P. Arunakumari

1

O.S.No.141 of 2017,

Dt:28.3.2024.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: AT SATHUPALLY.

Dated this the 28th day of March, 2024.

Present:Smt. P.Aruna Kumari,

Senior Civil Judge,

Sathupalli.

O.S.No. 141 of 2017

BETWEEN:

Banothu Ram Prasad, S/o.Venkati, Age.35 years, Occ.Agriculture and Business, R/o.Lakshmipuram Village, Kalluru (M),Khammam (D). ….Plaintiff.

// And //

Ganni Gopal Rao @ Naga Gopal Rao, S/o.Satyanarayana, Age.45 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Kuruvellagudem (V), Bheemadolu (M), West Godavari (D), A.P State. .…Defendant.

This Suit is finally heard in the presence of Sri G.Ramachandra Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff; and Sri K.S.V. Prasada Reddy, Advocate for Defendant; upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments; and having stood over for consideration, till this day, the court delivered the following:-

: J U D G M E N T :

1.This is a Suit filed by the Plaintiff for recovery of Rs.8,30,100/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Thirty Thousand and One Hundred Only) with pendentilite and future interest from the Defendant.

Page 1 of 19 2

O.S.No.141 of 2017,

Dt:28.3.2024.

2.The brief facts of the Plaintiff’s case as follows:-

The brief averments of the Plaint are that, the Plaintiff and

Defendant are well acquainted with each other. Out of such acquaintance, the defendant approached the plaintiff and borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) on 15.10.2014 for his business expenses from the plaintiff, at his house at

Lakshmipuram (V) and on the same day after receipt of the said amount, the defendant executed a demand promissory note in favour of plaintiff with a promise to repay the same to the plaintiff with interest @24% P.A., either to plaintiff or to his order on demand.

The plaintiff further averred that, defendant borrowed the said amount for his business expenses and the said transaction took place in the presence of Gugulothu Koteswara Rao and Mayiri Ramesh who are signed as witnesses on the suit pronote and one Maruthi Satyam who scribed the said promissory note. Later, even after several oral demands made by plaintiff for repayment of the Pro-note amount, but the defendant has been dragging the repayment of the said amount under the promissory note on one pretext or the other, as such plaintiff got issued legal notice on 6.3.2017 to the defendant and demanded him to repayment even after receipt of the said notice, the defendant failed to pay the debt amount, as such, since there is

Page 2 of 19 3

O.S.No.141 of 2017,

Dt:28.3.2024.

no-hope of recovery of the said Promissory note amount from the defendant without redressal from the Hon’ble Court. Hence, this Suit.

3.On the other hand, the Defendant filed Written Statement opposing the Suit and denied the facts and also denied the allegations made in the Plaint averments against him. The defendant further submitted that he is the native of Kurellagudem village

Hamlet of Bhimadole of West Godavari District of Andhra Pradesh and belongs to Ryothwari family and in the recent elections he was elected as co-operative society president of Bhimadole F.S.C.S Ltd., even prior to 2010 and earned good reputation in the vicinity.

It is further submitted that, he was surprised to receive the suit summons in the above suit and on verification of the served material papers came to know that the plaintiff was a stranger and even prior to that the legal notices issued by the same counsel who is appearing for plaintiff had also issued another notice in the name of one

BanothuNageswaraRao,S/o.Balu,R/o.Samevillage i.e., Lakshmipuram of Kallur mandal, but for the reasons best known to them only, the plaintiff filed the present suit, which in fact that plaintiff as well as the attestors and the scribe are all not only strangers, but also a unknown persons and on enquiries it came to know that they are the close associates of Athuluri Rangaredddy,

Page 3 of 19 4

O.S.No.141 of 2017,

Dt:28.3.2024.

Kalluru mandal which is adjacent village of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff as well as the attestors and the scribe are the henchmen of the said Athuluri Ranga reddy.

It is further submitted that, the defendant humbly submits that the said Rangareddy as well as this defendant and one Papineni

Ramesh besides some other members formed into association in Real

Estate business in which this defendant was advised to furnish blank pronotes for the investments made by the said Rangareddy with an understanding that soon after claiming of the transactions and accountabilities the pronotes will be returned to the defendant as the said pronotes were handed over to the said Rangareddy through one

Potru Satyam @ Satyanarayana, R/o.Yerraboinapalli of Kallur mandal and even after completion of the said transactions those blank pronotes were not returned by the said Rangareddy as was represented by Potru Satyam @ Satyanarayana and the said incident was taken place about 5 to 6 years back and this defendant not demanded subsequently for the return of the same out of confidence reposed on them in the business transactions.

It is further submitted that, the said Rangareddy filed

CC.No.320/2010 which is still pending before the Hon’ble

II Addl.Judl.First Class Magistrate, Khammam and as a counter blast

Page 4 of 19 5

O.S.No.141 of 2017,

Dt:28.3.2024.

this defendant presumed that the said blank pronotes were misused by his benamis namely the plaintiff and the said Nageswara rao and this defendant came to know on enquiries regarding the said fact besides came to know that they are only the name lenders as well as they have no- such lending capacity to lend such huge amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- and the plaintiff is a tool in the hands of said

Rangareddy as such the suit pronote is devoid of consideration and it is only a fabricated document under the above stated facts as this defendant had never approached the plaintiff at any point of time much less the date of alleged pronote i.e., 15.10.2014 and had never executed the suit pronote as alleged by the plaintiff, moreover on that particular day this defendant was present in the office on that day and had attended for his administrative duties as a chief of the unit, because he is the president and General Administrator of the

Society F.S.C.S Ltd., and the story of the plaintiff in the present suit shall be brushed aside in view of the above stated facts apart from the proof of execution, consideration of the alleged pronote.

The defendant further submitted that there is no cause of action has taken place for the present suit in between the plaintiff and the defendant and the same is created, foisted and concoted story of the plaintiff for the purpose of wrongful gain and to cause wrongful loss to

Page 5 of 19 6

O.S.No.141 of 2017,

Dt:28.3.2024.

the defendant at his cost and the same is not maintainable under law.

Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the above pleadings and hearing on both sides, the following issues are settled for Trial:-

(i). “Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of money of Suit pronote, as prayed for?”,

(ii). “To What Relief?”.

5.Heard the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and Defendant.

Perused the record. To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the

Plaintiff himself examined as P.w.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.4. In support of his case, he produced Maruthi Satyam, Mayiri Ramesh,

Guguloth Koteswar Rao as Pws.2 to 4. The defendant himself examined as D.w.1 and one Ayinapudi Bala Subrahmanyam as D.w.2.

6. ISSUES No.1 :-

The plaintiff examined himself as P.w.1 and got examined P.ws.2 to 4 who are the attestors and scribe respectively and got marked

Exs.A1 to A.4.

Defendant filed written statement and he himself examined as

D.w.1 and also examined one A.Bala Subrahmanyam as D.w.2, Ex.B.1 and B.2 marked through D.w.1.

Page 6 of 19 7

O.S.No.141 of 2017,

Dt:28.3.2024.

7.P.w.1 filed chief affidavit and re-iterated the contents of plaint averments in his examination and he produced Exs.A.1 to A.4. Ex.A.1 is Original Promissory Note, Dt.15.10.2014, Ex.A.2 is Office Copy of

Legal Notice, Dt.6.3.2017, Ex.A.3 is Postal Receipt, Dt.6.3.2017,

Ex.A.4 is Postal Endorsement Letter, Dt.25.4.2017.

8.The main contention of the P.w.1 is that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from him on 15.10.2014, for his business expenses and executed a demand promissory note with a promise to repay the same with interest @ 24 % P.A. and the transaction was witnessed by P.ws.2 to 4, who are stated to be attestors and scribe of

Ex.A.1/Promissory Note. P.ws.2 to 4 corroborated the evidence of P.w.1 with regard to transaction held between plaintiff and defendant.

9.The defendant himself examined as D.w.1 and he denied the entire transaction during his chief-examination and further deposed he did not borrowed any amounts from the plaintiff and further deposed one Ranga Reddy as well as himself, Papineni Ramesh formed into an association in Real Estate Business and during said business transaction, he was advised to furnished blank promissory notes for the investments made by the said Ranga Reddy, but later said promissory notes were handover by the said Rangareddy through one Potru Satyam @ Satyanarayana and the said Ranga Reddy

Page 7 of 19 8

O.S.No.141 of 2017,

Dt:28.3.2024.

fabricated Ex.A.1 and filed this false suit against him through the plaintiff. He further deposed that Ex.A.1 is forged and fabricated document by the plaintiff with the collusion of P.ws.2 to 4 as well as said Rangareddy.

