
OS/35/2018	Shyamakura Bhulaxmi vs Shyama Kura Ashana and Three others	15 Sep 2020	Judgement	—
OS/36/2018	Shamakura Kishana vs Shamakura Bhulaxmi	15 Sep 2020	Judgement	—
OS/65/2011	Shamakura Bhulaxmi vs Shamakura Ushanna	15 Sep 2020	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/28/2019	Manala Vinod Baba vs Manala Purnima	10 Aug 2020	Order	—
H.M.O.P/21/2020	Battula Venkata Shyam vs Battula Nirosha	31 Jul 2020	Order	—
SC/127/2017	The State of Telangana through SI of Police PS Basr vs Malani Shivaji and 2 others	21 Jul 2020	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/5/2020	Veeragandham Rajesh vs Veeragandham @ Mula Rajitha	26 Jun 2020	Order	—
OS/6/2013	Dontula Ganesh vs Dontula Nagnath	28 May 2020	Judgement	—
OS/32/2014	Chintlakuntla Suma and another vs Regional Manager APSRTC and anothers	20 May 2020	Judgement	—
S.O.P/1/2020	Garepalli Ramchander @ Chandraiah vs Garepalli Rajender	07 Mar 2020	Order	—
H.M.O.P/36/2019	Narwadi Sundara Bai vs Narwadi Gangadhar	06 Mar 2020	Order	—
H.M.O.P/46/2018	Pothuganti Mahesh vs Pothuganti Soundarya	06 Mar 2020	Order	—
H.M.O.P/39/2019	Smt. Boda @ Gangireddy Harika vs Boda Vamshi Kumar	02 Mar 2020	Order	—
H.M.O.P/41/2019	Gaddam Suman @ Gaddam Suman Reddy vs Kola Swathi @ Kola Swathi Sree	27 Feb 2020	Order	—
H.M.O.P/43/2018	Are premalatha vs Are Satheesh Kumar	26 Feb 2020	Order	—
SC/212/2019	Police Station Mudhole vs Rolla Maruthi @ Telagadam Maruthi	25 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/42/2019	Samaikar Harikishan vs Samaikar Deepali	25 Feb 2020	Order	—
H.M.O.P/18/2018	Malepu Naveen Kumar vs Malepu Lavanya	20 Feb 2020	Order	—
OS/2/2015	M A Gaffar vs Maseeha Tabassum and another	12 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
OS/63/2014	Maseeha Tabassum vs Ubeda Begum and another	12 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
SC/146/2017	State of Telangana through PS Narsapur G vs Nukala Ganesh	11 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
SC/223/2017	State of Telangana through PS Narsapur. vs Vsbattu narsaiah	11 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/55/2019	Rasamalla Sudharkar @ Srinivas vs Varshini @ Umalatha	10 Feb 2020	Order	—
OS/20/2019	Vemula Amrutha and 2 others vs Adiserla Ramalingam and 2 others	08 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
SC/145/2017	State of Telangana through PS Lokeshwaram vs Ernala Bhojanna	07 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/19/2019	Revella Sarala @ Dhasari Sandyarani vs Dhasari Prahakar	06 Feb 2020	Order	—
H.M.O.P/1/2019	Pasupula Naresh vs Pasupula Lavanya	05 Feb 2020	Order	—
SC/174/2015	PS Mudhole vs Chillewad Anandrao and anothers	31 Jan 2020	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/33/2016	Vanga Thirupathi Reddy vs Vanga Manjula	31 Jan 2020	Order	—
OS/58/2012	Boddolla Posanibai vs Paldolla Pothanna	30 Jan 2020	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/26/2019	Thakur Vishweshwar Singh vs Thakur Pooja	27 Jan 2020	Order	—
OS/71/2013	algothwar sainath vs Vskadam Pundalik	24 Jan 2020	Judgement	—
OS/34/2019	State Bank of India vs Rameshwar Gotekar	23 Jan 2020	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/54/2018	Loudya Vinesh vs Loudya Latha	23 Jan 2020	Order	—
H.M.O.P/20/2019	Shyamakura Ramana vs Smt. Shyamakura Gangamani	21 Jan 2020	Order	—
H.M.O.P/25/2019	Madarapu Harika @ Soumya @ Sony vs Gojja Pramod Kumar	21 Jan 2020	Order	—
SC/167/2017	PS Tanoor vs Fayaz Khan and 4 others	13 Jan 2020	Judgement	—
L.A.O.P/13/2011	Spl deputy collector, SRSP vs Tagilapalli Bhoopathi	09 Jan 2020	Order	—
SC/91/2017	The State of Telangana through SI of Police PS Tanoor vs Panchaliga Vittal	08 Jan 2020	Judgement	—
OS/20/2009	Kothapalli Suresh Kumar vs Loka Narender Reddy	31 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/26/2017	Addiserla Naresh vs Addiserla Roja	31 Dec 2019	Order	—
EP/26/1999	Lolam Pedda Ganganna vs Spl. Dy. Collector	30 Dec 2019	Order	—
