P Aruna Kumari

1 S.C.No.341 of 2015, Dt:13.5.2022.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE:

AT KOTHAGUDEM.

Dated this the 13th Day of May, 2022.

Present: Smt P.Aruna Kumari,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Sathupally, FAC-Addl.Assistant Sessions Judge, Kothagudem.

S.C.No.341 OF 2015

1.Name of the Complainant ::The State rep. through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Aswapuram,

2.Name of the Accused::Banoth Parshaya, S/o.Ballu (Late), Age:35 yrs, Occ:MBBS Doctor at Venkatapuram, R/o.Thrumalagudem Thanda of Aswapuram,

3.Section of Law::U/Secs.498-A, 307,506 of I.P.C and Secs.3 and 4 of D.P Act,

4.Crime No. and P.S.::Cr.No.91/2015, P.S.Aswapuram,

5.P.R.C.No.::35 of 2015,

6.Name of the Ofcer, who ::Sri.B.Sujay committed the case Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Manuguru,

7.Prosecution conducted by::Smt.P.V.D Laxmi,

Additional Public Prosecutor,

8.Defence conducted by ::Sri.K.Pullaiah, Advocate, Sathupally,

9.Plea of the Accused::Not Guilty,

10. Finding of the Court::Found not Guilty,

11. Sentence (or) Order:: IN THE RESULT:

Accused is found not guilty for the Ofences punishable U/Secs.

498-A, 307 and 506 of Indian Penal

Code and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry

Page 1 of 14 2 S.C.No.341 of 2015, Dt:13.5.2022.

Prohibition Act, accordingly accused is acquitted under the provisions of Sec.232 of Cr.P.C. The

Bail Bonds of the accused if any, shall be in force for a period of

Six(06) Months.

Case-Property:

The Un-Marked Case-Property i.e., incriminating material if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

This case is fnally heard in the presence of Smt.P.V.D Laxmi, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State; and Sri.K.Pullaiah, Advocate for the accused; upon perusing the material papers on record; and upon hearing the arguments on both sides; and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Aswapuram fled Charge Sheet against the accused for the ofences punishable U/Secs.498-A and 307 of

Indian Penal Code and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in

Cr.No.91/2015.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case as follows:-

The case of the Prosecution in brief is that, the marriage of

L.w.1/victim/Guguloth Sravanthi was performed with accused on 14.6.2009 and at the time of marriage, the parents of L.w.1/Sravanthi i.e.,

L.w.2/father/Gugloth Veeraswamy and L.w.3/mother/Gugloth Vijaya Laxmi have given an amount of Rs.25,00,000/-, Gold ornaments weighing (20)

Thulas as dowry in the presence of elders L.w.4/Eedara Appa Rao,

L.w.5/Bhukya Dev Singh, P.Nageswara Rao and L.w.6/Banoth Ravi and also given one motor cycle to accused and Rs.6,00,000/- as additional dowry to the accused on the demand made by the accused on the day of

Page 2 of 14 3 S.C.No.341 of 2015, Dt:13.5.2022.

marriage in the presence of same elders. Thereafter, L.w.1 and accused lead happy marital life at Karimnagar for some period, thereafter the accused developed illegal intimacy with a Nurse who is residing in the same house in another portion and on that when L.w.1 questioned the accused about his attitude, the accused beat her indiscriminately, harassed and threatened her, due to which L.w.1 attempted to commit suicide and she was rescued by his mother by taking to the hospital. After few days, in a panchayath before elders, the accused admitted his guilt and promised to look-after L.w.1 in well manner. After passing few days the accused again started harassment towards L.w.1 both mentally and physically demanding her to bring additional dowry, moreover once L.w.1 caught-hold accused and hospital Nurse red-handedly when they were participating in sexual intercourse, then L.w.1 strongly opposed the attitude of the accused, then accused beat her indiscriminately and necked out from the house while she was pregnant. Again in a panchayath before elders i.e., Banoth Nagulu, L.w.7/Banoth Veeranna and

L.w.6/Banoth Ravi, the accused pleaded his guilt and took L.w.1 and joined job at P.H.C Janampeta, taken a rented house at Manuguru along with their kid and there also the accused continued his attitude by maintaining extra marital afairs with other ladies and harassed her on that when L.w.1 questioned the accused, he fee away from Manuguru to Hyderabad.

Again the parents of L.w.1 conducted a panchayath wherein the accused admitted his guilt and joined in duty at Venkatapuram in a Mobile team as a Doctor and after passing two months, the accused started neglecting

L.w.1, again started extra marital afairs with a nurse and kept her at

Bhadrachalam and knowing the same, L.w.1 informed the matter to her

Page 3 of 14 4 S.C.No.341 of 2015, Dt:13.5.2022.

parents, ultimately the accused decided to do away the life of L.w.1, hatched a plan and accordingly on the night of 13.5.2015 at about 2230 hours, the accused with an intention to kill L.w.1 went to the house of parents of L.w.1 and in their absence, caught hold the curls of the L.w.1 and the accused dragged L.w.1 from the house, stabbed her with a knife with an intention to kill her for which she received bleeding injuries to her left hand, when she made huge hues and cries, the accused beat L.w.1 with a knife handle on her head, resulting multiple injuries on her body, on hearing her cries, L.w.3/Gugloth Vijaya Laxmi rushed to the scene, tried to rescue L.w.1, however, the accused again attempted to kill L.w.1 with a knife and on arrival of L.w.10/Bhukya Sreenu and L.w.11/Tejavath

Satyavathi, the accused fed away from the scene. Touching these points,

L.w.1 lodged a complaint against the accused for taking necessary action.