As already discussed above that Pws. 1 to 4 deposed that defendant executed Ex.A.1/Promissory Note, having borrowed

Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 15.10.2014 for his business purpose.

During the cross-examination of P.w.1, it is elicited P.w.1 owned

Ac.10 ½ gts of agricultural land and he is doing agricultural work and cable T.V. Business and he further admitted that he does not have documentary proof to state that he was holding Rs.5,00,000/- cash on hand on the date of alleged transaction.

10.It is further elicited that plaintiff being acquaintance with defendant since, 2014, he used to do Real estate business and he further admitted that he never visited the House and Village of the defendant, further admitted that he does not know one Athuluri

Ranga Reddy and also not aware that there are cheque bounce cases between A.Rangareddy and the defendant. He further admitted that he does not know first attestor by name G.Koteswara rao, he got

Page 8 of 19 9

O.S.No.141 of 2017,

Dt:28.3.2024.

acquaintance with the 2nd attestor i.e., Ramesh since 7 to 8 years and he got acquaintance with scribe Maruthi Satyam. It is further elicited that on 15.10.2014 is a working day for FACS Society Bank. Plaintiff further denied the suggestions of defendant’s counsel.

11.As per the cross-examination of P.w.2, he is stated to be scribe of Ex.A.1, he revealed that himself and all witnesses used one pen for signatures and he used same pen for filling of the contents of Ex.A.1 and defendant used his pen for signing on Ex.A.1. He further admitted that he got acquaintance with one Ranga Reddy. He further denied suggestions of Defendant’s counsel.

12.As per the cross-examination of P.w.3 who is stated to be one of the attestor of Ex.A.1 who revealed that he got acquaintance with defendant who is doing real estate business and defendant is a resident of Kuruvellagudem of West Godavari District and defendant used to work at N.S.P, Kalluru. He further revealed that at the time of transaction himself, plaintiff and defendant and one Koteswara rao and scribe/Sathyam were present and the said transaction was held in between 7.00 a.m to 7.30 a.m. He further denied the suggestions of defendant’s counsel.

As per the cross-examination of P.w.4, who is stated to be one of the attestors of Ex.A.1 who revealed that he got acquaintance with

Page 9 of 19 10

O.S.No.141 of 2017,

Dt:28.3.2024.

defendant, who is doing real estate business and he also stated as same as P.w.3 regarding transaction.

13.During the cross-examination of D.w.1, it is elicited that plaintiff and P.ws.2 to 4 are not parties or witnesses in Exs.B.1 and B.2 and he further deposed that he did not know P.ws.2 to 4 personally. He denied the suggestions of plaintiff counsel that he never borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from Pw.1 and he denied entire transactions.

14. As per the Cross-examination of D.w.2, it is elicited that himself and D.w.1 and one Papineni Ramesh used to do real estate business and used to assist the defendant and said Ramesh in the said business. He further deposed that he came to court upon the request of defendant and he further deposed that he came to know about suit proceedings through defendant and he does not know plaintiff personally and he does not know regard to the assets of the plaintiff. He further revealed that plaintiff taken away promissory notes from their office at Maheswaram as per his chief-affidavit and he further deposed that (02) or (03) pronotes were taken away by the plaintiff and they are empty pro-notes which are signed by the defendant on it and he came to know about the said fact through the defendant and also neighbours. He further admitted that defendant did not lodged any complaint against plaintiff for taking away empty

Page 10 of 19 11

O.S.No.141 of 2017,

Dt:28.3.2024.

pronotes and he further admitted that he was not eye-witness that defendant signed on empty pronotes. He further denied suggestions of plaintiff counsel.

15.After scrutinizing the entire evidence of P.ws.1 to 4 which clearly shows that P.ws.2 to 4 supported the version of P.w.1 with regard to entire transaction. The main contention of Defendant is that the said

Ex.A.1 is fabricated and forged document and it is not supported by its consideration and further contended that there is no-documentary proof filed by the plaintiff to state that, he was holding Rs.5,00,000/- cash on hand on the date of alleged transaction, but here it is apparent that defendant has not taken any steps to send the Ex.A.1 for expert opinion and failed to send Ex.A.1 to F.S.L for analysis and report to state that the said Ex.A.1 is forged and fabricated document and he remained silent till filing of the suit which clearly shows that contention of defendant is not believable. So, his contention stated that Ex.A.1 forged document is not tenable.

16.The another contention of the defendant is that defendant is not having capacity to lend such amounts to defendant, in this regard the defendant did not produce any cogent evidence to state that plaintiff is not having capacity to lent such amount to the defendant, here, plaintiff deposed that he got Ac.10 ½ gts of agriculture land

Page 11 of 19 12

O.S.No.141 of 2017,

Dt:28.3.2024.

and doing Cable T.V Business and having means to lent such amounts to the defendant.

17.It is elicited from the entire evidence on record that either plaintiff or defendant did not file any documents and did not produce evidence with regard to the property owned by plaintiff. Here the main contention of the defendant is that plaintiff is not having such capacity to lend such amount to him. The said plea was not taken by him at the time of framing issues, therefore this court cannot decide those aspect on which no-issue has been framed on that aspect.

Here, it is also evident that no-issue is framed with regard to the same, however, it is settled law that the parties are required to prove or disprove the issues framed by the court, not the pleadings, so, here the plea of the defendant is not tenable and not considered.

However, merely saying that plaintiff is not having capacity to lend such amount without eliciting any rebuttal evidence on it, so, the version of defendant is not considered by this court, further contention of defendant is that one Rangareddy who used to do real

Estate Business along with defendant and others taken empty promissory notes from defendant and filed this false suit against defendant through the plaintiff, but here it is evident that defendant did not choose to examine any other witnesses to state that the said

Page 12 of 19 13

O.S.No.141 of 2017,

Dt:28.3.2024.

Rangareddy took the empty pronote from the defendant, but here defendant produced D.w.2/witness, but his evidence is no-way helpful to the defendant and moreover D.w.2 brought new fact that plaintiff has stolen empty promissory notes from their office at Maheswaram, so, his evidence is contrary to that of evidence of D.w.1 with regard to same aspect, so, here the evidence of D.w.2 is not corroborating with the evidence of D.w.1 with regard to material aspects.

18.It is further evidence of P.w.1 that, defendant borrowed an amount and executed promissory note in his favour and strongly urged that P.ws.2 to 4 are the attestors and scribe respectively for the said Ex.A.1. Here defendant further urged as per the evidence of

P.w.1, P.w.1 does not know P.w.4, but on that reason the entire evidence of plaintiff on record cannot be discarded.

19.Defendant further urged that the said promissory notes were obtained by one Rangareddy and said promissory notes filed through

P.w.1, but here D.w.1 filed Exs.B.1 and B.2 for which it is elicited that, the defendant was acquitted in case vide C.C.No.320/2010 on the file of II Add.JFCM, Khammam and the same is marked, it is the contention of the plaintiff’s counsel that P.ws.2 to 4 are not parties to the said C.C.No.320/2010. Here Exs.B.1 and B.2 are also no-way helpful to the defendant to state that the Ex.A.1/Promissory note

Page 13 of 19 14

O.S.No.141 of 2017,

Dt:28.3.2024.

herein the same promissory note obtained by A.Rangareddy, so, here version of defendant is also not considered as defendant not taken any legal action or legal proceedings against said Rangareddy who allegedly obtained empty signed pronotes from defendant, when he was not returned to defendant herein. Here defendant even do not initiate any legal action against said Rangareddy and admittedly

D.w.1 did not lodged any complaint against Rangareddy or P.w.1 alleging with regard to keeping of empty pronotes of defendant with them and here defendant kept silent since said alleged transaction held between defendant and said A.Rangareddy till filing of the suit, which shows his version is clouded with doubt, un-believable and far from reality. Therefore, the burden has to discharge by the defendant, but the same is not done. .

At this juncture, this Court observed the citation in case between Ponuganti Subba Rao (Vs) Sikhakollu Pulla Rao- 1993(3)-A.L.T-144.

