N.Saraswathi

1 DOP.284/2025, dt.11.05.2026

VII ADJ,PDP

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

(FTC) : PEDDAPURAM

Present: Smt.N.SARASWATHI VII Additional District & Sessions Judge Peddapuram Monday, this the 11th day of May, 2026

D.O.P.284/2025

Between :

Gandharapu Anand Kumar @ Anand Samuel S/o G.Satyanarayana, A/32 years, Advocate, D.No.109/2, Gorinta Village, Peddapuram

Mandal... Petitioner

And

Gandharapu Jyothi @ Rechal Mary Jyothi A/29 years, Teacher, W/o G.Anand Kumar, D/o George Prasad Babu, D.No.1-4/6, Musallayya Palem Road, Sagar Nagar -Githam College Post,

Visakapattanam.... Respondent.

This petition came on 08-05-2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.D.Sudhakar, Advocate for the petitioner, respondent remained exparte and having stood over for consideration, this court made the following:

::O R D E R::

1.Petitioner filed this petition under section 10(1)(x) of Indian Divorce Act prays to dissolve the marriage dt.19.10.2018 solemnized between the petitioner and respondent under Christian Marriage laws and customs and pass a decree of divorce and grant such other reliefs as this court may deems fit under the circumstances of the case.

2.The brief facts of the petition affidavit are as follows:

On 19.10.2018 petitioner married respondent at his house in Gorinta

Village under Christian Customs and traditions, and that may be respondent married petitioner against to her interest by force of their parents and to live in village along with the petitioners parents and the respondent always shown her dis interest to lead the matrimonial (sexual) life with petitioner and always tried to be stay in her parents house.

Petitioner made all sort of attempts to bring back to respondent to the petitioners place and tried to make himself to convenient to the interests of the respondent being a son of pastor he never disputed the respondents behaviour before his parents or church elders.

At the time of marriage the petitioner is working as Principal in RGPM school Rampur

Dungarpur Rajasthan and immediately after marriage the respondent joined the petitioner at Rajasthan and during their stay in Rajasthan the respondent used to go month by month to her parents house and stayed there most of the days and in 2019 during the COVID time respondent went to her parents house and stayed in 2 DOP.284/2025, dt.11.05.2026

VII ADJ,PDP

Visakapatnam till July 2021, petitioner made all the efforts to bring back the respondent to his place but failed.

In the end of July 2021 petitioner brought the respondent back to

Rajasthan, during her stay twice the respondent conceived and lost her pregnancy and she reported weakness and demanded petitioner to drop the respondent in her parents home at Visakapatnam, as such on 10.11.2021 petitioner dropped respondent since then till date respondent is living with her parents and the respondent parents said as their doctor advised 2 years rest to their daughter and separation of wife and husbands and demanded the petitioner not to come to Visakapatnam, due to his irregular attendance and frequent absents the petitioner lost his job, on the moth of January 2024 against petitioner request the respondent parents to send the respondent o his matrimonial home but they rejected and threatened with false criminal case out of that fear petitioner stopped going to respondents house.

On 13.01.2024 petitioner issued a legal notice to respondent and her father requesting the respondent to join the petitioner for conjugal society and the respondent received the notice but not responded and kept silent, finally the petitioner filed DOP 111/2024 on the file of this court for restitution of conjugal rights, the same is allowed by this court on 13.09.2024, after that petitioner made several attempt to get the respondent to his home for conjugal society but respondent is not accepting to join him. Hence this petition.

3.On the other hand, notice served personally to respondent but no representation, therefore respondent set exparte and as per docket note set aside exparte petition is also not filed till today. Hence the counter of respondent is treated as nil.

4.Now the point for consideration is:

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of divorce as prayed for ?

2. To what order?

Point No.1:

5. Before going to the merits of the case it is beneficial to quote Section 10(1)

(ix)(x) in Indian Divorce Act, 1869:

Section.10 Grounds for dissolution of Marriage:

(1)Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of the Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001 (51 of 2001), may, on a petition presented to the District Court either by the husband or the wife, be dissolved on the ground that since the solemnization of the marriage, the respondent--- (ix) “Has deserted the petitioner for at least two years immediately preceding the 3 DOP.284/2025, dt.11.05.2026

VII ADJ,PDP

presentation of the petition”---(x) has treated the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the respondent.