3.Basing on the above report, L.w.17/S.I of Police registered a case in

Cr.No.91/2015, U/Secs.498-A, 307 I.P.C and Secs.3 and 4 of D.P. Act, took- up the investigation, during the course of investigation, L.w.17 examined and recorded the statement of L.w.1, visited scene of ofence at house of

L.w.1 at Aswapuram, drafted Crime Details Form in the presence of mediators L.w.12/Gokinapalli Somaiah and L.w.13/Md.Musthaf and seized sharp knife having plastic handle under a cover of C.D.F from the scene of ofence, examined and recorded the statements of independent witnesses i.e., L.ws.2 to 11 and on 20.5.2015 L.w.17/S.I of police arrested the accused and sent him for judicial remand. After completion of entire

Investigationandafterreceivinginjurycertifcatefrom

L.w.16/Dr.Ch.Praveen who treated L.w.1, L.w.17 fled Charge Sheet against

Page 4 of 14 5 S.C.No.341 of 2015, Dt:13.5.2022.

the accused for the ofences punishable U/Secs.498-A and 307 of I.P.C and Secs.3 and 4 of D.P Act.

4.Basing on the material available on record, this case was taken on fle and cognizance was taken for the ofences punishable U/Secs.498-A, 307 and 506 of I.P.C and Secs.3 and 4 of D.P.Act against the accused by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manuguru and registered it as

P.R.C.No.35/2015.

5.On appearance of the accused, case documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated U/Sec.208 of Cr.P.C. Since among the said ofences, one of the alleged ofence U/Sec.307 of I.P.C is exclusively triable by the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, this case was committed to the

Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Khammam in P.R.C No.35/2015. The Hon’ble

Court of Sessions, Khammam took the case on fle and registered it as

S.C.No.341 of 2015 and made over it to this Court, for trial and disposal in accordance with law.

6.Accordingly, the matter was taken-up by this Court, the accused was examined U/Sec.228 of Cr.P.C., Charges for the Ofences punishable

U/Sec.498-A, 307 and 506 of I.P.C and Secs.3 and 4 of D.P Act were framed, read over and explained to the accused, but he denied the same and claimed to be tried.

7.During the Trial, the prosecution examined P.ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.10.

8.After closure of the Prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating material appearing against the accused in the evidence of the Prosecution

Page 5 of 14 6 S.C.No.341 of 2015, Dt:13.5.2022.

witnesses. The accused denied the same and reported no-defence evidence.

9.Heard both sides arguments and perused the material on record.

10.The Point that arises for determination is:-

“Whether the Prosecution has proved and established

the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt

for the Ofences punishable U/Secs.498-A, 307 and 506

of Indian Penal Code and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act ?”.

P O I N T :

11.To prove the above allegations, prosecution has examined as many as Nine witnesses and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10.

12. It is the case of the prosecution that P.w.1 is legally wedded wife of accused and her marriage was performed with accused on 14.6.2009, at the time of marriage, parents of P.w.1 paid Rs.25,00,000/- Cash, presented 20 Thulas of Gold Ornaments, one motor cycle and also additional dowry of Rs.6,00,000/- to accused and thereafter accused harassed P.w.1 physically and mentally, demanded additional dowry, so also maintaining illegal relations with another ladies. Hence, the complaint.

Coming to the Appreciation of the evidence:-

13.P.w.1 who is the Defacto-Complainant reiterated the facts of the prosecution case and deposed that on 14.6.2009 their marriage was performed and no dowry or articles were presented by her parents, after their marriage they were leading happy marital life at Karimnagar. She further deposed that as there were small disputes between her and accused, she approached police and on their request she put her

Page 6 of 14 7 S.C.No.341 of 2015, Dt:13.5.2022.

signature on Ex.P.1 and she does not know the contents of it. Further admitted police never examined her and did not recorded her statement and not referred to hospital.

During her cross-examination by the learned Addl.P.P, P.w.1 denied having stated to the investigation ofcer as in her Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement marked as Ex.P.2 and denied that on 13.5.2015 accused made an attempt to kill her and that she sustained bleeding injury to her left hand.

14.P.ws.2 and 3 who are parents of P.w.1 deposed in voice that they have given Rs.25 laksh as dowry to the accused and also presented 20

Thulas of Gold, P.w.1 and accused resided at Karimnagar, thereafter quarrels ensued between them, as such, P.w.1 returned to their house.

P.w.2 further deposed that, In the year, 2015 on one night, the accused came to his house and a quarrel ensured at his house, at that time he was not present in his house, thereafter P.w.1 presented report/Ex.P.1,

Panchayath was held, but accused did not changed his attitude, P.w.3 further deposed that they also gave Rs.1,00,000/-, further she did not know the case facts and police did not examine her and did not recorded her statement.