Where the Hon’ble High Court of A.P held that “Sec.118 (g) of

Negotiable Instruments Act, Suit on pronote - burden of proof - initial burden lies on the holder of the pronote to prove its execution of Suit

Pronote by examining himself and witness”. “Once execution is proved, burden shifts to defendant to disprove it. Plaintiff proved

Page 14 of 19 15

O.S.No.141 of 2017,

Dt:28.3.2024.

execution of Suit Pronote by examining himself and a witness.

Plaintiff having discharged his initial burden, burden shifted to defendant to prove his plea that the document was forged. But, the defendant having failed to discharge his burden, decree of suit passed by Lower Court sustainable”.

[ In another case between Bonala Raju and Another (Vs)

Sarupuru Sreenivasulu-2006 (2)-ALT -202:- Where the Hon’ble

High Court of A.P held that, “Burden of proof – defence of forgery - burden lies on plaintiff in the first instance to prove that defendant had executed the suit pronote”.

20.So, in the present case on hand, the defendant could not place on record to state that Ex.A.1 is forged and fabricated document and created for the purpose of suit.

21.Further cumulative reading of entire evidence on record, it clearly shows that P.ws.1 to 4 evidence is believable and nothing is elicited from their cross-examination has to dis-believable that the

Ex.A.1 transaction, therefore it is held that execution of Ex.A.1 is proved.

22.Further, except self-serving evidence of D.w.1 and un- corroborated evidence of D.w.2, defendant did not choose to examine independent and cogent evidence on behalf of him to prove

Page 15 of 19 16

O.S.No.141 of 2017,

Dt:28.3.2024.

that Ex.A.1 is forged and fabricated document. Defendant though cross-examined P.ws.1 to 4, but did not bring any such evidence as to what prompted the plaintiff to created false pronote, so as to file the suit against defendant, even otherwise there is no-enmity or motive is elicited to file a suit against the defendant by forged pronote. Moreover, it is evident that defendant did not denied his signature on Ex.A.1. The oral evidence of P.ws.1 to 4 coupled with

Exs.A.1 to A.4 cannot be set aside simply on the mere plea of forgery and fabrication and moreover, mere acquittal in N.I. Act case by the defendant which is filed by one Rangareddy will not affect the right of plaintiff herein and cannot be denied the relief in this case to the plaintiff where there is cogent and consistent evidence in favour of plaintiff, nothing worthwhile could be elicited in the cross- examination of P.ws.1 to 4 to doubt the veracity of their version as deposed in their chief-examination. Of course there are minor contradictions appeared in their evidence by which the entire evidence of them cannot be discarded. No enmity or ill-motive is suggested to P.ws.1 to 4 by defendant to attribute motive on the part of P.ws.1 to 4 to speak falsehood against the defendant. So, the evidence of P.ws.1 to 4 is corroborative and consistent and remained unrebutted which clearly proves the case of the plaintiff.

Page 16 of 19 17

O.S.No.141 of 2017,

Dt:28.3.2024.

[ The evidence to the cause of action pleaded to file the suit and contention of P.w.1 remained unrebutted and it is evident that defendant borrowed amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A.1 on 15.10.2014 and it is evident that even after repeated demands, the defendant failed to pay suit amount with interest to P.w.1 and defendant is default in paying the due amount.

[

23.In view of above discussions, it is held that plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for, by virtue of above documents vide Exs.A.1 to A.4 and evidence adduced by P.w.1 as well as supportive evidence of P.ws.2 to 4, P.w.1 proved that the defendant is liable to pay the suit amount to the plaintiff. Moreover, defendant failed to oppose the allegations of plaintiff made against him regarding suit transactions without cogent evidence. Therefore, all the presumptions U/Sec.118 of Negotiable

Instruments Act operates in favour of the plaintiff.

24. In view of above discussions, this court holds that Ex.A.1 is true genuine and supported by its consideration. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount with interest from the defendant.

Accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered in favour of the Plaintiff against the defendant.

Page 17 of 19 18

O.S.No.141 of 2017,

Dt:28.3.2024.

ISSUE No.2:-

25.In view of the findings in the issue No.1, the suit of the plaintiff is Decreed with Costs as under. Issue No.2 is accordingly answered infavour of the plaintiff, for ends of Justice.

IN THE RESULT:-

The Suit of the Plaintiff is Decreed for a sum of

Rs.8,30,100/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Thirty Thousand and One

Hundred Only) with Costs and Interest @ 12% per annum from

the date of Suit, till the date of Decree and thereafter @ 6%

per annum from the date of Decree till the date of realization,

on the Principal Amount of Rs.5,00,000/- against the person

and property of the Defendant.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 28 th day of March, 2024.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

SATHUPALLI.

: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :

: WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF :

P.w.1B.Ram PrasadPlaintiff,

Scribe/witness, P.w.2M.Satyam

Page 18 of 19 19

O.S.No.141 of 2017,

Dt:28.3.2024.

Attestor/witness, P.w.3M.Ramesh

P.w.4G.Koteswar RaoAttestor/witness.

: WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT :

D.w.1 G.Gopal Rao @ NagaDefendant, Gopala Rao Witness . D.w.2A.Bala Subrahmanyam

: DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF :

Ex.A.1 : Original Promissory Note, Dt. 15.10.2014,

Ex.A.2 : Office Copy of Legal Notice, Dt.6.3.2017,

Ex.A.3 : Postal Receipt, Dt: 6.3.2017,

Ex.A.4 : Postal Endorsement Letter, Dt.25.4.2017.

: DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT :

Ex.B.1:Certified Copy of Judgnent in vide C.C.No.320/2010, on the file of II Addl.J.F.CM, Khammam (Marked subject to objection and proof and its relevancy) objected by the Plaintiff's counsel,

Ex.B.2:Certified Copy of Judgment in vide Crl. Appeal No.88/2018. on the file of Hon'ble Prl.Sessions Judge, Khammamı (Marked subject to objection and proof and its relevancy) objected by the Plaintiff's counsel.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SATHUPALLI.

Read and Compared by:

Page 19 of 19

1 S.C.No.204 of 2022,

Dt:28.3.2024.

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE:

AT SATHUPALLY.

Dated this the 28th day of March, 2024.

Present: Smt P.Aruna Kumari,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Sathupally.

S.C.No.204 OF 2022

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

2.Name of the Accused::Kolli Suresh Babu, S/o.Pentaiah, Age:45 Yrs, Occ:Lorry Driver, R/o.Athamakur (V),Mangalagiri (M), Guntur District, A.P State,

3.Section of Law::U/Sec.304-Part-II of Indian Penal Code,

4.Crime No. and P.S.::Cr.No.345/2021, P.S.Sathupally,

5.P.R.C.No.::11 of 2022,

6.Name of the Officer, who ::Smt.Ch.Sravana Swathi, Committed the case Prl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sathupally,

7.Prosecution conducted by::Sri Sk Abdul Basha, Additional Public Prosecutor,

8.Defence conducted by ::Sri S.Krishnaiah, Advocate represented on behalf of Accused and defended the matter,

Page 1 of 19 2 S.C.No.204 of 2022,

Dt:28.3.2024.

9.Plea of the Accused::Pleaded Not Guilty,

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

11. Sentence (or) OrderIN THE RESULT:-

The Accused is found not guilty for the Offence punishable

U/Sec.304-Part-II of Indian Penal

Code and accordingly the

Accused is Acquitted under the provisions of Sec.235(1) of

Cr.P.C.

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

Case-Property:-

The Un-marked Case- property (Non-Valuable in

Nature) if any shall be destroyed after expiry of Appeal time. The

Crime vehicle holds good after expiry of Appeal time.

This case is finally heard in the presence of Sri Sk Abdul Basha

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State; and Sri S.Krishnaiah

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:-

Page 2 of 19 3 S.C.No.204 of 2022,

Dt:28.3.2024.

: J U D G M E N T :

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Sathupally filed a Charge Sheet against the accused in Cr.No.345/2021 for the Offence punishable

U/Sec.304-Part-II of Indian Penal Code.