6.Heard. Perused the record, it shows that above petition is filed by petitioner against respondent prays to grant a divorce by stating thatrespondent is legally wedded wife of petitioner. On 19.10.2018 petitioner married respondent at his house in Gorinta

Village under Christian Customs and traditions, on that from 10.11.2021 respondent is living separately with her parents, Finally the petitioner filed DOP 111/2024 on the file of this court for restitution of conjugal rights, the same is allowed by this court on 13.09.2024, after that petitioner made several attempt to get the respondent to his home for conjugal society but respondent is not accepting to join him.

7.To establish the case of petitioner, he himself examined as PW1, he filed his chief affidavit by way of chief examination by reiterating the averments of the petition and further stated that on 19.10.2018 he married respondent at his house in Gorinta

Village under Christian Customs and traditions, and that may be respondent married him against to her interest by force of their parents and to live in village along with his parents and the respondent always shown her dis interest to lead the matrimonial (sexual) life with him and always tried to be stay in her parents house and immediately after marriage the respondent joined him at Rajasthan and during their stay in Rajasthan the respondent used to go month by month to her parents house and stayed there most of the days and in the year 2019 during the COVID time respondent went to her parents house and stayed in Visakapatnam till July 2021, he made all the efforts to bring back the respondent to his place but failed and in the end of July 2021 he brought the respondent back to Rajasthan, during her stay twice the respondent conceived and lost her pregnancy and she reported weakness and demanded him to drop the respondent in her parents home at Visakapatnam, as such on 10.11.2021 he dropped respondent since then till date respondent is living with her parents and the respondent parents said as their doctor advised 2 years rest to their daughter and separation of wife and husbands and demanded him not to come to Visakapatnam, due to his irregular attendance and frequent absents he lost his job, on the month of January 2024, again he requested the respondent parents to send the respondent to his matrimonial home, but they rejected and threatened with false criminal case, out of that fear he stopped going to respondents house and finally he filed DOP 111/2024 on the file of this court for restitution of conjugal rights, the same is allowed by this court on 13.09.2024, after that he made several attempts to get the respondent to his home for conjugal society but respondent is not accepting to join him.

4 DOP.284/2025, dt.11.05.2026

VII ADJ,PDP

8.To prove the same, petitioner examined its church member as PW2, naturally PW2 examined on behalf of petitioner he deposed on the same lines of evidence of PW1. To support the version of the petitioner, he relied on 6 documents which are marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 i.e. Ex.A1 is attested copy of marriage certificate,

Ex.A2 is marriage photos 3 in number along with CD. Ex.A3 is online decree copy.

Ex.A4 is Notarized marriage certificate. Ex.A5 is photo copy of Aadhar card (compared with original by the Senior Superintended of this court). Ex.A6 is Wedding invitation.

The recitals of Ex.A1 to A6 is not challenged by respondent. So, oral evidence of PW1 and 2 and recitals of Ex.A1 to A6 supports the version of petitioner.

9.On the other hand, respondent having received the notice from this court, but failed to turn up to the court, therefore respondent set exparte. Thus, the evidence let in by petitioner is remained unchallenged.

10.In view of foregoing discussion, the petitioner clearly established that the petitioner and the respondent have been living separately from 10.11.2021 and petition is filed on 25.09.2025, so the date of desertion as on the date of filing of the petition is more than 2 years. Respondent failed to challenge the evidence let in by petitioner and petitioner already filed DOP 111/2024 on the file of this court for restitution of conjugal rights, the same is allowed by this court on 13.09.2024, after that petitioner made several attempt to get the respondent to his home for conjugal society but respondent is not accepting to join him, where as petitioner categorically established the case of the petitioner by oral evidence of PW1 and 2 and recitals of Ex.A1 to A6.

Therefore the petitioner is entitled for granting a decree of divorce.

Point No.2:

11.In the result, petition is allowed, petitioner is entitled to get a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage took place in between petitioner and the respondent dt.19.10.2018. No costs.