In cross-examination done by learned Addl.P.P, they denied having stated to police as in their Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements marked under

Exs.P.3 and P.4 respectively. In cross-examination done by Lr. Counsel for the accused, P.ws.2 and 3 admitted that they have not deposed as to particulars of the stated amount of Rs.25,00,000/- and Rs.6,00,000/- as to from and where they brought and they further admitted that they have not fled any documentary proof to show purchase of the stated 20 Thulas

Page 7 of 14 8 S.C.No.341 of 2015, Dt:13.5.2022.

of Gold. P.ws.2 and 3 further admitted that they have no personal knowledge in regard to the illegal contacts of the accused and in regard to stated panchayaths. P.w.2 also admitted that the accused has been paying Rs.10,000/- towards monthly maintenance to the daughter of P.w.1 and also admitted that P.w.1 and the accused entered into an agreement on 3.3.2020 to live separately and peacefully. P.w.2 also admitted that he has no fnancial capacity to give Rs.25,00,000/- and 6,00,000/- and one motor cycle and to present 20 Thulas of Gold to accused as dowry. He also did not furnished the registration number of the stated motor cycle.

15.The prosecution testifed P.ws.4 and 8 as Circumstantial witnesses, who deposed only in regard to acquaintance of P.w.1 and her family members. P.ws.4 and 8 pleaded ignorance in regard to the facts of the case. The prosecution also examined P.ws. 5 and 7 who are panchayath elders, but they too turned hostile deposing that they never conducted any panchayaths. P.ws.6 and 9 are testifed as eye-witnesses to the incident and they also turned hostile stating that they do not know the case facts.

16.Basing on the evidence of P.ws.1 to 9, the learned Addl.P.P. declared them hostile and cross-examined them, but, nothing was elicited incriminating against the accused. P.ws.1 to 9 denied having stated to the investigation ofcer as in their Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statements marked as

Exs.P.2 to P.10, Ex.P.3/1, Ex.P.4/1 are not a substantial piece of evidence and they shall not be used for any purpose except to contradict a witness in the manner prescribed in the proviso of Sec.162 of Cr.P.C.

Page 8 of 14 9 S.C.No.341 of 2015, Dt:13.5.2022.

Since, P.ws.1 to 9 who are material witnesses to this case turned hostile, the learned Addl.P.P given-up the evidence of L.w.8/Banoth

Laxmibhai, L.w.9/Rachakonda Veeranna, L.w.12/Gokinapalli Somaiah,

L.w.13/Md.Musthaf, L.w.14/Chittikena Bhaskar Rao, L.w.15/Gurram

Ramesh, L.w.16/Dr.Ch.Praveen and L.w.17/B.Parshuram.

17.It is to be noted that P.ws.1 to 3 are material witnesses to this case.

After scrutinizing the entire evidence of P.ws.1 to 3, it is appearing that they have compromised with the accused. P.w.1 who is victim in this case completely turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution stating that due to small disputes with the accused, she approached the police. P.ws.2 and 3 though deposed about presentation of dowry of

Rs.25,00,000/-, 20 Thulas of Gold, additional dowry of Rs.6,00,000/- and one motor cycle to the accused, but surprisingly P.w.2 in his cross- examination resiled from his own statement stating that he has no capacity to give such dowry to the accused. P.w.3 except deposing about giving of dowry to accused, nothing is elicited from her evidence in regard to subjecting P.w.1 to physical and mental harassment. Here, it is to be noted that from Ex.P.1-Report and Chief-examination of P.ws.1 to 3, it is appearing that there are some matrimonial disputes between P.w.1 and accused and from cross-examination of these witnesses, it is appearing that compromise has been arrived at between the parties. P.ws.1 to 3 made contrary statements with that of contents of complaint and also with their Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements and their evidence is not inspiring the confdence of the court which is great jolt to the prosecution case.

Therefore, the evidence of P.ws.1 to 3 is shaken during their cross- examination by defence counsel as well as learned Addl.P.P respectively

Page 9 of 14 10 S.C.No.341 of 2015, Dt:13.5.2022.

which creates considerable doubt in their evidence. P.ws. 4 and 8 who are circumstantial witnesses also turned hostile. P.ws.6 and 9 who are stated to be eye-witnesses to the incident, P.ws.5 and 7 who are stated to be village elders also did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile stating that they do not know facts of the case. Thus, it is clear that both parties went into compromise out of court and settled the matrimonial dispute between them. It is to be considered that the relationship between the spouses would be the mixture of emotions, sentiments, feelings etc. The core issue could not be dealt with. The pleadings of the parties and the evidence alone were to be taken into account to decide in such type of cases. From the evidence of P.ws.1 to 3 it is evident that both parties went into compromise and accused is also paying Rs.10,000/- to daughter of P.w.1 and accused towards her maintenance. It is to be noted that the object of compromise is to live happily and peacefully by both the parties. In such circumstances when parties are intended to live peacefully and happily, merely basing on the contradictory and un-corroborative evidence of P.ws.2 and 3 in regard to presentation of dowry to accused which is not supported by victim/P.w.1 herself and not supported with any documentary proof or independent evidence, conviction of accused will be a futile exercise and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored, securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful efect on the public and consist in wrong doing that seriously endangers and threatens well- being of society and it is not safe to leave the accused only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably. In respect of serious