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

The case of the Prosecution in brief is that, On 03.12.2021 at about 1900 hours, L.w.1/K.Rathaiah/Defacto-Complainant who is the brother of Deceased came to Police Station and lodged a complaint, stated that, on 03.12.2021 at evening Deceased No.1(D.No.1)/

K.Srinivasarao and Deceased No.2(D.No.2)/K.Krishnamma were going to their village, Thallamada after attending farm work at

Beerapalli Village of Vemsoor Mandal on Splendor Motor cycle bearing No.AP.20.B.9152 which was raided by D.No.1 and D.No.2 was pillion rider. When they reached the Ammanna Petrol Bunk situated at Thallamada village of Sathupally Mandal at 17.30 hours the accused/K.Suresh babu drove the lorry bearing No.AP.16.TX.6539 in a drunken condition in a rash and negligent manner, knowingly that such act would dangerous enough to some untoward thing or death of any innocent public and as a result the accused dashed the Motor cycle bearing No.AP.20.B.9152 raided by D.No.1 from rear side and

Page 3 of 19 4 S.C.No.204 of 2022,

Dt:28.3.2024.

D.No.1 and D.No.2 fell on road. The tires of Crime vehicle i.e., Lorry crossed over the bodies of D.1 and D.2 by causing their instantaneous death. While driving the crime vehicle the accused was in drunken condition and the B.A.C reading was 145/100 ML/Mg vide SL.No.A60800687 and it is not possible to somebody to drive heavy vehicle in such condition. The accused did not stop the crime vehicle and the L.ws.4 and 5 who identified the D.1 and D.2 chased him on their motor cycle and stopped at Thallamada village and informed about the incident to L.w.1. All the Lws.1,4 and 5 brought the accused along with Crime vehicle to Sathupally P.S., the

L.w.20/A.Ramakanth, Inspector of Police conducted breath analyzing test on accused and found that the accused was under the influence of alcohol and accused voluntarily admitted his guilt that is under the influence of alcohol and that he has the knowledge that driving vehicle after consuming the alcohol en-dangerous to human life.

Accordingly L.w.1 requested to take necessary action against accused/Driver of Lorry.

3.Basing on the statement of the L.w.1 and his complaint,

L.w.20/C.I of Police registered a case in Cr.No.345/2021, for the

Offence punishable U/Secs.304-II of Indian Penal Code against accused, L.w.20 issued express F.I.R and took-up the investigation as

Page 4 of 19 5 S.C.No.204 of 2022,

Dt:28.3.2024.

it is Grave in nature. On receipt of information, L.w.20 examined and recorded the statement of L.w.1/K.Rathaiah, L.w.20 conducted Breath

Analysis Test to accused and found accused is in drunken condition and accused admitted his guilt of commission of offence, L.w.20 verified vehicle papers, effected the arrest of accused, after legal formalities, he send accused to court of judicial remand. L.w.20 shifted the D.No.1 and D.No.2 to area hospital, Sathupally, on 04.12.2021, L.w.20 rushed to the scene of offence drafted Crime

Details Form in the presence of mediators L.w.12 and L.w.13. Later

L.w.20 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased (D1),

K.Srinivasa Rao in the presence of L.ws.14, 15 and D2/K.Krishnamma in the presence of L.ws.14 to 16. L.w.20 examined and recorded the statements of Lws.2 to 7 and 10 and 11 during the inquest.

L.w.17/Medical Officer conducted PME over the dead body of

D.1 while the Lw.18 conducted PME over the dead body of deceased/D2. Later dead bodies handed over to blood relatives for cremation under the proper acknowledgment. L.w.20 addressed a requisition to L.w.19/MVI Sathupally with a request to check the crime vehicle kept in the premises and to issue report. During the course of investigation, L.w.21/C.I of Police took-up further

Page 5 of 19 6 S.C.No.204 of 2022,

Dt:28.3.2024.

investigation. After completion of entire Investigation and after collecting concerned documents, L.w.21 filed Charge Sheet for

Offence punishable U/Secs.304-II of Indian Penal Code against

Accused.

4.Basing on the material available on record, this case was taken on file by Prl.J.F.C.M, Sathupally and cognizance was taken for the

Offence punishable U/Sec.304-II of Indian Penal Code against accused by the Learned Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sathupally and registered it as P.R.C.No.11/2022.

5.On appearance of the Accused before J.F.C.M Court, case documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated

U/Sec.208 of Cr.P.C. Since the alleged offence U/Sec.304-II of I.P.C is exclusively triable by the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, this case was committed to the Hon’ble Prl.Court of Sessions in P.R.C No.11/2022.

The Hon’ble Prl.Court of Sessions, Khammam took the case on file and registered it as S.C.No.204 of 2022 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., Charge for the Offence punishable U/Sec.304-Part-II of Indian Penal Code was framed, read

Page 6 of 19 7 S.C.No.204 of 2022,

Dt:28.3.2024.

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.19. The learned Addl.P.P given-up the evidence of

L.ws.6, 7, 11, 12, 13 to 20 as material witnesses turned hostile.

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 witnesses. The accused denied the same and reported no-defence evidence and no-documents marked on behalf of accused.

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 for the

offence punishable U/Sec.304-Part-II of Indian

Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt”?.

P O I N T :-

11.Coming to the Appreciation of the Evidence:-

The evidence of P.w.1 is that, on 3.12.2021 at about 05.30 P.M, he got call from Government Hospital, Sathupally that, his brother and sister-in-law were met with an accident and died in the said

Page 7 of 19 8 S.C.No.204 of 2022,

Dt:28.3.2024.

accident and they were kept at Government Hospital. Immediately, after information he rushed to the said hospital and found the dead bodies of his brother and sister-in-law. He further deposed that he lodged complaint upon the instance of village elders, but he does not know the contents of his complaint except his signature, as it was prepared by somebody else, out of grief he could not observe contents of it. He further admitted that he does not know who is responsible for the said accident and he cannot say the lorry registration number as he was not eye-witness to the said accident.

12.P.w.2 who is Elder daughter of D.Nos.1 and 2 and

Circumstantial-witness to the accident who deposed that on 3.12.2021 at about 5.30 p.m, she was at their house along with her sister/P.w.3, they received phone call from known person that her parents were met with an accident and died in the said accident and they were kept at Government Hospital,Sathupally. Immediately, after information she rushed to the said hospital and found the dead bodies of her parents. The further evidence of P.w.2 is that she does not know who caused the accident and who is responsible for the accident and also death of her parents and she cannot say lorry bearing number and she has not eye-witnessed the accident.

Page 8 of 19 9 S.C.No.204 of 2022,

Dt:28.3.2024.

13.P.w.3 who is Circumstantial witness and another daughter of

D.Nos.1 and 2 and her evidence is that, on 03.12.2021 at about 5.30 p.m, she was at their house along with her sister/P.w.2, they received phone call from known person that her parents were met with an accident and died on the said accident and they were kept at

Government Hospital, Sathupally. Immediately, after information she rushed to the said hospital and found the dead bodies of her parents.

The further evidence of P.w.3 is that she does not know who caused the accident and she has not eye-witnessed the accident and she does not know who is the responsible for the accident.

14.P.ws.4, 5 and 8 who are stated to be eye-witness to the incident deposed that they do not know anything regarding the facts of the case as they have not eye-witnessed the manner of accident occurred to deceased Nos.1 and 2 and they have not seen driver of the crime vehicle and cannot identify driver of the crime vehicle even if he is shown to them and further they all admitted that they do not know who is responsible for the said accident and for the death of the deceased Nos.1 and 2.

15.P.ws.6 and 7 who are petrol bunk workers and who are material witnesses in this case deposed that they do not know anything

Page 9 of 19 10 S.C.No.204 of 2022,

Dt:28.3.2024.

regarding the facts of this case, they did not eye-witness any accident occurred to deceased Nos.1 and 2, they does not know who is responsible for the said accident and for the death of deceased

Nos.1 and 2 and they further admitted that they never saw the accused at any point of time. P.w.6 and P.w.7 also turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution.

Basing on the evidence of P.ws.1 to 8, the learned Addl. P.P.

declared them hostile and cross-examined them, but, nothing was elicited incriminating against the accused. P.ws.1 to 8 denied having stated to the investigation officer as in their Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements marked as Exs.P.2 to P.9 respectively which 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 to U/Sec.162 of Cr.P.C. Since the material witnesses turned hostile, the learned Addl.P.P given-up the evidence of other witnesses as mentioned earlier.