Dictated to Stenographer(Contract Basis), typed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court this the 11 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Smt. N.Saraswathi

VII ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE

PEDDAPURAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER:

PW1 : Gandharapu Anand Kumar PW2 : Kunche Arjun 5 DOP.284/2025, dt.11.05.2026

VII ADJ,PDP

FOR RESPONDENT:

Nil

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER:

Ex.A1 : attested copy of marriage certificate,

Ex.A2 : marriage photos 3 in number along with CD.

Ex.A3 : online decree copy.

Ex.A4 : Notarized marriage certificate.

Ex.A5 : photo copy of Aadhar card (compared with original by the Senior Superintended of this court ).

Ex.A6 : Wedding invitation.

FOR RESPONDENT:

Nil

Sd/- Smt. N.Saraswathi

VII ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE

PEDDAPURAM

1

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC) :

PEDDAPURAM

(COURT OF SESSION: PEDDAPURAM DIVISION: PEDDAPURAM)

Present: Smt.N.SARASWATHI VII Additional District & Sessions Judge Peddapuram

Thursday, this the 14th day of May, 2026

CRL.M.P.No.95/2026

(Crime No.77/2026 of Rangampeta Police Station)

1. Chalaboiya Veerababu, S/o Narasimha Murthy, A/40 years, Peda Doddigunta Village, Rangampeta Mandal. (A1)

2. Madiki Venkata Rao @ Lazar, S/o Krishna Murthy, A/48 years, Peda Doddigunta Village, Rangampeta Mandal. (A2)

3. Adabala Veerababu, s/o Vasantha @ Vasantha Rao, A/38 years, Peda Doddigunta village, Rangampeta Mandal. (A5)

4. Adabala Narayana Murthy, S/o Durga Rao, A/23 years, Peda Doddigunta Village, Rangampeta Mandal. (A7)

5. Chalaboyina Satyanarayana, S/o Apparao, A/43 years, Peda Doddigunta Village, Rangampeta Mandal. (A8)

... Petitioners/A1, A2, A5, A7 & A8

Vs.

State Rep by Inspector of Police,

Rangampeta Police Station ... Respondent/Complainant

This petition coming on 13.05.2026 for hearing before me, in the presence of Sri.Ch.K.Durga Rao, Counsel for the petitioner/accused and the Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/complainant, and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court made the following:- 2

O R D E R

1.This petition is filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S by the

Petitioners/A1, A2, A5, A7 & A8, in Crime No.77/2026 of Rangampeta

Police Station registered for the offences U/Sec.329(4), 115(2), 351(2), 140(1) r/w 3(5) of B.N.S and praying for grant of bail.

2.It is the contention of the petitioners that they did not commit any offence much less the offence alleged, they have been falsely implicated in this case by the influential political rivals in Doddigunta Village due to

Doddgunta fisher men Co-operative society elections which were conducted on 29.04.2026 by virtue of the order of Hon’ble High court of AP in W.P.No.8025/2026 and they have permanent resident at Doddigunta

Village and they will not likely to be absconded and they will not interfere in any manner with the investigation to be done by Rangampeta Police.

Investigation is all most all completed except the receipt of final report/opinion and that A1 and A2 are in judicial remand from 25.04.2026 and A5, A7 and A8 are in Judicial remand from 27.04.2026 and that they not file any application in other court of competent jurisdiction except this one. Therefore Petitioners/A1, A2, A5, A7 & A8 pray to enlarge him on bail.

3.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 23.04.2026 at 11.30 night A1 to A4 and others criminally trespassed into the house of the complainant abused him and victim in filthy language dragged the complainants husband from the bed and assaulted him by beating with hands and kicking and threatened the complainants husband to caste his vote for their party in the up coming Doddigunta fishermen cooperative elections, that when the husband of complainant refused to do the same, on that accused threatened him to kill and intimidated him with dire consequences, if he raised alarm, that later all the accused forcibly took away the complainants husband from the house by holding his collar and 3 dragging him that the complainant not known about the whereabouts of her husband and by fearing about her husband life she filed the complainant

before the Rangampeta Police. Hence this case.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners did not committed any offence and prayed for enlarging the petitioners on bail.

5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed to grant bail to the

Petitioners/A1, A2, A5, A7 & A8.

6.On perusal of the case diary, it reveals that the allegations levelled against the Petitioners/A1, A2, A5, A7 & A8 are serious in nature and prima facie shows their involvement in committing the offence. Having regard to the circumstances stated above, this Court does not find any merits in the submissions made by the counsel for Petitioners/A1, A2, A5, A7 & A8 to grant bail.

