Smt. Naseem Sultana

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS MOBILE (PCR) AT ADILABAD.

Present: Smt. Naseem Sultana, B.A.,LL.M., Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Mobile (PCR), Adilabad.

Monday the 23rd day of April, 2012.

C.C No.64 of 2010

Between:

The State of A.P. through Inspector of Police, PS Adilabad Traffic. … Complainant //AND//

Tandde Kamalakar, S/o.Bhaguwan, age: 30 Years, Occ: Mesthri, R/o.Neelanagar near central jail, Adilabad.

...Accused

This case is coming on for final hearing before me in the presence of the Sr.APP for the complainant and of Sri V.Narayana Swamy, Counsel for accused and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The accused is arraigned before this court for the offence punishable U/Secs.337, 338 IPC and U/Secs. 3 r/w.181, 196 of M.V.Act.

2.The case of prosecution is that on 28-07-2009 at about 3.00 p.m., while LW-2/Macha Veeraiah while going on his TVS XL motorcycle bearing No.AP1-1419 from AR headquarters for having tea and on the way in front of the District court complex,

Adilabad, accused drove his Suzuki motorcycle bearing

No.AP01D-6184 in rash and negligent manner and dashed to his motorcycle from back side. Later on accused in the same speed also dashed to one scooter bearing No.AP01D-434 of LW- 3/N.Pandari, as such they fell down and received injuries.

2

3.Basing on the complaint lodged by LW-1/M.Srinivas, LW-8/SI of

Police has registered a case in Cr.No.41/2009 for the offence punishable

U/Sec.337 IPC and took up investigation.

4.During the course of investigation, LW-12 examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence and there prepared the crime detail form in the presence of the mediators and also drawn the rough sketch of scene of offence. On 10-08-2009 at 10.00 a.m., accused surrendered before him and on interrogation, he voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence. Further he failed to produce the driving license and insurance certificate of the motorcycle bearing No.AP01D-6184. After arrest, he was sent to the court for judicial custody. Then he handed over the case CD file to LW- 9/Inspector of Police for further investigation, who verified the investigation done by him and found it to be correct, then he took up further investigation. After completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/Secs.337, 338 IPC and U/Secs.181, 196 of M.V.Act.

5.The cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable U/Secs.

337, 338 IPC and U/Secs.181, 196 of M.V.Act against the accused and on appearance of the accused he was furnished with the copies of case documents as required U/Sec.207 CrPC, and was examined U/Sec.251

Cr.PC., to which he denied the offence and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 6 and marked Exs.P1 to P6. PW-1 is the complainant, Pws.2 and 4 are the injured, PW-3 is the mediator for crime detail form, PW-5 is the eye witness, PW-6 is the Investigating Officer. Ex-P1 is the complaint, Ex-P2 is the crime detail form, Ex-P3 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-5, Ex- 3

P4 is the FIR, Ex-P5 is the medical certificate of PW-2, Ex-P6 is the medical certificate of PW-4.

7.Upon conclusion of prosecution evidence, when accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C, he denied all the allegations leveled against him and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is whether the

prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offence

punishable U/Secs.337, 338 IPC and U/Secs. 3 r/w.181, 196 of

M.V.Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

10.On perusal of the record, it is found that PWs.2 and 4 are the injured, PW-1 and 5 are the eye witnesses. PW-1 has stated that on 28- 07-2009 at about 3.00 p.m., while his father/PW-2 was proceeding on his

TVS XL motorcycle bearing No.1419, then the accused came in a speed manner and dashed to his father from back side in front of the court premises, as such he received injuries on his left hand and left leg. The accused came on Suzuki motorcycle bearing No.6184. Later on, he has also dashed to PW-4, as such he also received injuries. PW-2 who is one of the injured has also stated that on 28-07-2009 at about 3.00 p.m., after completing the police recruitment work, he came to have tea in a hotel situated opposite to the court premises and while he was coming on TVS XL motorcycle bearing No.1419, mean while accused came from his back side on his Suzuki motorcycle bearing No.6184 in a very speed manner and dashed to him, as such he fell down. He received fracture injury to his left hand and to his left leg.