16.P.w.9 who is Investigation Officer, as per his evidence it is elicited that he conducted the part of investigation in this case, he further deposed that, L.w.20/A.Ramakanth/Inspector of Police on 3.12.2021 received a complaint from P.w.1, basing on written

Page 10 of 19 11 S.C.No.204 of 2022,

Dt:28.3.2024.

complaint by P.w.1, he registered a case in Cr.No.345/2021 for the offence U/Sec.304-Part-II of I.P.C, immediately after issuing F.I.R, he took-up the investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of P.w.1 at Police Station, immediately on the same day, L.w.20 conducted Breath Analysis Test to accused and found accused was in drunken condition. L.w.20 verified crime vehicle documents and collected photostat copies of it and took the custody of accused and effected his arrest after interrogation and seized crime vehicle

I.e.Lorry bearing No.AP.16.TX.6539, on next day, L.w.20 send the accused to court for judicial remand.

He further deposed that on 4.12.2021, L.w.20 visited the scene of offence at Ammanna Petrol Bunk at Tallamada (V), where he secured the presence of Lws.12 and 13 and conducted the scene of offence panchanama and incorporated all the particulars in C.D.F,

L.w.20 got examined Lws.8 and Lw.9/Pws.6 and 7 and recorded their statements and took the photographs of deceased Nos.1 and 2 with the assistance of L.w.11, L.w.20 held the Inquest over the dead-body of the deceased Nos.1 and 2 i.e., Kolikapogu Srinivasa Rao and

Kolikapogu Krishnamma in the presence of L.ws.14 to 16, L.w.20 secured the presence of Lws.2 to 7, 10 and 11/P.ws.2 to 5, 8 respectively, examined them and recorded the statements,

Page 11 of 19 12 S.C.No.204 of 2022,

Dt:28.3.2024.

upon his requisition, L.w.17 and L.w.18/Medical Officers conducted autopsy over the dead-body of the deceased Nos.1 and 2, later he handed over the dead-bodies of the deceased to their relatives, upon his requisition, L.w.19/M.V.I Sathupally inspected the crime vehicle and gave detailed report that “ The accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defects/vehicle” the crime vehicle was released through court order subsequently. L.w.20 obtained P.M.E Reports of

D.Nos.1 and 2 and Medical Officer gave detailed report with regard to the cause of death of D.Nos.1 and 2.

P.w.9further deposed that, on 09.3.2022, he assumed charge of P.S Sathupally as Inspector of Police and took-up the further investigation of this case and found investigation done by L.w.20 is on correct lines and he verified the same. During the progress of this case, he collected the M.V.I report from L.w.19 and also collected certificate under Form-54 as per the procedure. P.w.9 have examined witnesses again, but he have not re-recorded it as they stated on same lines of their previous statements. P.w.9 further deposedthat after completion of entire investigation and after receiving concerned documents, he filed charge sheet for the offence

U/Sec.304-Part II of I.P.C against Accused. Ex.P.10 is the F.I.R Ex.P.11 is the Inquest Panchanama of D.No.1, Ex.P.12 is the Inquest

Page 12 of 19 13 S.C.No.204 of 2022,

Dt:28.3.2024.

Panchanama of D.No.2, Ex.P.13 is (07) Photographs along with (01)

C.D of dead bodies of Deceased, Ex.P.14 is the P.M.E Report of

D.No.1, Ex.P.15 is the P.M.E Report of D.No.2, Ex.P.16 is the M.V.I

Report, Ex.P.17 is the Complaint, Ex.P.18 is the Crime Details Form along with Rough Sketch, Ex.P.19 is the Breath Analysis Report of accused are marked through him.

17.So, it is evident that P.ws.1 to 3 who are family members of the deceased, P.ws.4,5 and 8 who are stated to be eye-witness to the accidentandP.w.6andP.w.7whoarematerial witnesses/Independent witnesses to this case did not support the case of prosecution and they all turned hostile and they did not speak anything against the accused and they all categorically admitted that they are not eye-witness to the incident/accident.

So, all the witnesses/P.ws.1 to 8 failed to say that accused drove the crime vehicle in rash and negligent manner in a drunken condition and dashed the motor cycle of deceased No.1 due to which the deceased Nos.1 and 2 are succumbed to injuries in the said accident.

18. As per the evidence of P.w.9 it is elicited that he and L.w.20 conducted the investigation and he deposed on lines of charge- sheet, but it is admitted fact that P.ws.1 to 8 made contradictory

Page 13 of 19 14 S.C.No.204 of 2022,

Dt:28.3.2024.

statements to that of evidence of P.w.9, so, here the prosecution failed to prove the criminal rashness on the part of accused and the evidence of P.w.9 is also no way directly connect the guilt to the accused as his evidence is formal and not a direct evidence. So, with the solitary testimony of P.w.9, the conviction of accused cannot be recorded as their evidence is no way corroborating with any of the material witnesses.

19.On careful perusal of the entire evidence, none of the witnesses i.e., P.ws.1 to 8 did not whisper anything about the involvement of accused with regard to the alleged offence and they all turned hostile, since the material witnesses turned hostile the Learned

Addl.P.P given-up the evidence of other witnesses.

The evidence of P.ws.1 to 8 is no-way corroborating with the prosecution version and with their evidence the conviction cannot be recorded since P.ws.1 to 8 failed to identify the accused, so, also manner of the accident allegedly caused by the accused by driving crime vehicle and their evidence in no manner corroborating with the case of the prosecution. The evidence of P.ws.1 to 8 is only helpful to prove the death of the deceased, but not the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, so, their evidence cannot be considered by this court to convict the accused.

Page 14 of 19 15 S.C.No.204 of 2022,

Dt:28.3.2024.

20.There is no convincing and reliable evidence on record. So this court has no hesitation to state that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and failed to produce the evidence to fit the ingredients U/Sec.304-Part II against accused as P.w.1 deviated from his case/complaint/report as well as his Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement and all material witnesses also deviated from their Sec.161 Cr.P.C Statements. Therefore, in view of above discussion and taking into consideration and taking into account that totality of the circumstances and the Oral and documentary evidence available on record, this court is of view and considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the said offence against accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the evidence of P.ws.1 to 8 lacks reliability and create doubt in the mind of the

Court regarding occurrence of incident and their evidence is discarded in the interest of justice and the solitary evidence of P.w.9 is also insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The reason for said evidence is obviously on account of compromise affected between the parties.

21.Taking Ocular and documentary evidence placed by the prosecution and defence, this court found that there is no reliable oral testimony or material documents to establish the said

Page 15 of 19 16 S.C.No.204 of 2022,

Dt:28.3.2024.

ingredients for the offence punishable U/Sec.304 Part-II against accused. The prosecution failed to make out the case against accused for the said offence beyond all reasonable doubts.

Therefore, Accused is entitled for acquittal, for ends of justice.

IN THE RESULT:-

The Accused is found not guilty for the Offence

punishable U/Sec.304-Part-II of Indian Penal Code and

accordingly the Accused is Acquitted under the provisions of

Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C.

The Bail Bonds of Accused if any, shall be in force for a

period of Six (06) Months.

Case-Property:-

The Un-marked Case-property (Non-Valuable in Nature)

if any shall be destroyed after expiry of Appeal time. The

Crime vehicle holds good after expiry of Appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 28 th day of March, 2024.

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

SATHUPALLY.

Page 16 of 19 17 S.C.No.204 of 2022,

Dt:28.3.2024.

: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :

: WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION :

Defacto-Complainant/Brother P.w.1K.Rathaiah the Deceased No.1,

Elder daughter of deceased P.w.2K.Venkata Krishna BhavaniNos.1 and 2/Circumstantial- Witness,

Younger daughter of P.w.3K.Nagabindudeceased Nos.1 and 2/ Circumstantial Witness,

P.w.4T.SrinuEye-witness,

P.w.5T.DasuEye-witness,

Petrol Bunk worker/ P.w.6Ch.Kishore Eye-witness,

Petrol Bunk worker/ P.w.7N.Kantha Rao Eye-witness,

P.w.8M.Naga RajuCircumstantial witness,

P.w.9T.KarunakarInvestigation Officer.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED:

– None –

Page 17 of 19 18 S.C.No.204 of 2022,

Dt:28.3.2024.