7. In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer(contract Basis), corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 14th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Smt. N.Saraswathi

VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge Peddapuram Copy to :

1. The Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate, Peddapuram.

2. The SHO, Rangampeta Police station.

3. The Petitioners/A1, A2, A5, A7 & A8, through their counsel.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC) :

PEDDAPURAM

(COURT OF SESSION: PEDDAPURAM DIVISION: PEDDAPURAM)

Present: Smt.N.SARASWATHI VII Additional District & Sessions Judge Peddapuram

Tuesday, this the 19th day of May, 2026

CRL.M.P.No.98/2026

(Crime No.45/2026 of Rangampeta Police Station)

Bakka Veera Laxmi, W/o Late Nagendra, A/24 years, Occ: Household, R/o Pedda Doddigunta Village,

Rangampeta Mandal, East Godavari District. ... Petitioner/Accused No.2

Vs.

Through SHO, Rangampeta P.S. ... Respondent/Complainant

This petition coming on 18.05.2026 for hearing before me, in the presence of Sri.V.V.Raj Kumar, Counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 and the Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/complainant, and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court made the following:-

O R D E R

1.This petition is filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S by the petitioner/accused, in Crime No.45/2026 of Rangampeta Police Station registered for the offences U/Sec.103(1) r/w 3(5) of B.N.S and praying for grant of bail. She is in judicial custody from 01.03.2026.

2.It is the contention of the petitioner that the prime accused in this case, accused No.1 (Thorati Shiva), against whom the main overt acts of stabbing are alleged, has already been enlarged on bail by this court, as the petitioner/A2 stands on a better footing than A1, she is entitled to bail on the ground of parity and that the she is a young woman aged 24 years, under the proviso to the bail provisions of BNSS/CrPC, women are entitled 2 to special consideration for the grant of bail, regardless of the nature of the offence and she has a 6 year old female child who is currently deprived of parental care and is suffering immensely due to the petitioners incarceration and the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence, there are no eye-witnesses to the actual occurrence and she has been implicated based on suspicion and alleged confessions made in police custody which have no legal sanctity and she has been in judicial custody since 01.03.2026 and she is a permanent resident of Pedda Doddigunta Village, she has deep roots in society and there is no risk of her absconding or fleeing from the clutches of justice and she has a clean record and has never been involved in any criminal activities prior to this case. Therefore petitioner/accused No.2 prays to enlarge her on bail.

3.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the petitioner/A2 was the wife of deceased, Bakka Nagendra, it is alleged that A2 developed an illicit relationship with A1 (Thorati Shiva) and on the night of 26.02.2026, the deceased allegedly caught A1 and A2 together on the terrace, a scuffle ensued, leading to the outskirts of village near an agricultural canal, it is alleged that A2 assisted A1 by handing him a knife and helping overpower the deceased, following which A1 allegedly stabbed the deceased and both accused smothered him in the mud, leading to his death and a case was registered under Section 103(1) r/w 3(5) of BNS. Hence this case.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner did not committed any offence and prayed for enlarging the petitioner on bail.

5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

3

6.On perusal of the case diary, it reveals that the allegations levelled against the petitioner/accused No.2 are serious in nature and prima facie shows his involvement in committing the offence. Having regard to the circumstances stated above, this Court does not find any merits in the submissions made by the counsel for petitioner/accused No.2 to grant bail.

7. In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer(contract Basis), corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 19th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Smt.N.Saraswathi

VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge Peddapuram

Copies:

1. The Add.J.F.C.Magistrate, Peddapuram.

2. The SHO, Rangampeta Police station.

3. The petitioner/Accused No.2, through her counsel.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC) :

PEDDAPURAM

(COURT OF SESSION: PEDDAPURAM DIVISION: PEDDAPURAM)

Present: Smt.N.SARASWATHI VII Additional District & Sessions Judge Peddapuram

Thursday, this the 14th day of May, 2026

CRL.M.P.No.96/2026

(Crime No.77/2026 of Rangampeta Police Station)

Mungi Gangaraju, S/o Lakshminarayana, Advocate & Ex.Sarpanch of Venkatapuram Village, A/36 years, E.No.3-90/1, Venkatapuram Village,

Rangampeta Mandal... Petitioner/Accused

Vs.