Page 10 of 14 11 S.C.No.341 of 2015, Dt:13.5.2022.

ofences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc, the settlement between ofender and victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, in certain ofences which arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to the family disputes, where the wrong is basically to victim and the ofender and victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, so, convicting the accused may lead to disturb or break-up the peacefulness between the parties/wife and husband. Therefore, unless, there is a positive evidence in respect of alleged willful conduct on the part of husband or his relatives, which is of such a nature, so as to drive the woman to commit suicide, it cannot be said the prosecution succeeded to prove the

(a) or (b) of the explanation give U/Sec.498-A of I.P.C attracts. The proof of cruelty U/Sec.498-A of I.P.C must be higher in decree in criminal law and in the present case there is ambiguity regarding such cruelty committed by accused towards the P.w.1 as per the evidence on record. Moreover, prosecution did not produce any evidence to state that accused harassed

P.w.1 mentally and physically and attempted to kill her. So, the ingredients U/Sec.498-A, 307, 506 of I.P.C and Secs.3 and 4 of D.P Act does not attracts. In the light of self-serving evidence of P.ws.1 to 3 and un-corroborative evidence of them with the evidence of P.ws.4 to 9, it is not safe to believe, no weight can be attached to the evidence of P.ws.1 to 9 in the interest of justice and admittedly there is no direct or independent evidence on record, which creates doubt in very genuineness of prosecution case which afects the core case of prosecution. Reason for such evidence is obviously on account of compromise afected between the parties and it afects the veracity of the entire prosecution case which make prosecution case is highly doubtful.

Page 11 of 14 12 S.C.No.341 of 2015, Dt:13.5.2022.

18.In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, absolutely there is no positive, legal material to establish the nexus of accused with the ofence alleged by prosecution and with the uncorroborated evidence on the part of prosecution raises a serious doubt with regard to the alleged incident. Prosecution on whom burden lies miserably failed to make out the case against the accused for the ofences punishable

U/Secs.498-A, 307 and 506 of I.P.C and Secs.3 and 4 of D.P Act beyond all reasonable doubts. In these circumstances, beneft of doubt is given to the accused, in the interest of Justice.

IN THE RESULT:

Accused is found not guilty for the Ofences punishable

U/Secs.498-A, 307 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and Secs.3 and 4

of Dowry Prohibition Act, accordingly accused is acquitted under

the provisions of Sec.232 of Cr.P.C. The Bail Bonds of the accused

if any, shall be in force for a period of Six(06) Months.

Case-Property:

The Un-Marked Case-Property i.e., incriminating material if

any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation,corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 13th day of May, 2022.

FAC: ADDL.ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

KOTHAGUDEM.

Page 12 of 14 13 S.C.No.341 of 2015, Dt:13.5.2022.

: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :

: WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION :

P.w.1G.SravanthiDefacto-complainant/Victim,

P.w.2G.VeeraswamyFather of victim/Witness,

P.w.3G.Vijaya LaxmiMother of victim/Witness,

P.w.4E.Appa RaoCircumstantial witness,

P.w.5B.VeerannaPanchayath elder/ Circumstantial witness,

P.w.6T.SatyavathiEye-witness,

P.w.7B.DevasinghPanchayath elder/ Circumstantial witness,

P.w.8B.RaviCircumstantial witness,

P.w.9B.SrinuEye-witness.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED:

– None –

: DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION :

Ex.P.1 : Signature of P.w.1 on Complaint,

Ex.P.2 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.w.1,

Ex.P.3 : Relevant portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.w.2,

Ex.P.3/1 : Relevant portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.w.2,

Ex.P.4 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.w.3,

Ex.P.4/1: Relevant portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.w.3,

Ex.P.5: Sec.161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.w.4,

Ex.P.6: Sec.161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.w.5,

Ex.P.7: Sec.161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.w.6,

Ex.P.8: Sec.161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.w.7,

Ex.P.9: Sec.161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.w.8,

Ex.P.10: Sec.161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.w.9.

Page 13 of 14 14 S.C.No.341 of 2015, Dt:13.5.2022.

: DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED:

-NIL-

: MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION AND ACCUSED:

-NIL-

FAC:ADDL.ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

KOTHAGUDEM.

Read & Compared by:

Page 14 of 14

1

H.M.O.P.No.10/2021, Dt:29.4.2022

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

AT KOTHAGUDEM.

Dated this the 29th day of April, 2022.

Present: Smt P. Aruna Kumari,

Senior Civil Judge,

Sathupalli, FAC-Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem.

H.M.O.P. No. 10 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

Chennaboina Sunitha, W/o.Janardhan, D/o.J.Rajaiah, Age:32 years, Occ:House-hold, R/o.H.No.9-311/1, Laxmidevipalli, Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem (D). .…Petitioner //And//

Chennaboina Janardhan, S/o.Uppalaiah, Age:33 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Nallela(V), Kurvai(M), Mahaboobabad (D).

....Respondent

This petition is fnally heard in the presence of Smt.A.Parvathi, Advocate for the Petitioner and Respondent has been remained Ex-parte; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner; and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court deliver the following:

: O R D E R :

1.This Petition is fled by the Petitioner/wife U/Sec.13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of

Hindu Marriage Act-1955 seeking decree of divorce from her husband/

Respondent by dissolving their marriage dated:14.6.2017.