: 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 : 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.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 : First Information Report,

Ex.P.11 : Inquest Panchanama of Deceased No.1,

Ex.P.12 : Inquest Panchanama of Deceased No.2,

Ex.P.13 : Photographs (07) along with (01) CD,.

Ex.P.14 : P.M.E report of Deceased No.1,

Ex.P.15 : P.M.E report of Deceased No.2,

Ex.P.16 : M.V.I report,

Ex.P.17 : Complaint of P.w.1,

Ex.P.18 : Crime Details Form along with Rough Sketch,

Ex.P.19 : Breath Analysis Report of Accused.

Page 18 of 19 19 S.C.No.204 of 2022,

Dt:28.3.2024.

: DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED:

-NIL-

: MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

AND ACCUSED :

-NIL-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

SATHUPALLY.

Read and Compared by:

Page 19 of 19

1

H.M.O.P.No.27 of 2022,

Dt:28.3.2024

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: AT SATHUPALLI.

Dated this the 28th day of March, 2024.

Present: Smt P. Aruna Kumari,

Senior Civil Judge,

Sathupalli.

H.M.O.P.No. 27 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

Seelam Srilaxmi @ Kudumula Srilaxmi, W/o.Ramu, Age.27 years, Occ.Household, R/o.C/o.Kudumula Venkata Ramana Reddy, H.No:2-21, Meenavolu (V), Yerrupalem (M), Khammam (D). .…Petitioner.

//And//

Seelam Ramu, S/o.Rama Krishna Reddy, Age.36 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o.H.No.1-71, PeddaGopavaram (V), Yerrupalem(M), Khammam (D).

....Respondent.

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

Page 1 of 9 2

H.M.O.P.No.27 of 2022,

Dt:28.3.2024

: O R D E R :

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

Hindu Marriage Act-1955 seeking decree of divorce from her husband/ Respondent by dissolving their marriage, Dt:15.4.2012.

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

It is the case of the Petitioner is that, Petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was performed on 15.4.2012 at the house of Respondent at Pedda Gopavaram

Village of Yerrupalem (M),Khammam District, as per the Hindu

Customs and Rites prevalining in their Community. The Petitioner further averred that, at the time of marriage, parents of the petitioner have given Rs.2,50,000/- to the Respondent towards his

Dowry and also Rs.1,50,000/- towards wedding clothes, Gold

Ornaments etc., to the respondent. After the marriage, the petitioner joined the respondent and lead marital life at Pedda

Gopavaram Village, Yerrupalem (M), Khammam District.

It is further averred that, the petitioner and the respondent lead marital life for a period of (02) years at Pedda Gopavaram. She further admitted that the respondent has habituated to consume liquor and addicted to all bad-vices and used to come in the late

Page 2 of 9 3

H.M.O.P.No.27 of 2022,

Dt:28.3.2024

nights to the house and also used to harass the petitioner for petty reasons and also demanding to bring money from the parents of the petitioner.

It is further averred that the respondent always used to suspect the petitioner and not allowed the petitioner even to talk with neighbours and to leave the house for any work and the respondent used to harass the petitioner mentally and physically.

The petitioner waited for a change in the respondent’s behaviour, but the respondent did not change his attitude. Meanwhile the petitioner conceived and gave birth to a male child, who named as

Charvik Reddy and the petitioner hoped that the respondent will change his behaviour. The respondent for his habits used to sell away the properties, inherited by him from his father, when the petitioner requested the respondent not to sell the properties the respondent beat the petitioner and necked out the petitioner from his house with the help of his mother, elder brother and his wife. The petitioner and her parents along with village elders got mediated the same and advise the respondent to look after of the welfare of the petitioner and her son and the respondent at the request of the elders allowed the petitioner into his house, but respondent did not

Page 3 of 9 4

H.M.O.P.No.27 of 2022,

Dt:28.3.2024

changed his behaviour and again ill-treated the petitioner and again driven out from his house. On 16.1.2017 the petitioner gave birth to a girl by name Moksha Reddy, after the brith of the baby the respondent did not take back the petitioner and after many mediations the respondent got setup his family in Madhira, in the year, 2018 and lived there for a period of six (06) months, at the time of the stay at Madhira also the respondent without doing any work, he used to roam ideal and used to harass the petitioner to bring amounts from her parents and in the month of August,2020 shifted his residence to Pedda Gopavaram and finally the respondent dragged out the petitioner from his house in february, 2021. The petitioner along with her parents and the village elders got mediated the said matter and tried their level best to passify the matter and to restoration of the marital life of the petitioner with respondent, but the respondent vehemently refused to take back the petitioner and the respondent was living in adulterous life. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is constrained to file this petition for dissolution of marriage with the respondent. Hence, this Petition.

3.Notice was served on respondent through Whatsapp of respondent as per orders in I.A.No.1/2023. The respondent was

Page 4 of 9 5

H.M.O.P.No.27 of 2022,

Dt:28.3.2024

called absent and there was no-representation on his behalf, as such 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”?.

P O I N T:-

7.The evidence of P.w.1 is that, she is the wife of the Respondent and she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was performed on 15.4.2012 at Pedda Gopavaram Village, as per rites and customs prevailed in Hindu Law, since the parties are Hindus, the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act can be invoked.

The affidavit filed in lieu of her chief-examination, she reiterated the contents of the petition. Exs.P.1 to P.3 got marked.

Ex.P.1 is the Original Wedding Card of the Parties, Ex.P.2 is the

Marraige Photograph (01) No., and Ex.P.3 is the Photostat copy of

Aadhar Card of P.w.1 (Compared with Original).

[ Page 5 of 9 6

H.M.O.P.No.27 of 2022,

Dt:28.3.2024

8.It is further evidence of P.w.1 is that, their marriage was

Consummated, they both were lead their marital life for a period of (02) years, at Pedda Gopavaram Village, during their wed-lock, they both blessed with one male and one female child. She further deposed that, the respondent habituated to consume liquor and addicted to all bad vices and also used to harass petitioner for petty reasons and also demanded to bring money from her parents. The respondent always used to suspect her and he used to harass her mentally and physically. She waited for a change in the respondent’s behaviour, but the respondent did not change his attitude, the respondent for his habits used to sell away the properties inherited by him from his father, when she requested the respondent not to sell the properties, the respondent beat her and necked out her from his house, with the help of his mother, his elder brother and his wife. Herself and her parents along with village elders got mediated the same and advised the respondent to lookafter her welfare and her children and the respondent at the request of the elders allowed her into his house, but later also he did not changed his behaviour and again ill-treated her and again driven out from his house in the month October, 2016. Finally, the

Page 6 of 9 7

H.M.O.P.No.27 of 2022,

Dt:28.3.2024

respondent dragged out the petitioner from his house in February, 2021. In this regard, the petitioner, her parents and elders tried their level best to passify the matter, but all their efforts went in vain.

Under these circumstances, the petitioner is constrained to file this petition for dissolution of marriage with the respondent on the ground of Cruelty.

9.So, the evidence of P.w.1 clearly establishes that the respondent subjected her to cruelty that is in both mentally and physically, addicted to bad-vices and finally necked out her from his conjugal fold and later, refused to receive her into his conjugal society and intentionally deserted the petitioner. The adamant acts and attitude of the respondent caused the utmost hardship to the petitioner. It is clearly established that respondent caused all sorts of harassment and cruelty against the petitioner. The matter was placed before elders for several times, but, all their efforts were went in vain. Now, the petitioner also lost her hope for reunion of their marital fold and the marital relationship in between the petitioner and respondent was irretrievably broken and all the efforts made by petitioner also went in vain and not futile, hence,

Page 7 of 9 8

H.M.O.P.No.27 of 2022,

Dt:28.3.2024

she constrained to file this petition for Divorce, on the ground of

Cruelty.

10. The above said Oral and documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner remained un-challenged and un-rebutted, having received the summons/notices, respondent failed to appear before this Court, hence, he has been set ex-parte and he failed to 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 this court holds that the petitioner has made out her case for grant of decree of divorce and she is entitled for

Decree of Divorce against the Respondent. Hence, this Petition can be allowed as prayed for. Accordingly, the point is answered.

IN THE RESULT:-

This Petition is allowed with Costs, granting Decree of

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

dissolving the marriage of the Petitioner with the

Respondent, which took place on 15.4.2012.

Page 8 of 9 9

H.M.O.P.No.27 of 2022,

Dt:28.3.2024

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 28 th day of March,

2024.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SATHUPALLI.

: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :

: WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER :

Seelam Sri Laxmi @ P.w.1 Petitioner. Kudumula Srilaxmi

: 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: Marriage Photograph (01) No.,

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

: DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT :

-NIL –

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SATHUPALLI.

Read and Compared by:

Page 9 of 9

1

H.M.O.P.No.27 of 2022,

Dt:28.3.2024

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: AT SATHUPALLI.

Dated this the 28th day of March, 2024.

Present: Smt P. Aruna Kumari,

Senior Civil Judge,

Sathupalli.

H.M.O.P.No. 27 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

Seelam Srilaxmi @ Kudumula Srilaxmi, W/o.Ramu, Age.27 years, Occ.Household, R/o.C/o.Kudumula Venkata Ramana Reddy, H.No:2-21, Meenavolu (V), Yerrupalem (M), Khammam (D). .…Petitioner.

//And//

Seelam Ramu, S/o.Rama Krishna Reddy, Age.36 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o.H.No.1-71, PeddaGopavaram (V), Yerrupalem(M), Khammam (D).

....Respondent.

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

Page 1 of 9 2

H.M.O.P.No.27 of 2022,

Dt:28.3.2024

: O R D E R :

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

Hindu Marriage Act-1955 seeking decree of divorce from her husband/ Respondent by dissolving their marriage, Dt:15.4.2012.

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

It is the case of the Petitioner is that, Petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was performed on 15.4.2012 at the house of Respondent at Pedda Gopavaram

Village of Yerrupalem (M),Khammam District, as per the Hindu

Customs and Rites prevalining in their Community. The Petitioner further averred that, at the time of marriage, parents of the petitioner have given Rs.2,50,000/- to the Respondent towards his

Dowry and also Rs.1,50,000/- towards wedding clothes, Gold

Ornaments etc., to the respondent. After the marriage, the petitioner joined the respondent and lead marital life at Pedda

Gopavaram Village, Yerrupalem (M), Khammam District.

It is further averred that, the petitioner and the respondent lead marital life for a period of (02) years at Pedda Gopavaram. She further admitted that the respondent has habituated to consume liquor and addicted to all bad-vices and used to come in the late

Page 2 of 9 3

H.M.O.P.No.27 of 2022,

Dt:28.3.2024

nights to the house and also used to harass the petitioner for petty reasons and also demanding to bring money from the parents of the petitioner.

It is further averred that the respondent always used to suspect the petitioner and not allowed the petitioner even to talk with neighbours and to leave the house for any work and the respondent used to harass the petitioner mentally and physically.

The petitioner waited for a change in the respondent’s behaviour, but the respondent did not change his attitude. Meanwhile the petitioner conceived and gave birth to a male child, who named as

Charvik Reddy and the petitioner hoped that the respondent will change his behaviour. The respondent for his habits used to sell away the properties, inherited by him from his father, when the petitioner requested the respondent not to sell the properties the respondent beat the petitioner and necked out the petitioner from his house with the help of his mother, elder brother and his wife. The petitioner and her parents along with village elders got mediated the same and advise the respondent to look after of the welfare of the petitioner and her son and the respondent at the request of the elders allowed the petitioner into his house, but respondent did not

Page 3 of 9 4

H.M.O.P.No.27 of 2022,

Dt:28.3.2024

changed his behaviour and again ill-treated the petitioner and again driven out from his house. On 16.1.2017 the petitioner gave birth to a girl by name Moksha Reddy, after the brith of the baby the respondent did not take back the petitioner and after many mediations the respondent got setup his family in Madhira, in the year, 2018 and lived there for a period of six (06) months, at the time of the stay at Madhira also the respondent without doing any work, he used to roam ideal and used to harass the petitioner to bring amounts from her parents and in the month of August,2020 shifted his residence to Pedda Gopavaram and finally the respondent dragged out the petitioner from his house in february, 2021. The petitioner along with her parents and the village elders got mediated the said matter and tried their level best to passify the matter and to restoration of the marital life of the petitioner with respondent, but the respondent vehemently refused to take back the petitioner and the respondent was living in adulterous life. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is constrained to file this petition for dissolution of marriage with the respondent. Hence, this Petition.

3.Notice was served on respondent through Whatsapp of respondent as per orders in I.A.No.1/2023. The respondent was

Page 4 of 9 5

H.M.O.P.No.27 of 2022,

Dt:28.3.2024

called absent and there was no-representation on his behalf, as such 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”?.

P O I N T:-

7.The evidence of P.w.1 is that, she is the wife of the Respondent and she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was performed on 15.4.2012 at Pedda Gopavaram Village, as per rites and customs prevailed in Hindu Law, since the parties are Hindus, the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act can be invoked.

The affidavit filed in lieu of her chief-examination, she reiterated the contents of the petition. Exs.P.1 to P.3 got marked.

Ex.P.1 is the Original Wedding Card of the Parties, Ex.P.2 is the

Marraige Photograph (01) No., and Ex.P.3 is the Photostat copy of

Aadhar Card of P.w.1 (Compared with Original).

[ Page 5 of 9 6

H.M.O.P.No.27 of 2022,

Dt:28.3.2024

8.It is further evidence of P.w.1 is that, their marriage was

Consummated, they both were lead their marital life for a period of (02) years, at Pedda Gopavaram Village, during their wed-lock, they both blessed with one male and one female child. She further deposed that, the respondent habituated to consume liquor and addicted to all bad vices and also used to harass petitioner for petty reasons and also demanded to bring money from her parents. The respondent always used to suspect her and he used to harass her mentally and physically. She waited for a change in the respondent’s behaviour, but the respondent did not change his attitude, the respondent for his habits used to sell away the properties inherited by him from his father, when she requested the respondent not to sell the properties, the respondent beat her and necked out her from his house, with the help of his mother, his elder brother and his wife. Herself and her parents along with village elders got mediated the same and advised the respondent to lookafter her welfare and her children and the respondent at the request of the elders allowed her into his house, but later also he did not changed his behaviour and again ill-treated her and again driven out from his house in the month October, 2016. Finally, the

Page 6 of 9 7

H.M.O.P.No.27 of 2022,

Dt:28.3.2024

respondent dragged out the petitioner from his house in February, 2021. In this regard, the petitioner, her parents and elders tried their level best to passify the matter, but all their efforts went in vain.

Under these circumstances, the petitioner is constrained to file this petition for dissolution of marriage with the respondent on the ground of Cruelty.

9.So, the evidence of P.w.1 clearly establishes that the respondent subjected her to cruelty that is in both mentally and physically, addicted to bad-vices and finally necked out her from his conjugal fold and later, refused to receive her into his conjugal society and intentionally deserted the petitioner. The adamant acts and attitude of the respondent caused the utmost hardship to the petitioner. It is clearly established that respondent caused all sorts of harassment and cruelty against the petitioner. The matter was placed before elders for several times, but, all their efforts were went in vain. Now, the petitioner also lost her hope for reunion of their marital fold and the marital relationship in between the petitioner and respondent was irretrievably broken and all the efforts made by petitioner also went in vain and not futile, hence,

Page 7 of 9 8

H.M.O.P.No.27 of 2022,

Dt:28.3.2024

she constrained to file this petition for Divorce, on the ground of

Cruelty.

10. The above said Oral and documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner remained un-challenged and un-rebutted, having received the summons/notices, respondent failed to appear before this Court, hence, he has been set ex-parte and he failed to 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 this court holds that the petitioner has made out her case for grant of decree of divorce and she is entitled for

Decree of Divorce against the Respondent. Hence, this Petition can be allowed as prayed for. Accordingly, the point is answered.

IN THE RESULT:-

This Petition is allowed with Costs, granting Decree of

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

dissolving the marriage of the Petitioner with the

Respondent, which took place on 15.4.2012.

Page 8 of 9 9

H.M.O.P.No.27 of 2022,

Dt:28.3.2024

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 28 th day of March,

2024.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SATHUPALLI.

: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :

: WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER :

Seelam Sri Laxmi @ P.w.1 Petitioner. Kudumula Srilaxmi

: 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: Marriage Photograph (01) No.,

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

: DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT :

-NIL –

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SATHUPALLI.