11.PW-4 who is another injured has stated that on 10-08-2009 at about 3.00 p.m., while he was proceeding from his house towards 4

Vidyanagar on his motorcycle bearing No.AP1V 434 and when he reached near the court, then one motorcyclist who was coming from his back side in a very speed manner dashed to one TVS moped and the accused also dashed to his motorcycle. As such, he fell down and he received injuries on his left hand and on his back. As such it is clear from the evidence of Pws.1, 2 and 4 that accused drove his motorcycle in a very speed manner and dashed to the TVS moped of PW-2 and with the same speed he has also dashed to the scooter of PW-4, as such PW- 4 received simple injuries as per medical certificate/Ex-P6 and PW-2 received grievous injuries as per his medical certificate/Ex-P5.

12.It is contended by the learned counsel for the accused that PW-4 has mentioned the date of the said incident on 10-08-2009, whereas, as per the charge sheet it was 28-07-2009, but it is to be noted that both

Pws.1 and 2 has stated the date of the incident as 28-07-2009 and even in the FIR also the date of incident has been mentioned as 28-07-2009.

PW-4 is aged about 53 years. Hence considering his age factor and also the time gap from the date of incident to the date of his evidence it is but natural that the witness could not say the exact date of the said incident. As minor discrepancies does occur in the evidence and it is not fatal to the case. It is to be noted that the evidence of PW-4 is corroborating with that of Pws.1 and 2 has stated that accused first dashed to one TVS moped, then to his motorcycle, as such his evidence is consistent and corroborating with that of Pws.1 and 2.

13.It is also contended by the learned counsel for the accused that the witnesses have no where stated that the accused drove his motorcycle in rash or negligent manner and caused the accident, though

Pws.1, 2 and 4 has stated that accused drove his motorcycle in very 5 speed manner and dashed to Pws.2 and 4, but it is to be noted that driving in speed manner also implies as rashly or negligently because the defence counsel has not even taken any steps to at least give suggestions that accused has not drove his motorcycle in rash or negligent manner, as such it can be derived that the defence has accepted that accused drove his motorcycle in rash or negligent manner and caused the accident to Pws.2 and 4 resulting in the injuries.

14.PW-5 who is also cited as another eye witness has stated that he witnessed one Suzuki motorcyclist dashed to one scooter, as such two persons received injuries. He further stated that he could not identify the person who committed the accident. Though he did not supported the prosecution evidence totally, but to some extent his evidence is corroborative with that of Pws.1,2 and 4. As he has stated that Suzuki motorcycle dashed to one scooter. Further it is to be noted that the evidence of Pws.1, 2 and 4 are consistent and corroborative with each other. Though the learned defence counsel has suggested his case but they denied the suggestions put forth by him and there is nothing on record to discredit their evidence, as such their evidence is believable and trust worthy.

15.Though as per the medical certificate/Ex-P5, PW-2 received fracture injury to his leg, but in this case no Radiologist has been examined nor even the X-ray report is filed to prove the fracture injury, as such in my considered opinion the prosecution could not prove the charge for the offence U/Sec.338 IPC

16.PW-6/Investigating Officer has also clearly stated that on verifying the documents of the accused, he could not produce his driving license 6 and also the insurance papers of the motorcycle. As the defence counsel has not made any efforts to put forth any evidence to disprove the same nor in the cross-examination the suggestion that accused was holding his driving license and also the insurance papers of the vehicle were not put forth. As such it can be derived that the accused was not holding the driving license and also the insurance papers of the vehicle.

17.Hence, in view of all the above discussions, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.337 IPC and U/Secs.3 r/w.181, 196 of M.V.Act.

18.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.337 IPC and U/Secs. 3 r/w.181, 196 of M.V.Act and hence convicted U/Sec.255(2) Cr.P.C. Further accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.338 IPC and hence acquitted for the same offence U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open court on this the 23rd day of April, 2012.

Spl.JMFC Mobile (PCR), Adilabad.

Accused is questioned regarding the quantum of sentence, to which he pleaded that he is having family who are wholly depending on his income and requested to take lenient view.

In view of the above circumstances, I am inclined to take lenient view. Hence, accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) for the offence punishable U/Sec.337 IPC and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month and further sentenced to pay fine of Rs.300/- (Rupees three hundred only) for the 7 offence punishable U/Sec.3 r/w.181 of M.V.Act and in default to undergo

Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month and further sentenced to pay fine of Rs.300/- (Rupees three hundred only) for the offence punishable U/Sec.196 of MV Act and in default to undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

Accused is explained about his right to prefer an appeal to the

Hon'ble Court of Sessions, Adilabad.

Accused is also questioned whether he has means to engage an advocate to prefer an appeal to the Hon'ble Court of Sessions, Adilabad.