OS/8/2014	Thummala Rajitha vs Nagula Linga Reddy and 3 others	30 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
OS/67/2013	Uppunooti Sridevi alias N.Sridevi vs Suddu Muthanna	30 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
EP/17/2008	Madiga Lachudu vs Spl. Dy. Collector	23 Dec 2019	Order	—
EP/20/2008	Elti Sayanna vs Spl. Dy. Collector	23 Dec 2019	Order	—
H.M.O.P/2/2019	Nalla Ramgopal Reddy vs Nalla Shravani	23 Dec 2019	Order	—
H.M.O.P/11/2017	Bommideni Sajnay vs Bommideni Ruchita	23 Dec 2019	Order	—
H.M.O.P/16/2019	Bacchuwar Rajesh vs Thagilapally Likitha @ Prathyusha	23 Dec 2019	Order	—
EP/7/2001	Hanmanth Kishan Rao vs Spl. Dy. Collector	20 Dec 2019	Order	—
EP/8/2003	Bandela Gangu vs Spl. Dy. Collector	20 Dec 2019	Order	—
EP/10/2009	Kadam Saraswathi Bai vs Spl. Dy. Collector	20 Dec 2019	Order	—
OS/21/2008	Kunta Kishan vs Kunta Ashok	20 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/31/2019	Karem Vinisha vs Karem Laxman	20 Dec 2019	Order	—
EP/7/2004	Turpu Hankamma and others vs Spl. Dy. Collector	19 Dec 2019	Order	—
OS/24/2019	Amdari Lalitha vs Chakali Yeerodu @ Bandari Yerrodu and another	19 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
SC/200/2017	State of Telangana through SI of Police Bhainsa vs Gandharolla Gangamani	18 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/14/2016	Tirukovela Srinivas vs Tirukovela Jyothi alias Jyothirmai	18 Dec 2019	Order	—
EP/8/2016	Kapil Chit funds Pvt.Ltd., Nirmal vs Vskashaveni Narayana	17 Dec 2019	Order	—
EP/18/2016	Mrs Kapil Chi fund PVt Ltd. Nirmal vs Nagampet Shekar and 5 others	17 Dec 2019	Order	—
SC/139/2017	The State of Telangana Si of POlice tanoor vs Pippar Rajanna	16 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
EP/1/2014	Sayanna vs LAO Cum Spl. Dy Collector SRSP POchampad	14 Dec 2019	Order	—
EP/21/2007	A.Gangaram vs Spl. Dy. Collector	14 Dec 2019	Order	—
EP/24/2011	Lakkavathula Gangaram vs Spl. Dy. Collector	14 Dec 2019	Order	—
EP/33/2012	Gangu Bai vs RDO Nirmal	13 Dec 2019	Order	—
H.M.O.P/58/2018	Allepu Poshetty vs Allepu Rajitha alias Vani	13 Dec 2019	Order	—
L.A.O.P/18/2008	Spl.dy.collector vs Venkatesh Patak and others	13 Dec 2019	Order	—
EP/12/1999	P.Nago Rao vs Spl. Dy. Collector	10 Dec 2019	Order	—
H.M.O.P/61/2019	Thota Naveen vs Thota Lavanya	10 Dec 2019	Order	—
OS/10/2019	Gurijala Buchava alias Pathani Buchavva and 2 others vs Atla Raja Reddy and another	06 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
L.A.O.P/6/2007	Land Acquisition Officer vs Rajaram	06 Dec 2019	Order	—
H.M.O.P/28/2018	Shirisha vs Vittal Lingesh Kumar	05 Dec 2019	Order	—
EP/13/2011	Nago Rao vs SDC	03 Dec 2019	Order	—
OS/1/2013	D.Vimala bai vs Saraswathi bai	30 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
EP/5/2012	Lavudya Tara Chand vs Spl. Dy. Collector	29 Nov 2019	Order	—
EP/8/2007	Dhanger Gajjaram vs Spl. Dy. Collector	29 Nov 2019	Order	—
EP/13/2008	Gangu Bai vs Spl. Dy. Collector	29 Nov 2019	Order	—
EP/25/2019	Kadthala Gangadhar vs The Divisional Engineer, TSNDPCL, Operations Power House, Compound, Nirmal.	29 Nov 2019	Order	—
SC/178/2017	PS Kubeer vs Ravula Naresh	29 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
OS/35/2019	Thoparam Narsubai vs Putti Laxmi	28 Nov 2019	Order	—
OS/41/2018	Telangana Grameena Bank vs Mesineni Chinnan Rao	28 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
OS/9/2014	P Raja goud vs Lakkakula Narender	26 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/12/2019	Narayana Laxman Sallawar vs Anitha	25 Nov 2019	Order	—
OS/18/2019	Rapelli Rajalingam vs Chennuri Rajanna and 3 others	23 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
OS/48/2013	G.Jagan Mohan Reddy vs Ch.Hemalatha	23 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
OS/73/2012	G.Kishan Reddy vs Bhukya Jalapathi	22 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/38/2019	Akkanapally Bhavana @ Gadde Neeraja vs Akkanapally Mahesh	20 Nov 2019	Order	—

Showing 100 of 986 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Nov 2020		11
Oct 2020		3
Sep 2020		3
Aug 2020		1
Jul 2020		2
Jun 2020		1
May 2020		2
Mar 2020		4
Feb 2020		14
Jan 2020		12
Dec 2019		34
Nov 2019		26

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has N. Santosh Kumar handled?

N. Santosh Kumar has handled 1045 court orders since 2017 at Nirmal, SCJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 25 orders per month.

What types of cases does N. Santosh Kumar hear?

Based on available records, N. Santosh Kumar primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Sessions Cases) at Nirmal, SCJ Court Complex.

Where is N. Santosh Kumar currently posted?

N. Santosh Kumar is posted as Senior Civil Judge at Nirmal, SCJ Court Complex, Nirmal, Telangana.

Are judgments by N. Santosh Kumar available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by N. Santosh Kumar are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does N. Santosh Kumar dispose cases?

N. Santosh Kumar disposes approximately 25 cases per month, based on 1045 orders handled over their tenure at Nirmal, SCJ Court Complex.

Since when is N. Santosh Kumar serving?

N. Santosh Kumar has been serving at Nirmal, SCJ Court Complex since 2017.

Case Types

OS 26%

EP 24%

H 18%

SC 13%

AS 11%

CMA 5%

L 2%

IP 1%

Posting History

May 2017 — Nov 2020

Senior Civil Judge · 1,045 orders

Other Judges at this Court

Smt. G. Radhika

Senior Civil Judge

80 orders

← View all judges at Nirmal, SCJ Court Complex