Read and Compared by:

Page 9 of 9

1

H.M.O.P.No.8 of 2024,

Dt.28.03.2024.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: AT SATHUPALLI.

Dated this the 28th day of March, 2024.

Present: Smt P.Aruna Kumari,

Senior Civil Judge,

Sathupalli.

H.M.O.P. No. 8 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

Addagiri Satish, S/o.Gopala Rao, Age.38 Yrs, Occ.Business, R/o.H.No.12-107, Ajad Road, Madhira (T) and (M), Khammam (D).

….Petitioner No.1.

//And//

Addagiri Sirisha, W/o.Addagiri Satish, Age.35 Yrs, Occ.Housewife,R/o.H.No.2-7, Adaviravulapadu (V), Nandigama (M), N.T.R (D), Presently residing at Sathupally(T) and(M), Khammam (D).

....Petitioner No.2.

This Petition is finally heard in the presence of Sri G.V.R.Chowdary, 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:-

Page 1 of 8 2

H.M.O.P.No.8 of 2024,

Dt.28.03.2024.

: O R D E R :

1.This Petition is filed by the Petitioners U/Sec.13-B(1) of the

Hindu Marriage Act-1955, seeking decree of divorce by dissolving their marriage, Dt.20.5.2010, 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

Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are husband and wife. They further averred that, their marriage was performed on 20.5.2010 at Arya Vysya

Kalyanamandapam, Nandigama (T) and (M), Krishna District, as per the Hindu religious rites and caste customs prevailing in their

Community.

It is further averred that, their marriage was Consummated, immediately after the marriage Petitioner No.2 was joined with the conjugal company of the Petitioner No.1 and they lead happy marital life till December, 2022 hardly at the house of petitioner No.1 at

Madhira (T) and (M), Khammam (D), during their wedlock there were no-child issues born to them.

The Petitioners further averred that, during their stay together, differences arose among the petitioners and from then onwards the petitioners have been living separately and all the efforts made by

Page 2 of 8 3

H.M.O.P.No.8 of 2024,

Dt.28.03.2024.

both side elders went in futile. At last both the petitioners finally came to a conclusion at the instance of elders to take divorce as per the terms mentioned hereunder.

They both further averred that, Petitioner No.1 agreed to pay

Rs.35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Only) towards past, present and future Maintenance i.e., Permanent Alimony to the petitioner

No.2 and the same was deposited in the shape of FDR in Central Bank of India, at Madhira Branch. Both parties exchanged their Gold

Ornaments, articles etc., prior to filing of this petition, they both further agreed that they have no-right to file any suits or petitions or criminal cases against each other in future. The said settlement was made in the presence of elders. The petitioners have been residing separately since December, 2022, as such they came to a conclusion that they cannot live together under one roof as such they constrained to file this petition for divorce on Mutual Consent. Hence, this Petition.

3.After registering this O.P., this Court posted the matter for

Mandatory/Observation Period from time to time and this Court also conducted counselings to the parties, Reconciliation was held on several occasions, but not fruitful, however, they refused to reunite.

During the said proceedings, petitioners filed Petition U/Sec.13B(2) Page 3 of 8 4

H.M.O.P.No.8 of 2024,

Dt.28.03.2024.

of Hindu Marriage Act for waiving of Six (06) Months Mandatory

Period from the date of filing of the petition by stating that, as both the petitioners have been living separately since December, 2022 and there is no-hope for their re-union and they also relied upon the recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported case in between

Shilpa Sailesh (Vs) Varun Sreenivasan and prayed to dispense the cooling period.

In view of the said petition, as both the parties reported no-chance for their re-union and they both settled the matter out of

Court with the intervention of elders and their parents and waiting mandatory period will only prolong the agony, accordingly,

I.A.No.3/2024 petition was allowed by this Court and dispensed the waiving/mandatory period of Six (06) Months.

In this regard, this Court observed the decision of the Hon’ble

Apex Court in Amardeep Singh (Vs) Harveen Kour-Appeal

No.11158/2017, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that

“the court can waive the mandatory Six (06) Months waiting

period for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), 1955

and allow the dissolution of the marriage on grounds of an

irretrievable breakdown even if one of the parties was not

willing” and also Hon’ble High Court of A.P held in Tallapaneni

Page 4 of 8 5

H.M.O.P.No.8 of 2024,

Dt.28.03.2024.

Srikanth and Others (Vs) To Whom so-ever concerned

reported in 2016 (3) ALT 272. Shilpa Sailesh (Vs) Varun

Sreenivasan reported in Transfer Petition (Civil)

No.1118/2014.

In view of ratio laid down in the above decisions of Hon’ble

Apex Court and Hon’ble A.P High Court, this court allowed the petition U/Sec.13-B(2) of H.M.Act, as prayed for. Hence, this Court proceeded with the Enquiry/Trial.

4. Both the petitioners were examined themselves as P.ws.1 and 2 respectively, Exs.P.1 to P.3 were marked through P.w.1 and Ex.P.4 was marked through P.w.2 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 marriage of

Petitioners on the ground of Mutual Consent”?.

P O I N T: -

7.The evidence of P.ws.1 and 2 is that, they are Hindus and their marriage was performed on 20.5.2010 at Nandigama, as per Hindu religious rites and caste customs prevailing in their Community. Page 5 of 8 6

H.M.O.P.No.8 of 2024,

Dt.28.03.2024.

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. Exs.P.1 to P.3 got marked. Ex.P.1 is the Original Wedding Card of the Parties,

Ex.P.2 is the Original Marriage Photographs (02) Nos, Ex.P.3 is the

Photostat Copy of Aadhar Card of P.w.1, (Compared with Original),

Ex.P.4 is the Photostat Copy of Aadhar Card of P.w.2 (Compared with Original) .

9.The evidence of P.ws.1 and 2 is that, immediately after the marriage, P.w.2 joined the Conjugal Company of P.w.1 and they lead happy marital life for some period and during their wedlock, they were no child issues were born to them. They further averred that, during their stay together, some disputes and differences arose in-between them, started misunderstandings with each-other, increasing incompatibility, the relationship between them was deteriorated and relation in between both the petitioners have become very strained, due to which they both started to live separately since December, 2022, they further deposed that,

Page 6 of 8 7

H.M.O.P.No.8 of 2024,

Dt.28.03.2024.

bothside elders made many efforts to settle the disputes in between them and tried to reconcile, but all their efforts were not fruitful for their re-union, the disputes in between them could not be resolved and there is no-chance for re-union, ultimately, on the advice of elders and parents, both the parties decided to separate by way of legal process as there is no-scope of re-union between the parties due to liking and dis-likings on account of indispensable difference between the parties, because of discomfort between them, their marriage was not resulted fruitfully and there is no-harmonious relationship between them, even running of the family affairs and individual desires of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are not in a proper way.

Finally, they both came to a conclusion that there is no possibility to live together in future and no-scope of reunite, as the nuptial tie was irretrievably broken, so, they decided to live separately to have a life of their own choice. The further evidence of P.ws.1 and 2 is that, they both settled their claims out of court in the presence of elders and their parents.

So, both the petitioners came to conclusion that they cannot continue their matrimonial relationship as husband and wife under one roof. P.ws.1 and 2 further deposed that, as disputes were gone to the extent of un-reconciliable, so, there is no-scope of leading

Page 7 of 8 8

H.M.O.P.No.8 of 2024,

Dt.28.03.2024.

marital life by both the petitioners together and they both decided to get a divorce on the ground of mutual consent, accordingly they have settled all their claims between them amicably.

[

10.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, keeping in view regarding their age and their future life, dissolving their marriage.

This Petition is allowed as prayed for. The Point is answered accordingly.

IN THE RESULT:-

This Petition is allowed without Costs, granting Decree

of Divorce on Mutual Consent and dissolving the marriage

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

20.5.2010.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 28 th day of March,

2024.

Page 8 of 8 9

H.M.O.P.No.8 of 2024,

Dt.28.03.2024.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SATHUPALLI.

: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :

: WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS :

A.Satish P.w.1Petitioner No.1,

P.w.2A.SirishaPetitioner No.2.

: DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS :

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)

Ex.P.4:Photostat Copy of Aadhar Card of P.w.2 (Compared with Original)

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SATHUPALLI.

Page 9 of 8