The accused has submitted that he has means to engage an advocate.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open court on this the 23rd day of April, 2012.

Spl.JMFC Mobile (PCR), Adilabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: Pw-1/LW-1: Macha Srinivas/Complainant-NIL- PW-2/LW-2:Macha Veeraiah/Injured PW-3/LW-5: Shaik Meeraj/Mediator for crime detail form. PW-4/LW-3 N.Pandari/Injured PW-5/LW-4: Seeram Gangaiah/Eye witness PW-6/LW-8: Md.Hasan/Investigating Officer

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: -NIL- Ex-P1 is the complaint, dt: 28-07-2009. Ex-P2 is the crime detail form, dt: 28-07-2009. Ex-P3 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-5, dt: 28-07-2009. Ex-P4 is the FIR, dt: 28-07-2009. Ex-P5 is the medical certificate of PW-2. Ex-P6 is the medical certificate of PW-4.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Mobile (PCR) Adilabad.

8

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS MOBILE (PCR)

AT ADILABAD.

Present: Smt. Naseem Sultana, B.A.LL.M., Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Mobile (PCR), Adilabad.

Wednesday, the 25th day of April, 2012

C.C No.81 of 2011

Between:

The State of A.P. through SI of Police, P.S Jainath. … COMPLAINANT //AND//

Adapawar Videsh Kumar,S/o.Narayana, age: 53 Years, Occ: Driver, R/o.Paran Bori village of Kelapur Tq of Yeothmal District (MS).… ACCUSED

This case is coming on for final hearing before me in the presence of the Sr.APP

for the complainant and of Sri T.Devender Singh, Counsel for accused and having stood

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

J U D G M E N T

Accused is arraigned before the court for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 19-01-2011 at 3.30 p.m., while LW-1/Rathod

Rameshwar and the deceased Suresh Rathod and others were working in the fields of

Yelti Keshav Reddy/LW-7, at that time the deceased proceeded towards Bharath petrol pump near Pipparwada to attend the nature call. In the meanwhile, accused drove his

TATA 407 vehicle bearing No.MH29-8735 in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the deceased while he was passing NH-7 road, as a result, he received bleeding injuries to his head. Then, he was shifted to RIMS hospital, Adilabad and on the same day at 6.00 p.m., while being shifted to the hospital at Nagpur for better treatment, he succumbed to injuries.

3.Basing on the report lodged by LW-1, LW-13/ASI of Police has registered a case in Cr.No.2/2011 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 304-A IPC and took up investigation.

2

4.During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of the witnesses and visited the scene of offence and there prepared the crime detail form in the presence of the mediators and also made to take the photographs by the photographer/LW-5/Srikanth. He has also conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the mediators and gave requisition to MVI to inspect the crime vehicle and to give report. On 12-01-2011 at 1.00 p.m., the accused was arrested and on verification, his vehicle documents were found to be correct. After his arrest, he was sent to the court for judicial custody. Then, he handed over the case CD file to

LW14/SI of Police for further investigation, who verified the investigation done by LW- 13 and found it to be correct and then he took up further investigation. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable

U/Sec.304-A IPC.

5.The cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A IPC against the accused and on appearance of the accused, he was furnished with the copies of case documents as required U/Sec.207 CrPC, and was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.PC., to which he denied the offence and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P1 to

P9. and MO-1. PW-1 is the complainant, PW-2 is the photographer, PW-3 is the owner of vehicle, PW-4 and 6 are the mediators for crime detail form, PW-5 is the owner of agricultural field, PW-7 is the Investigating Officer. Ex-P1 is the complaint, Ex-P2 is the bunch of (3) photographs, Ex-P3 is the inquest report, Ex-P4 is the signature of PW-4 on the crime detail form, Ex-P5 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-5, Ex-P6 is the crime detail form, Ex-P7 is the PME report, Ex-P8 is the MVI report, Ex-P9 is the FIR.

7.Upon conclusion of prosecution evidence when accused was examined U/Sec.313

Cr.P.C, he denied the incriminating evidence appearing through prosecution witnesses 3 and reported no defence.

8Heard both sides.

9. Points for consideration are:

1) Whether the accused has caused the death of Suresh Rathod by his rash

or negligent driving of TATA 407 vehicle bearing No.29-8735?

2) Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused beyond

reasonable doubt for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A IPC?

POINTS No. 1 and 2:

10.On careful perusal of the evidence, it is found that PW-1 is the circumstantial witness. PW-2 is the photographer. PW-3 is the owner of the said agricultural fields where the deceased and other persons were working. But he has stated that he has not witnessed the said accident, hence he is circumstantial witness. PW-4 is the mediator for the inquest report and for preparing the Crime Detail Form, though he supported the prosecution case to an extent of preparing the inquest report of the deceased in his presence, but he did not supported the prosecution with regard to preparing crime detail form in his presence. PW-6 is another mediator while preparing the inquest report and also the crime detail form, though he supported the prosecution case, but it does not incriminate the accused in this case in any way.

11.PW-5 is the owner of the said crime vehicle bearing No.8735. He stated that his vehicle did not met with accident on any day. The prosecution has also not examined any person so as to prove that the accused drove the said TATA 407 crime vehicle bearing No.MH-29-8735 in rash or negligent manner and dashed to the deceased Rathod

Suresh due to which he succumbed to injuries. Hence, there remains only the evidence of Investigating Officer/PW-7, but as his evidence is not supported by any independent eye witness with regard to this offence. Hence, his evidence is not believable.

12.In view of all the above discussions, I am inclined to extend benefit of doubt to the accused as the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

4

13.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A

IPC and hence acquitted U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court on this the 25th day of April, 2012.

Spl.JMFC Mobile (PCR), Adilabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: Pw-1/LW-1: Rathod Rameshwar/Complainant. -NIL- PW-2/LW-5: M.Srikanth/Photographer PW-3/LW-8: Suresh Kailaswar/Owner of vehicle PW-4/LW-10: K.Swamy Reddy/Mediator for crime detail form and inquest report. PW-5/LW-7: Y.Keshav Reddy/Owner of the agricultural fields. PW-6/LW-9: G.Narayana Reddy/Mediator for crime detail form and inquest report. PW-7/LW14: M.A.Kareem/Investigating Officer.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:-NIL- Ex-P1 is the complaint, dt: 10-01-2011. Ex-P2 is the photographs Ex-P3 is the inquest report, dt: 10-01-2011. Ex-P4 is the signature of PW-4 on the crime detail form, Ex-P5 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-5, dt: 12-01-2011. Ex-P6 is the crime detail form, dt: 10-01-2011 Ex-P7 is the PME report, dt: 10-01-2011. Ex-P8 is the MVI report, dt: 12-01-2011. Ex-P9 is the FIR, dt: 10-01-2011.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Mobile (PCR) Adilabad.

5

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS MOBILE (PCR) AT

ADILABAD.

Present: Smt. Naseem Sultana, B.A., LL.M., Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Mobile (PCR), Adilabad.

Tuesday, the 24th day of April, 2012.

C.C No.4 of 2011

Between:

The State of A.P. through Sub-Inspector of Police, WPS, Adilabad. … COMPLAINANT //AND//

Bandari Mallesh, S/o.Rajanna, age: 28 Years, Occ: Coolie, R/o.Dasnapur, Adilabad.

… ACCUSED

This case is coming on for final hearing before me in the presence of the Sr.APP for the complainant and of Sri T.Devender Singh, Counsel for accused and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Accused is arraigned before this court for offence punishable U/Secs.498-A, 506 IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the complainant/LW-1/Bandari

Padma was performed with the accused on 24-04-2003. In the marriage, her parents gave

Rs.12,000/- net cash and 9 goats as dowry to the accused. She further stated that accused got habituated for drinks and subjected her to cruelty by harassing her physically and mentally and beat her with hands by saying that he did not like her for and do not like her giving birth to female baby. She is blessed with a daughter namely Rakshitha. On 21-10-2010, her husband/accused harassed her physically and mentally and driven her out from his house.

As such she requested for taking necessary action.

3.Basing on the report, LW-5/A.S.I. of Police has registered a case in Cr.No.47/2010 for the offence punishable U/Sec.498-A, 506 IPC and took up investigation.

2

4. During the course of investigation, LW-5 examined and recorded the statements of witnesses and visited the scene of offence situated at Dasnapur, Adilabad. On 24-11-2010, she apprehended the accused and on interrogation, he voluntarily admitted his guilt. After arrest, he was sent to the court for judicial custody. After completion of investigation, she filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.498-A, 506 IPC.

5.The cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable U/Secs.498-A, 506 IPC against the accused and on appearance of the accused, he was furnished with the copies of case documents as required U/Sec.207 CrPC, and was examined U/Sec.239 Cr.PC., to which he denied the offence. On consideration, charges U/Secs.498-A, 506 IPC were framed against him, read over and explained to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to

P3. PW-1 is the defacto-complainant and PW-2 is the mother of PW-1. The learned Sr.APP has given up the evidence of Lws. 3 to 5, as such their evidence is closed. Ex-P1 is the signature of PW-1 on the complaint. Ex-P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-1, Ex-P3 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-2.

7.Upon conclusion of prosecution evidence, as there was no incriminating evidence appearing against the accused, hence examination U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with.

8.Heard both sides.

Point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of accused for the offence

punishable U/Secs.498-A, 506 IPC, beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:

9.On perusal of the record, it is found that PW-1 is the defacto-complainant and PW-2 is the mother of PW-1, they did not supported the prosecution case and they did not stated anything incriminating against accused and nothing trust worth was elicited on their cross- 3 examination by learned Sr.APP. The prosecution has not examined the eye witnesses to the incident. The prosecution has also not examined other witnesses. The prosecution has not taken any steps to examine the Investigation Officer so as to elicit the true facts of the case. In view of all the above circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution could not prove the guilt of accused for the offence punishable U/Secs.498-A, 506 IPC.

10.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Secs.498-A, 506

IPC and hence acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 24th day of April, 2012.

Spl.JMFC Mobile (PCR), Adilabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: Pw-1/LW-1: Bandari Padma/Complainant -NIL- PW-2/LW-2: Palla Gangamma/Mother of PW-1.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: -NIL- Ex-P1 is the signature of PW-1 on the complaint, dt: 22-11-2012. Ex-P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-1, dt: 22-11-2012. Ex-P3 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-2, dt: 22-11-2012.

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Mobile (PCR) Adilabad.

4

Dt: 28-04-2012

CC/182/20111 / 1

TSAD040002572011

IN THE COURT OF THE Spl. JFCM Mobile (PCR) -

cum- I Addl. Junior Civil Judge:

Present: Spl. JFCM Mobile (PCR) -cum- I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, 28-04-2012

CC/182/2011

Between:

State of A.P., through SI of Police Address: P.S. Jainath.

… Plaintiff/Petitioner AND

Nissar Khan Address: Age 35 years, Occ. Driver, Ro.Khanapur colony, Adilabad.

… Defendent/Respondent

Counsel for Petitioner : Sr.APP,Advocate

Counsel for Respondent : ,Advocate

This (case type) having come before me for hearing today, having heard and considered the record, this court delivered the following :

ORDER

Accused is called present. He is examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C for the offence U/Sec.337, 338 IPC. He pleaded guilty and prayed to

Dt: 28-04-2012

CC/182/20111 / 1 have mercy. Accused admission is voluntay without any threat or coercion. On admission accused is found guilty for the offence

U/Sc.337, 338 IPC and he is convicted U/Sc.252 Cr.P.C for the offence U/Sc.337 IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence U/Sec.338

IPC. Total fine of Rs.1,500/-. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one week.

This Order Generated in Case Information System (CIS) on 28-04-2012

Spl. JFCM Mobile (PCR) -cum- I Addl. Junior Civil Judge (Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services” from Android or iOS)

Dt: 24-04-2012

MC/4/20111 / 1

TSAD040002842011

IN THE COURT OF THE Spl. JFCM Mobile (PCR) -

cum- I Addl. Junior Civil Judge:

Present: Spl. JFCM Mobile (PCR) -cum- I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, 24-04-2012

MC/4/2011

Between:

Purke kalpana and others Address: Age. 38 yrs. Occ. house Hold.

… Plaintiff/Petitioner AND

Purke Bheem Rao Address: Age. 41 Yrs. Occ. Gove. employee in Orest Department in Indervelli Forst Office, Ro. Indervelli, Dist. Adilabad … Defendent/Respondent

Counsel for Petitioner : Sri Madukar,Advocate

Counsel for Respondent : ,Advocate

This (case type) having come before me for hearing today, having heard and considered the record, this court delivered the following :

ORDER

Petitioner called absent. Orders pronounced vide separate one. In the result, the petition is partly allowed by granting

Dt: 24-04-2012

MC/4/20111 / 1 maintenance of Rs.1,000/- each per month to petitioners No.1 to 4 from the date of the petition.

This Order Generated in Case Information System (CIS) on 24-04-2012

Spl. JFCM Mobile (PCR) -cum- I Addl. Junior Civil Judge (Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services” from Android or iOS)