2.The brief averments of the petition are that:-

It is the case of the petitioner is that, the Petitioner is the legally

Page 1 of 7 2

H.M.O.P.No.10/2021, Dt:29.4.2022

wedded wife of the Respondent and their marriage was performed on 14.6.2017 at Dara Function Hall, Laxmidevipalli, Kothagudem, as per the rites and customs prevailing in Hindu community. At the time of marriage,the parents of the petitioner gave an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- cash, Gold Ornaments worth of Rs.2,00,000/- and house-hold articles worth of Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent. Their marriage was consummated. They both lead happy marital life for a period of (02) months only, thereafter the respondent sold-out Gold Ornaments, spent all the money, which were presented by the parents of the petitioner at the time of their marriage. She further averred that, the respondent started harassing the petitioner on the instigation of his parents, for want of Additional Dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-, the parents of the petitioner arranged the said amount and requested the respondent and his parents to show mercy upon the petitioner, but after few days the respondent against started harassing the petitioner, beat her with the belt. She further averred that, the respondent is having illegal intimacy with other ladies and also used to drink alcohol, debauchery playing cards etc., and he neglected the petitioner in all aspects. The respondent and his parents did not allow the petitioner to talk with her parents and used to detain her in a lock-up room. Due to the harassment of the respondent, the father of the petitioner again gave an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent, but they did not satisfy with the said amount. She further averred that on 17.3.2019 the respondent beat the petitioner indiscriminately, the respondent and his parents threatened her, that they will not allow her unless and until she

Page 2 of 7 3

H.M.O.P.No.10/2021, Dt:29.4.2022

brings Additional Dowry. The petitioner bored the same with a fond hope that the respondent would mend his ways, but all her hopes were went in vain. Several panchayaths were held and elders advised the respondent to change his attitude, but the respondent did not heed their advice.

She further averred that, the respondent used to come to the house in late nights in a drunken state, used to harass the petitioner.

Due to the harassment of the respondent the petitioner gave a complaint before S.H.O., P.S., Laxmidevipally,Kothagudem, the police issued F.I.R and registered a case in Cr.No.42/2020 U/Sec.3 & 4 of D.P

Act and Sec.498-A of I.P.C, she also fled Maintenance case Vide M.C

No.16/2020 before Lr. II J.F.M.C, Court, Kothagudem. Vexed with the attitude of the respondent the petitioner is constrained to fle this petition for dissolution of marriage with the respondent. Hence, this

Petition.

3.Notice was served on the Respondent. The Respondent was called absent and there was no-representation on his behalf, as such he was set Ex-parte.

4.In support of her case, the petitioner examined herself as P.w.1 and Exs.P.1 and P.2 got marked through her.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the material on record.

Page 3 of 7 4

H.M.O.P.No.10/2021, Dt:29.4.2022

6.Now the Point for Consideration is:- “Whether the petition can be allowed granting Decree of Divorce as prayed for”?.

7.POINT:

The evidence of P.w.1 is that, she is the wife of the respondent.

Petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was performed on 14.6.2017 at Laxmidevipalli(V),

Kothagudem(T), as per the rites and customs prevailing in Hindu community. Since the parties are Hindus, the provisions of Hindu

Marriage Act can be invoked. The afdavit fled in lieu of her chief- examination, she reiterated the contents of the petition. Exs.P.1 and P.2 got marked. Ex.P.1 is the Original Wedding card of the parties and

Ex.P.2 is Photograph (01) No.

8.It is further evidence of P.w.1 is that, they both lead happy marital life for a period of (02) months only, thereafter the respondent sold-out

Gold ornaments and spent money given to him by parents of the petitioner, then onwards he started to harass the petitioner on the instigation of his parents for want of Additional Dowry, he used to harass her, used to beat her and torture her. She further deposed that, the respondent is having illegal intimacy with other ladies and also used to drink alcohol, debauchery, playing cards etc., he used to come to the house in late nights in a drunken state and neglected the petitioner in all aspects. Finally on 17.3.2019 the respondent beat the

Page 4 of 7 5

H.M.O.P.No.10/2021, Dt:29.4.2022

petitioner indiscriminately and necked-out her from his house, the respondent and his parents threatened her that, they will not allow her unless and until she brings the Additional Dowry. Several panchayaths were held and elders advised the respondent to change his attitude, but the respondent did not heed their advice. The petitioner vexed with their attitude, she gave a complaint before S.H.O., P.S., Laxmidevipally,

Kothagudem, the police issued F.I.R and registered a case in

Cr.No.42/2020, U/Sec.3 and 4 of D.P Act and Sec.498-A of I.P.C and also fled Maintenance Case. Under these circumstances, due to the unbearable Cruel behavior of the respondent and his family members, she is constrained to fle this petition on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

9.So, the evidence of P.w.1 clearly establishes that the respondent subjected her to cruelty that is in both mentally and physically and willfully driven-out the petitioner from his marital home. The above said

Oral and documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner remained un-challenged and un-rebutted, having received the summons/notices, the Respondent remained ex-parte and respondent did not choose to appear before this court and contest the petition, therefore, adverse inference can be drawn against him. So, the allegations made by the

Petitioner against Respondent which proved to be true. Hence, considering the above said Oral and documentary evidence of the petitioner, this court holds that the petitioner is entitled for Decree of

Divorce. Hence, this petition can be allowed as prayed for. Accordingly,

Page 5 of 7 6

H.M.O.P.No.10/2021, Dt:29.4.2022

the point is answered.