State Rep by Inspector of Police,

Rangampeta Police Station ... Respondent/Complainant

This petition coming on 13.05.2026 for hearing before me, in the presence of Sri.Ch.K.Durga Rao, Counsel for the petitioner/accused and the Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/complainant, and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court made the following:-

O R D E R

1.This petition is filed under Section 482 of B.N.S.S by the petitioner/accused, in Crime No.77/2026 of Rangampeta Police Station registered for the offences U/Sec.329(4), 115(2), 351(2), 140(1) r/w 3(5) of

B.N.S and praying for grant of Anticipatory bail.

2.It is the contention of the petitioner that he did not commit any offence much less the offence alleged, he has been falsely implicated in this case by the influential political rivals in Doddigunta Village due to

Doddgunta fisher men Co-operative society elections which were 2 conducted on 29.04.2026 by virtue of the order of Hon’ble High court of AP in W.P.No.8025/2026 and he is practicing advocate and Ex.Sarpanch of

Venkatapuram Village and he is having permanent residence at

Venkatapuram Village and he will not likely to be absconded and they will not interfere in any manner with the investigation to be done by the Police and investigation is all most all completed except the receipt of final report/opinion and if he arrested by the police, they will broke his bones and he is apprehends danger in the hands of Rangampeta Police, if he caught to them and he did not file any application in other court of competent jurisdiction except this one. Therefore petitioner/accused prays to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

3.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 23.04.2026 at 11.30 night A1 to A4 and others criminally trespassed into the house of the complainant abused him and victim in filthy language dragged the complainants husband from the bed and assaulted him by beating with hands and kicking and threatened the complainants husband to caste his vote for their party in the up coming Doddigunta fishermen cooperative elections, that when the husband of complainant refused to do the same, on that accused threatened him to kill and intimidated him with dire consequences, if he raised alarm, that later all the accused forcibly took away the complainants husband from the house by holding his collar and dragging him that the complainant not known about the whereabouts of her husband and by fearing about her husband life she filed the complainant

before the Rangampeta Police. Hence this case.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner did not committed any offence and prayed for enlarging the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

3

5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

6.On perusal of the case diary, it reveals that the allegations levelled against the petitioner/accused are serious in nature and prima facie shows his involvement in committing the offence. Having regard to the circumstances stated above, this Court does not find any merits in the submissions made by the counsel for petitioner/accused to grant anticipatory bail.

7. In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer(contract Basis), corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 14th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Smt. N.Saraswathi

VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge Peddapuram Copy to :

1. The Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate, Peddapuram.

2. The SHO, Rangampeta Police station.

3. The petitioner/Accused, through his counsel.

BEFORE THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL- CUM- VII ADDL.

DISTRICT COURT, PEDDAPURAM.

Present: Smt.N.SARASWATHI,

VII Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Peddapuram.

Wednesday, the 13th day of May, 2026.

M.V.O.P.No.57/2024

Between:

Nagana Satyanarayana...Petitioner

AND 1.Bhimana Sekhar, 2.Dukka Adilakshmi,

3.M/S Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., ...Respondents

This petition coming before me on this day For trial in the presence of Sri.Y.S.Ranganayakulu, Advocate for petitioner and in the presence of Sri.M.Visweswara Rao, Advocate for 3rd respondent and 1st respondent and 2nd respondent is remained exparte and this court made the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the petitioner against Respondent Nos.1 to 3 under

Section 166 r/w Rule 455 of A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of

Rs.12,50,000/- against the Respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of the petition and for costs of the petition for the personal injuries sustained by the petitioner in motor accident occurred on 11.08.2023 within limits of Jaggampeta PS.

Petitioner called absent. No representation. Inspite of conditional adjournment petitioner not turnup for trial. It shows that petitioner not interested. Hence, petition is closed, and petitioner is at liberty to reopen the matter, whenever present.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 13th day of May, 2026.

SD/- N.Saraswathi

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL-CUM-

VII ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,

PEDDAPURAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner For Respondent.

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

SD/- N.Saraswathi

CHAIRMAN,

MACT- VII ADJ,

PEDDAPURAM.