IN THE RESULT:-

This Petition is allowed with Costs, granting Decree of

Divorce U/Sec.13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act-1955 and

dissolving the marriage of the Petitioner with the Respondent,

which took place on 14.6.2017.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 29th day of April, 2022.

FAC.ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOTHAGUDEM.

: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :

: WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER :

Petitioner. P.w.1 Ch.Sunitha, : WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT :

-NONE-

: DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER :

Ex.P.1: Original Wedding Card of the Parties,

Ex.P.2: Original Marriage Photograph (01) No.

: DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT :

– NIL –

Page 6 of 7 7

H.M.O.P.No.10/2021, Dt:29.4.2022

FAC.ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOTHAGUDEM.

Read and Compared by:

Page 7 of 7

1

H.M.O.P.No.148/2021, Dt:29.4.2022

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

AT KOTHAGUDEM.

Dated this the 29th day of April, 2022.

Present: Smt P. Aruna Kumari,

Senior Civil Judge,

Sathupally, FAC:Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem.

H.M.O.P. No. 148 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

Bodepudi @ Mullapati Sumalatha, W/o.Bodepudi Purna Uday Kiran, Age:25 years, Occ:Household, R/o.H.No.6-1-54, Bonalavariveedi, Bhadrachalam (M), Bhadradri Kothagudem(D). .…Petitioner.

//And//

Bodepudi Purna Uday Kiran, S/o.B.Vijaya Durga Rao, Age:31 years, Occ: Private Lecturer, R/o.Q.No.BS-343, Intermediate Colony, Palvoncha, Bhadradri Kothagudem(D).

....Respondent.

This petition is fnally heard in the presence of Sri.R.Rama Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner; and respondent has been remained Ex-parte; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner; and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court deliver the following:

: O R D E R :

1.This Petition is fled by the Petitioner/wife U/Sec.13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of

Hindu Marriage Act-1955 seeking decree of divorce from her Husband/

Respondent by dissolving their marriage Dated:20.8.2014.

2.The brief averments of the petition are that:-

It is the case of the petitioner is that, the Petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the Respondent and their marriage was performed on

Page 1 of 5 2

H.M.O.P.No.148/2021, Dt:29.4.2022

20.8.2014, at Dwaraka Thirumala Sri Venkateshwara Swamy Temple,

West Godavari District, as per caste customs and rites prevailing in

Hindu religion. At the time of marriage, the parents of the petitioner gave an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) cash towards dowry, Gold ornaments weighing three (03) thulas and household articles worth of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent.

Immediately the petitioner has joined with the respondent at his house at Palvoncha and their marriage was consummated, they were blessed with one female child. The petitioner further averred that they both lead their marital life at Palvoncha only for one year and thereafter the respondent used to harass her physically and mentally by suspecting her character, he used to beat her in one way or the other. The petitioner further averred that inspite of several panchayaths held

before elders, there is no change in the attitude of the respondent,

thereafter he increased his harassment as the petitioner conducted panchayath and defame him in the society. The petitioner further averred that fnally the elders conducted panchayath at New

Gollagudem(T), Bhadradri Kothagudem District at his uncle house and advised the respondent to change his attitude, but the respondent did not follow the advices of the elders continued his harassment towards her. Finally, in the month of February, 2019 the respondent beat the petitioner and left the association of the petitioner at New

Gollagudem(T) and did not turn up till date. The petitioner further averred that, she waited with a hope that the respondent may change his attitude towards her and receive the petitioner into his conjugal fold, but all her hopes are went in vain. Under these circumstances, the

Page 2 of 5 3

H.M.O.P.No.148/2021, Dt:29.4.2022

petitioner is constrained to fle this petition for divorce by way of dissolution of her marriage with the Respondent. Hence, this petition.

3.Notice was issued and served on the respondent, but the respondent failed to appear before this Court and as there was no-representation, hence, the respondent was set Ex-parte.

4.In support of her case, the petitioner examined herself as P.w.1 and Exs.P.1 to P.3 got marked through her.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the material on record.

6.Now the Point for Consideration is:- “Whether the petition can be allowed granting Decree of Divorce as prayed for”?.

7. POINT

The evidence of P.w.1 is that, she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was performed on 20.8.2014 at

Dwaraka Thirumala, Sri.Venkateswara Swamy temple, West Godavari

District as per the caste customs and rites prevailing in Hindu religion.

Since the parties are Hindus, the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act can be invoked. The afdavit fled in lieu of her chief-examination, she reiterated the contents of the petition. Exs.P.1 to P.3 are marked through her. Ex.P.1 is the Original Wedding Card of the Parties, Ex.P.2 is the Original Marriage Photographs (02)Nos., and Ex.P.3 is Photostat copy of Aadhar card of P.w.1 (compared with Original).

Page 3 of 5 4

H.M.O.P.No.148/2021, Dt:29.4.2022

It is the evidence of P.w.1 is that after their marriage consummated, they were blessed with one child baby. The evidence of

P.w.1 is that the respondent used to harass her both physically and mentally by suspecting her character, he used to beat her indiscriminately and that the matter was placed before caste elders for several times, who advised the respondent to change his attitude, but no result instead of that he increased his harassment towards petitioner and fnally in the month of Feb-2019, the respondent beat her and left the association of petitioner at New Gollagudem(T) and did not turn up.

8.So, the evidence of P.w.1 clearly establishes that the respondent subjected her to cruelty both in mentally and physically and left the association of the petitioner. The above said Oral and documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner remained un-challenged and un- rebutted, having received the summons/notices the respondent remained ex-parte and respondent did not choose to appear before this court and contest the petition, the reasons best known to the

Respondent and therefore, adverse inference can be drawn against him. So, the allegations made by the petitioner against the respondent which proved to be true. Hence, considering the above said Oral and documentary evidence of the petitioner, this Court holds that the petitioner is entitled for Decree of Divorce, the petition can be allowed as prayed for. Accordingly, the point is answered.

Page 4 of 5 5

H.M.O.P.No.148/2021, Dt:29.4.2022

IN THE RESULT:-

This Petition is allowed with Costs, granting Decree of

Divorce U/Sec.13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act-1955 and

dissolving the marriage of the Petitioner with the Respondent,

which took place on 20.8.2014.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 29th day of April, 2022.

FAC:ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOTHAGUDEM.

: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :

: WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER :

P.w.1 Bodepudi @ Mullapati Sumalatha.Petitioner.

: WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT :

-NONE-

: DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER :

Ex.P.1: Original Wedding Card of the Parties,

Ex.P.2: Original Marriage Photographs (02) Nos.,

Ex.P.3: Photostat copy of Aadhar card of P.w.1 (Compared with Original).

: DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT :

– NIL –

FAC:ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOTHAGUDEM.

Read & Compared by:

Page 5 of 5

1

H.M.O.P.No.78 of 2021, Dt:29.4.2022

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

AT KOTHAGUDEM.

Dated this the 29th day of April, 2022.

Present: Smt P. Aruna Kumari,

Senior Civil Judge,

Sathupalli, FAC: Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem.

H.M.O.P. No. 78 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

Male Santhosh, S/o Rama Krishna, Age:32 Yrs, Occ:Private Employee, R/o.H.No:13-3-52, Ashok Nagar colony, Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. .…Petitioner No.1.

//And//

Male Seetha Sai Kanaka Mahalaxmi, W/o.Santhosh, D/o.Ramam Rao, Age:25 Yrs, Occ:Housewife, R/o.H.No.1-184, Bommanapalli, Near Main Road, Gollapalli, Tekulapalli, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

....Petitioner No.2.

This petition is fnally heard in the presence of Sri.Sharath Shahameer, Advocate for the Petitioners; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners; and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court deliver the following:

: O R D E R :

1.This Petition is fled by the Petitioners U/Sec.13-B of the Hindu

Marriage Act-1955, seeking decree of divorce by dissolving their marriage dated: 03.11.2018 on the ground of Mutual Consent.

2.The brief averments of the petition are that:-

It is the case of the petitioners No.1 and 2 are that, the petitioners

Page 1 of 5 2

H.M.O.P.No.78 of 2021, Dt:29.4.2022

No.1 and 2 are husband and wife and their marriage was performed on 3.11.2018, at Pedhammathalli Temple, Palvoncha as per Hindu rites and customs and at the time of marriage, the parents of the Petitioner No.2 gave Rs.5,50,000/- towards dowry and performed marriage. After marriage the petitioner No.2 joined the petitioner No.1 at Kothagudem.

It is further averred that out of their wedlock, they were not blessed with any children. They further averred that they lead marital life for four months and thereafter disputes arose in between them, after (04) months, on 02.4.2019 the petitioner No.2 went to her parents house at

Bommanapalli, since then they are residing separately at their parental houses. In-spite of best eforts of their elders, the disputes in between the petitioners could not be resolved. They further averred that, the marriage was irretrievably broken and there is no possibility of their reunion. Both the petitioners came to a conclusion that they cannot live together. Ultimately, petitioners No.1 and 2 decided to separate by way of legal process and decided to dissolve their marital relationship. Both side elders made many eforts for their reunion but, went in vain. They further averred that, fnally before both side parents and elders there was a Compromise Deed on 9.11.2020 between the parties and accordingly frst petitioner gave an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- (Rupees

Five Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) to the second petitioner and obtained receipt to that efect. Therefore, the petitioners are fling this petition with Mutual Consent for Divorce. In view of above reasons, they are willing to obtain decree for dissolution of their marriage through legal process. Hence, this Petition.

Page 2 of 5 3

H.M.O.P.No.78 of 2021, Dt:29.4.2022

3.After registering this O.P., this Court waited for the Mandatory period of Six months and also conducted counseling to the parties,

Reconciliation is held, but it is not fruitful, however, they refused to reunite, after completion of six months, this Court proceeded with the Trial/Enquiry.

4.Both the petitioners were examined themselves as P.ws.1 and 2 respectively, Exs.A.1 and A.2 were marked through them respectively.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record.

6.Now the Point for Consideration is:- “Whether it is a fit case to dissolve the marriagee of

Petitioners on the geround of Mutual Consent”?.

POINT:

7.The evidence of P.ws.1 and 2 is that, they are Hindus and their marriage was performed on 3.11.2018 at Peddammathalli Temple,

Palvoncha, as per Hindu rites and customs prevailing in their

Community. Since the parties are Hindus, the provisions of Hindu

Marriage Act can be invoked.

8.Both the petitioners examined themselves as P.w.1 and P.w.2. In their respective chief-examination, they asserted the facts as narrated above and reiterated the facts of the petition. Ex.A.1 is the Wedding

Card of the Parties, Ex.A.2 is Marriage Photographs (03) Nos.

Page 3 of 5 4

H.M.O.P.No.78 of 2021, Dt:29.4.2022

9.The further evidence of P.ws.1 and 2 is that, they lead marital life for four months only and thereafter disputes arose between them and that they are residing separately. In-spite of best eforts made by their elders, the disputes in between them could not be resolved. They further deposed that, the marriage was irretrievably broken, they further deposed that there is no scope of leading marital life by both the parties as they both are quite rigid on their respective approaches.

So, there is no possibility of their reunion in future, so, both the petitioners came to a conclusion that they cannot live together.

Ultimately, on the advice of elders they decided to separate by way of legal process and decided to dissolve their marital tie and also both parties entered into compromise Deed on 9.11.2020 and accordingly they both settled all their claims before their elders.

10.So, both the petitioners came to conclusion that they cannot continue their matrimonial relationship as wife and husband under one roof. So, considering the above said Oral and documentary evidence, this Court is of the opinion that, there is irretrievable break down of marriage of the petitioners and there is no chance of reunion since both the petitioners intends to dissolve their marriage with Mutual Consent, so, this Court is of the opinion that, Decree of Divorce be granted, dissolving their marriage on Mutual Consent. Therefore, in the interest of both the parties dissolving their marriage. This Petition is allowed as prayed for. The point is answered accordingly.

Page 4 of 5 5

H.M.O.P.No.78 of 2021, Dt:29.4.2022

IN THE RESULT:-

This Petition is allowed without Costs, gerantinge Decree of

Divorce on Mutual Consent and dissolvinge the marriagee

between the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2, which took place on

3.11.2018.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 29h day of April, 2022.

FAC:ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOTHAGUDEM.

: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :

: WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS :

Petitioner No.1, P.w.1 Male Santhosh

P.w.2Male Seetha Sai Kanaka Maha LaxmiPetitioner No.2.

: DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS :

Ex.A.1: Wedding Card of the Parties,

Ex.A.2: Marriage Photographs (03) Nos.

FAC:ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOTHAGUDEM.

Read & Compared by:

Page 5 of 5

TSBK010006672018

Presented on : 21-12-2018 Registered on : 21-12-2018 Decided on : 29-04-2022 Duration : 3 years, 4 months, 8 days

IN THE COURT OF

I Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum- I Additional Assistant Sessions

Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem. AT ,KHAMMAM

Presided Over by G.Bhanumathi

OS/100234/2018

ANUMOLU MALLIKARJUNA RAO

Age: 53 Address: OCC.BUSINESS R/O. H.NO. 6-11-121/A,GANESH BASTHI,

KOTHAGUDEM TOWN, BHADRADRI KOTHAGUDEM DISTRIC

VERSUS

MADUPU VYKUNTAMA CHARYULU

Age: 59 Address: OCC. GOLD SMITH WORK/OWNER R/O. H.NO. 10-164,

NADIMPETA, NEAR SAI BABA TEMPLE, TIRUVURU POST AND

MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : SATYANARAYANA L Advocate for : appearing for MADUPU VYKUNTAMA CHARYULU: Advocate appearing for respectively.

ORDER

Plaintiff present. Defendant is no more. Both sides counsel represent the matter. On oral enquiry the Plaintiff and his counsel reported that the defendant is died. As such, the L.Rs of the defendant and the plaintiff compromise the matter out of the court and L.Rs paid entire settled amount to the plaintiff as full and final satisfaction. Now the plaintiff intends to not press the suit. Full Satisfaction memo filed by the plaintiff duly signed by the plainitff and his counsel and submitted that the plaintiff compromised the matter with legal heirs of the defendant out of the court with the intervention of elders. Now prayed this court dismiss the suit as NOT

PRESSED by raising the attachment warrant against the suit schedule property which was passed against the defendant in I.A.No.318/2018 and prayed to dismiss I.A.No.1/2021 as NOT PRESSED as matter settled. Heard both sides and recorded in view of memo and facts and circumstances of the case, the plainitff and legal heirs of the defendant settled the matter out of the court and arrived at compromise and also prayed to raise the attachment warrant. Now the plaintiff intends to NOT PRESS the suit as well as I.A Nos318/2018 and 1/2021. So, in the interest of justice the plaintiff is permitted to NOT PRESS the suit as well as the said I.As as prayed for. Hence, the suit is dismissed as NOT PRESSED as prayed for and raised the attachment warrant over the suit schedule property/petition schedule property vide I.A.No.318/2018 and IA 1/2021 is dismissed as NOT PRESSED as prayed for to meet the ends of justice.

Date : 29-04-2022 (G.Bhanumathi)

I Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum- I Additional Assistant

Sessions Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem.