Smt. P.J.Sudha

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: RAZOLE

PRESENT: SMT P.J. SUDHA

Senior Civil Judge,

Razole.

Friday, the 11th day of November, 2022

H.M.O.P. No.69 of 2022

Between:

Kumpatla Sri Yesulakshmi @ Sri Lakshmi Leela W/o Ramakrishna, Hindu, House wife, aged 33 years, D/o Kapisetti Ramakoteswara Rao, Gudapalli Malikipuram Mandal, presently R/o D No. 8-27 Near Rice Mill, Srilakshmi Ganapathi Street, Challapalli Samanasa Uppalaguptam Mandal, East Godavari District Pin 533 … Petitioner 213 , Aadhar No. 3982 0371 1002

And

Kumpatla RamakrishnaR/o Venkata Naga Krishnamurty, Hindu, aged 36 years, R/o Challapalli, … Respondent Uppalaguptam Mandal, East Godavari District.

This petition is coming on 10.11.2022 for final hearing before me, in the presence of Sri Achanta Srinivasa Rao, Sri Divvi S.S.R.A. Srinivasarao, Advocates for Petitioner and Sri. CH.S.R.K. Negeswara Rao, Advocate for Respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following–

O R D E R

The petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 13 (1)(ia) (ib) of

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to dissolve the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent which was performed on 04.02.2015, by passing a decree of divorce.

2.The brief averments in the petition are that the respondent is no other than the legally wedded husband of the petitioner. Their marriage was performed on 04.02.2015 as per Hindu Law rites and caste customs at Gudaplli village, Malikipuram Mandal, East Godavari District. Their marriage was duly consummated. Out of their wedlock, a female child by name Srigra Sridhana

Ganga was born to them and she is aged about 6 years.

2

The petitioner further submitted that after the marriage, the petitioner joined with the respondent at Challapalli, Uppalaguptam Mandal. After marriage, they lived happily for some time. Thereafter, the respondent used to torture the petitioner. He used to slap the petitioner and always used to quarrel with her and beat her mercilessly. The petitioner lived with the respondent with a fond hope that he would mend his attitude on one day or the other. Even though the attitude of the respondent has not changed and he used to harass the petitioner, used to come home in late nights and used to behave in different manner by saying that it is misfortune to him to marry the petitioner and harass her in barbaric manner through out nights. Surprisingly, the family members of the respondent supported the respondent and they encouraged the respondent whenever he beat the petitioner.

The petitioner further submitted that the respondent used to say that he committed mistake by marrying the petitioner. Otherwise, he would have get well off matches. Thereafter, in the month of August, 2019 , the respondent started to demand Ac 1.00 of land as additional dowry. The parents of the petitioner put the matter before the elders like Kanuri Adinarayana, Kapisetti

Ramaswaminaidu, Dudi Saibabu, Yenumula Narayanaswamy who called the respondent and his people and admonished the respondent. But the respondent and his people did not heed the words of the elders. Since then, the respondent bore grudge and used to torture the petitioner in barbaric manner and ultimately in the month of November, 2019, the respondent brought the petitioner to her parents house at Gudapalli village and left the her by demanding additional dowry. At present the petitioner is living at the mercy of her parents along with her female child.

The petitioner further submitted that since the 1st week of November, 2019, the petitioner has been residing at her parents house and she was completely deserted by the respondent and more over the respondent has caused mental agony and torture in cruel manner even without showing any respect towards marital relations and without showing any affection upon the 3 petitioner. So, the petitioner is apprehending danger to her life in the hands of the respondent. The respondent used to beat the petitioner black and blue without any reason and did not care and not provided any food and other necessities. The petitioner bore all the mis deeds of the respondent with fond hope that he will change one day or the other. Thus, the respondent treated the petitioner and caused mental cruelty to the petitioner. The parents of the petitioner and elders tried to convince the respondent several times and several ways but there is no use. The respondent continuously deserted the petitioner, since 1st week of November, 2019. The marital relations between the petitioner and the respondent are irretrievably broken down and there is no chance of reunion. All the disputes proved futile. Hence, the petitioner is advised to file the present petition.

3.The respondent filed counter and he submitted that the allegations made in the petition filed by the petitioner except the prior relationship between the family of the petitioner and respondent are not true and correct and the respondent denied the same. Those allegations do not stand either on law or on facts. Those allegations are invented for the purpose of the petition.

The respondent further submitted that the marriage alliance was fixed by the parents of the respondent due to close relationship and out of love and affection between the families. The respondent further submitted that the petitioner filed the petition under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act for seeking divorce from the respondent with false and untrue allegations.

Those allegations are concocted for the purpose of this petition. The respondent further submitted that the marriage of the petitioner performed with the respondent on 04.02.2015 as per Hindu Law, rites , caste and customs and traditions and the marriage was consummated. At the time of marriage, the respondent and relatives of the respondent not demanded dowry from the parents of the petitioner even though they are close relatives.

4

The respondent further submitted that this matter was settled before the elders and both families. As per the terms and conditions of the both families, exchanged the marriage items and other lanchanams. It is further submitted that there are no further proceedings. The respondent further submitted that he is having no objection for granting decree of divorce. The petition is not at all maintainable as the petitioner is no local standi to file this petition without any fault of the respondent. The alleged grounds mentioned in the petition is not true and correct and there is no cause of action for filing the petition for seeking divorce and the cause of action mentioned in the petition is not true and correct.

[

4.The petition is presented on 13.06.2022 and registered on 15.06.2022.

Reconciliation was conducted and the efforts made by the court for reconciliation have failed.

5.During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner herself is examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 and Ex.P2. On behalf of the respondent, the respondent is examined as R.W.1 and no documents are marked on respondent side.

6.Heard the counsel for both sides. Perused the record.

7.Now the points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the petitioner has proved necessary factors, as required under

Section 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, to get a decree of divorce as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

8. Point No.1: Upon considering the rival contentions and evidence on record, absolutely there is no dispute regarding the fact that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 04.02.2015 as per

Hindu Law rites and caste customs at Gudapalli village, Malikipuram Mandal, 5

East Godavari District, the marriage was duly consummated and out of their wedlock, they were blessed with a female child by name Srigra Sridhana

Ganga who is aged about 6 years by the date of filing the petition. So also, there is no dispute regarding the fact that the petitioner and respondent have been living separately since 1st week of November, 2019.

As could be seen from the rival contentions regarding the reasons for the disputes between the couple, both of them made serious allegations against each other, more vividly mentioned in the petition and the counter respectively, and the same are also referred above. Petitioner and respondent reiterated their respective pleadings or averments in the petition and counter, in their affidavits filed in lieu of their Chief examination.

9.As could be seen from the evidence of both parties, both the petitioner and respondent made allegations against each other and attributed that the other spouse is responsible for the differences and break down of marital relations between them. But, it is brought on record about the settlement that was effected between the parties in the presence of the elders subsequent to filing of the petition and in view of the terms of settlement, the respondent agreed to be separated by way of divorce. Hence, this court not inclined to discuss about the merits in the allegations made by the parties, as they have amicably settled all their disputes and there is no possibility for reunion of the parties.

10. As seen from the evidence of petitioner, she has categorically admitted in her cross examination that after filing of this petition, the matter was placed

before the elders for settlement and as per the settlement before the elders,

the respondent agreed to be separated by way of divorce.

The respondent is examined as RW.1. He also stated in his cross examination that after filing of the petition, the matter was placed before the elders for settlement and as per the settlement before elders, he has agreed to 6 the separated from the petitioner by way of divorce. Further, the respondent clearly stated in the cross examination that he has no objection to grant divorce as prayed by the petitioner.

11. Thus, it is clear from the above evidence on record that after filing of the petition, the parties have settled their disputes amicably before the elders and both the parties are not willing and interested to lead conjugal life and all the efforts made for their reunion are failed. The respondent also categorically mentioned in his counter and also stated in his evidence that he has no objection to grant divorce. Under the above facts and circumstances, this court finds that there is no possibility of cohabitation or reunion between the parties and finds it just and necessary to allow the petition in the interest of both the parties. Accordingly, this point is answered.

12. Point No.2:

In view of my foregoing discussion on point No.1 and upon considering the entire material on record, it is clear that the petitioner and respondent are living separately since 1st week of November,2019 and there is no possibility for resuming cohabitation by the parties. Hence, upon considering all the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record, this court finds it just and necessary in the interest of both the parties to dissolve the marriage between the petitioner and respondent by granting a decree of divorce. Therefore, this point is answered accordingly.

13. In the result, the petition is allowed. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent held on 04.02.2015 is hereby dissolved by granting decree of divorce.

Typed to my dictation, to the Stenographer Grade III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court this the 11th day of November, 2022.

Digitally signed by

POONAMALLEE

POONAMALLEE

JAGANNADHAM

JAGANNADHAM

SUDHA SUDHA

Date: 2022.11.11

14:40:17 +0530

Senior Civil Judge,

Razole.

7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For petitioner:

P.W.1 : Kumpatla Sri Yesulakshmi @ Sri Lakshmi Leela

For Respondent

RW.1: Kumpatla Ramakrishna

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Petitioner:

Ex.P1 : Marriage Invitation card of petitioner and respondent Ex.P2 : Marriage Photograph of petitioner and respondent (One in number)

For RespondentDigitally signed by

POONAMALLEE

POONAMALLEE

NilJAGANNADHAM

JAGANNADHAM

SUDHA SUDHA

Date: 2022.11.11

14:40:35 +0530

Senior Civil Judge,

Razole.

Note: “The parties should apply, as soon as possible, for return of all exhibits which they wish to preserve, as the record will be liable to be destroyed after three years from the date of decree or order”.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: AMALAPURAM

Present: Smt.P.J.Sudha,

Senior Civil Judge, Razole,

(FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram

Thursday, this the 7th day of January,2021

H.M.O.P.No.135/2020

Between:

(1) Sathi Satya Venkata Bhaskar, son of Rambabu, Hindu, Aged 34 years, Private Employee, D.No.1-114, Savarappalem Village, Amalapuram Mandal, East Godavari District.

(2) Smt.Sathi Jaya Sree @ Moka Jaya Sree, wife of Sathi Satya Venkata Bhaskar, Hindu, Aged 28 years, Private Employee, D/o.Moka Phani Srinivas, Plot No.43, NAD Layout, Papayya Rajupalem,PendurthiMandal,VisakhapatnamDistrict.

.. Petitioners

And

Nil

.. Respondent

This petition coming on 06.01.2021 for final hearing before me, in the presence of Sri P.Venkata Ramana Murthy, Advocate for petitioners and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed by the petitioners 1 and 2, who are husband and wife respectively for dissolution of their marriage by granting a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of Hindu

Marriage Act.

2.The allegations in the petition, in brief, are that the marriage between petitioners 1 and 2 was performed on 18.08.2016 at 10.44 pm.

at Kapu Kalyana Mandapam, Amalapuram as per the Hindu Sastras and

Caste Customs in the presence of elders, friends and other invites of both 2 sides. At the time of marriage, the parents of the 2nd petitioner presented only customary presentations to the 1st petitioner for the benefit of the 2nd petitioner and no other presentations are exchanged between them. The 1st petitioner did not receive any properties from the parents of 2nd petitioner. After the marriage, both the petitioners lead marital life in Pune of Maharashtra State at the residential place of 1st petitioner and lead marital life till the month of November,2017 and thereafter it is very unfortunate to state that some differences arose between them and it continued and hence, the petitioners are unable to lead marital life happily and the differences were grown up. Under these circumstances, the 2nd petitioner returned to her parental home in the month of

November,2017. Thereafter, both unable to continue their marital life and decided to live separately by obtaining mutual divorce. Both the petitioners are not interested to lead marital life with each other due to their differences in their minds arose from November,2017 onwards.

There is no marital relationship between them from November,2017 onwards and no children were born out of their wedlock. In the month of

November,2017 the 2nd petitioner came to her parental place, and thereafter, she did not approach the 1st petitioner and both have decided to get divorce, as they could not continue their marital life happily. Both the petitioners also decided to live separately and as there is no scope to them to lead marital life and decided to obtain mutual divorce between them. The 2nd petitioner has received all the movable and immovable properties including educational certificates belonged to her and not kept anything belonged to her in the custody of 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner has agreed to give an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- by way of two account payee demand drafts bearing No.500878 for an amount of Rs.24,00,000/- drawn on 23.12.2020 at ICICI bank, Amalapuram branch and another demand draft bearing No.266267 for an amount of Rs.11,00,000/- drawn on 23.12.2020 at State Bank of India, Samanasa Branch drawn in favour 3 of the 2nd petitioner from the 1st petitioner towards past and future maintenance of the 2nd petitioner including permanent alimony and 2nd petitioner has agreed to receive the same and not agreed not to claim anything in future from the 1st petitioner. The 2nd petitioner has agreed to handover the demand drafts to the 1st petitioner before the court on the date of decree. The 2nd petitioner received all her belongings and agreed not to claim anything in future from the 1st petitioner. It is further averred that there is no likelihood of their reconciliation to live amicably.

Hence the petition.

3.The petition is presented on 28.12.2020. On 06.01.2021, both the parties have appeared before the court and they have filed a petition in

I.A.No.11/2021 to advance the OP to this date i.e. 06.01.2021 and permit the petitioners to adduce evidence before the Senior Civil Judge’s Court,

Razole which is Full Additional Charge of Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram and the said petition is allowed and OP advanced to this day i.e.

06.01.2021. Reconciliation failed. They also filed I.A.No.12/2021 to waive the waiting period of 6 months by stating through their petition affidavit that the petitioners are residing separately since November,2017, their marriage was irretrievable broken down and there is no chance for their reunion. Upon hearing both the petitioners and also upon hearing the submissions made by their counsel, this court has allowed the said petition by exercising its discretion by following the observations made in the decision between “Amardeep Singh Vs. Harveen Kaur reported in 2017(5) ALT 23 of Hon’ble Apex Court. Further the reconciliation efforts made by this court have also failed.

4.During the course of enquiry, evidence affidavits of petitioners are filed before the court stating that they have not withdrawn their consent and they are examined themselves as P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked

Exs.P.1 and P.2 through P.W.1.

4

5.Heard the counsel for the petitioners’. Perused the record.

6.The point for consideration is:-

Whether the petitioners are entitled for dissolution of their marriage by decree of divorce by mutual consent?

7. Point: As per the contentions in the petition and the evidence affidavits of P.Ws.1 and 2, it shows that the marriage of petitioners took place on 18.08.2016 and they both lead conjugal life for 15 months only and they have no children out of their wedlock. Later disputes arose between them and due to the differences, which could not be pacified even in spite of the best efforts made by the elders, petitioners have been living separately sinceNovember,2017 and that they have not been able to live together and they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved. It is also clear from the record that there is irretrievable break down of their marriage and there is no possibility of parties resuming cohabitation. Further, both the petitioners have genuinely settled all their differences including permanent alimony. As per the settlement, the 1st petitioner has agreed to pay an amount of

Rs.35,00,000/- to the 2nd petitioner towards permanent alimony. He has paid the same on 06.01.2020 by way of demand draft bearing No.500878,

dated 23.12.2020 for an amount of Rs.24,00,000/- of ICICI Bank,

Amalapuram Branch and another demand draft bearing No.266267, dated 23.12.2020 for an amount of Rs.11,00,000/- of State Bank of India,

Samansa Branch, Samansa Village, Amalapuram Mandal and the 2nd petitioner has received the same i.e. on 06.01.2021.

8.Upon considering the entire material on record, this court is satisfied that the averments in the petition are true.

5

9.In the result, the petition is allowed. The marriage between the petitioners 1 and 2 held on 18.08.2016 is dissolved by granting decree of divorce by mutual consent.

Typed to my dictation, to the Stenographer (Grade-III), corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 7 th day of January,2021.

Senior Civil Judge, Razole,

(FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined

For petitioners:

P.W.1: Sathi Satya Venkata Bhaskar

P.W.2: Smt.Sathi Jaya Sree @ Moka Jaya Sree

Documents marked

For petitioners:

Ex.P.1: Marriage invitation card

Ex.P.2: Marriage photographs two in number along with compact disc.

Senior Civil Judge, Razole,

(FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: AMALAPURAM

PRESENT: Smt. P.J. SUDHA

Senior Civil Judge, Razole,

(FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram.

Monday, the 4th day of January, 2021.

O.S. No. 143 of 2018

Between:

Dara Sudhakar, S/o.Jagannadham, Hindu, Aged 54 years, Inam,

P.Gannavaram Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. .. Plaintiff

And

1. Kusuma Venkatarao, S/o.Arjunarao, Hindu, Aged 48 years, Inam, Vilasa, Inavilli Mandal, East Godavari District.

2. Kusuma Anil Kumar, S/o.Arjunarao, Hindu, Aged 44 years, Inam, Vilasa, Inavilli Mandal, East Godavari District.

3. Kusuma Sunil Kumar, S/o.Arjunarao, Hindu, Aged 52 years, Inam, Vilasa, Inavilli Mandal, East Godavari District.

4. Kusuma Vijaya Kumar, S/o.Arjunarao, Hindu, Aged 46 years, Inam, Vilasa, Inavilli Mandal, East Godavari District.

This petition coming on 11.12.2020 for hearing and 04.01.2021 for final hearing before me, in the presence of Sri Y.V.S.N. Prasad, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri U.P.Lakshmana Rao, Advocate for defendants 1 to 4 and the defendants 1 to 4 having called absent they were set ex parte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following–

ORDER

The suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants 1 to 4 praying to direct the defendants 1 to 4 to refund the amount of

Rs.6,00,000/- and render true and correct accounts of the wine shop business for the period of 2015 to 2017 and pay the share of profits to the plaintiff with interest and for costs of the suit.

2

2.The brief averments in the plaint are that the defendants 1 to 4 are brothers and all of them have close acquaintance with plaintiff and that the plaintiff and defendants jointly started liquor business by getting license from the concerned Excise Department. Since, it is not easy and possible for any of the persons among the parties to the proceedings to incur huge amount towards license fees in lakhs of rupees, the plaintiff and defendants took a decision in the interest of all. As per the joint decision taken by all the parties to the suit, the license agreed to be obtained for liquor shop in the name of 1st defendant. The license fee of

Rs.30,00,000/- payable has to be shared equally among the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4. Therefore, plaintiff has contributed his share of

Rs.6,00,000/- and whereas defendants 1 to 4 have contributed their respective share of amounts at the tune of Rs.6,00,000/- per each.

Evidencing this, the plaintiff and defendants jointly executed

Memorandum of understanding dated 16.11.2015 with terms and conditions therein. Thus, the Memorandum of Understanding ‘MOU’ in short, is true, valid and binding on all the parties to the suit. The original MOU is with the defendant and, hence, the plaintiff filed photostat copy of the same.

The plaintiff and defendants maintained liquor shop for agreed period 2015-2017 under the license obtained in the name of 1st defendant subject to the terms and conditions of MOU dated 16.11.2015 under the name and style of ‘Dark Wines’ at Madupalli and realized profits. Then, the shop was closed with profits after expiry of license period. As per the understanding, the plaintiff is entitled to Rs.6,00,000/- and profits out of profits.

3

The plaintiff made several oral demands to the defendants to render accounts and pay his share of amount with profits. The defendants, though, agreed for it, used to postpone the issue for the reasons best known to them. As there is no proper response, the plaitniff got issued legal notice to all the defendants on 17.09.2018 calling upon them for rendition of accounts and his share of amount with profits. Even then also, there is no respondent and the plaintiff has noticed non compliance of claim. As such, the plaintiff obliged to file this suit for rendition of accounts and realize his share with profits, enforcing the MOU

dated 16.11.2015. Hence, the suit.

3.The defendants 1 to 4 having received the notice, appeared through their advocate, but in spite of several opportunities given, the defendants did not choose to file written statement and, hence, the defendants were set ex parte.

4.During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself is examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the learned counsel for the plaintiff also filed memorandum of written arguments. Perused the record.

6. On 21.12.2020, the Learned counsel for the plaintiff filed memo on behalf of the plaintiff not pressing the suit inrespect of the relief relating to rendition of accounts by the defendants and accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff in respect of his relief relating to rendition of accounts by the defendants is dismissed as not pressed by the plaintiff.

7.Now the point that arise for consideration is:- 4

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as prayed for?

8.In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and he reiterated the contents of the plaint in his evidence and also got marked Exs.A1 to A3. Ex.A1 is the Office copy of the legal notice dated 17.09.2018 issued by the plaintiff to the defendants to pay his share. Ex.A2 are the unserved postal covers four in number with postal receipts. Ex.A3 is the notary attested photostat copy of Memorandum of understanding among the plaintiff and defendants. Admittedly, the defendants have remained ex parte. Thus, the evidence of P.W.1 is left unchallenged and unrefuted. Though the plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of Rs.6,00,000/- and also rendition of accounts by the defendants, but he has not pressed the relief inrespect of rendition of accounts by the defendants. Hence, the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Exs. A1 to A3 clearly proves the claim of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.6,00,000/- only from the defendants jointly and severally.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

9.In the result, the suit is partly decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants jointly and severally for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- with subsequent interest 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization. The rest of the suit claim is dismissed as not pressed by the plaintiff.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer (Grade-II), corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 4th day of January,2021.

Senior Civil Judge, Razole

(FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram 5

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For plaintiff:

P.W.1 : Dara Sudhakar

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1: Office copy of the legal notice dt. 17.09.2018 Ex.A2: Unserved postal covers 4 in number along with postal receipts. Ex.A3: 16.11.2015 Notarized attested photocopy of Memorandum of understanding between the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4.

Senior Civil Judge, Razole

(FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: KOTHAPETA

Present: Sri M.V.S.Prabhakar,

Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram

(FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Kothapeta Friday the 19th day of March, 2021

H.M.O.P.No.32/2020

Between:

1) Padala Avinash Reddy, son of Anjaneya Reddy, Aged 31 years, Hindu, Pvt. Employee, D.No.2-424, Chinnam Tatareddy Street, Ubalanka, Ravulapalem.

2) Padala Janananda Lakshmi, wife of Padala Avinash Reddy, Aged 26 years, C/o.Tetali Naga Venkata Rama Reddy, Hindu, House Wife, Ambar Charakha Road, Badra Makallamma Temple back side, Ravulapalem.

... Petitioners

And

Nil… Respondent This petition is coming on 18.03.2021 for final hearing before me, in the presence of Sri P.Venkata Reddy, Advocate for petitioners and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed by the petitioners 1 and 2, who are husband and wife respectively for dissolution of their marriage by granting a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act.

2.The very brief facts of the petition in a nutshell are that the marriage between the 1st petitioner and 2nd petitioner was performed on 09.05.2015 at 10.23 pm at T.T.D.Kalyana Mandapam, Ravulapalem as per Hindu Rites and Caste

Customs in the presence of elders. After the marriage, the 2nd petitioner joined the 1st petitioner at Ubalanka village to lead marital life and during the wedlock the couple was blessed with male child namely P.Arush Reddy in the year 2017.

Thereafter disputes were developed between the couple and on the advice of elders and parents of both the petitioners they were pacified. Thereafter the disputes again cropped and the matter was placed before caste elders namely

G.Muni Reddy, Padala Peda Venkata Reddy and on their advise the petitioners set up family at Hyderabad. Despite it the disputes between the couple were not pacified. On 15.05.2018 there were disputes between the couple resulting which 2 the 2nd petitioner went to her parents house at Ravulapalem and did not turn up.

At last, the petitioners 1 and 2 are residing separately and the marriage between the petitioners is irretrievably broken down. The efforts of mediators and caste elders went in vain as the petitioners 1 and 2 are not amenable to reason. The 1st petitioner agreed to pay Rs.8,00,000/- towards final settlement of 2nd petitioner at the time of granting divorce and he also agreed to pay Rs.8,00,000/- to minor child

P.Arush Reddy. Till the minor attains majority the 2nd petitioner agreed to look after the welfare of P.Arush Reddy. Both the couple has decided to reside separately since their disputes were not pacified. Hence, the petitioners filed the petition for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent.

3.The petition is presented on 23.10.2020. On 18.03.2021 they have filed

I.A.No.22/2021 to waive the waiting period of six months by stating that the petitioners are residing separately since 15.08.2018 and their marriage was irretrievably broken down and there is no chance for reunion. Upon hearing both the petitioners and also upon hearing the submissions made by their counsel, this court has allowed the said petition by exercising its discretion by following the observations made in the decision between “Amardeep Singh and Harveen Kaur reported in 2017(5) ALT 23 of Hon’ble Apex Court. Further the reconciliation efforts made by this court have also failed.

4.During the course of enquiry, chief affidavits of petitioners are filed

before the court stating that they have not withdrawn their consent and they are

examined themselves as P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P.1 and P.2 through P.W.1.

5.Heard the counsel for the petitioners.

6.Now the point for determination is: Whether the petitioners are entitled for dissolution of their marriage by decree of divorce by mutual consent?

7.Point: As per the contents in the petition and the affidavits of P.Ws.1 and 2, the marriage of petitioners took place on 09.05.2015 at 10.23 pm at

T.T.D.Kalyana Mandapam, Ravulapalem and during the wedlock they were blessed with one male child namely P.Arush Reddy was born in the year 2017. Thereafter disputes cropped up between the couple and they are not pacified despite 3 indulgence of elders and parents of petitioners. During the evidence of 1st petitioner Exs.P.1 and P.2 are marked. Ex.P.1 is the Marriage invitation card and

Ex.P.2 is the marriage photographs two in number along with compact disc discloses the fact of relationship between the petitioners. Further the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 would clearly show that they do not want to reside under one roof since their differences could not be pacified in spite of indulgence of elders. Further the 2nd petitioner has categorically stated that she received Rs.9,00,000/- from 1st petitioner towards maintenance of her minor child and she agreed to look after his welfare till he attains majority. She has in her evidence in unequivocal terms stated that she received Rs.9,00,000/- cash from 1st petitioner towards her final settlement besides Rs.9,00,000/- towards maintenance of minor child P.Arush

Reddy. All this clearly goes to show that there is irretrievable break down of marriage and there is no possibility of parties resuming cohabitation and the petitioners have genuinely settled the differences.

8.Upon considering the entire material on record, this court has satisfied that the averments in the petition are true and they were proved through the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. As already discussed as there is no possibility for reunion of the couple, this court is inclined to allow the petition since agony will remain if the petition is not allowed.

9.In the result, the petition is allowed and the marriage between the petitioners 1 and 2 held on 09.05.2015 is dissolved by granting decree of divorce by mutual consent. In view of close relationship between the parties, there is no order as to costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 19th day of March, 2021.

Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram

(FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Kothapeta.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined

For petitioners: For respondent:

4

P.W.1: Padala Avinash Reddy P.W.2: Padala Janananda Lakshmi

Documents marked

For petitioners: For respondent:

Ex.P.1: Marriage invitation card Ex.P.2: Marriage Photographs two in number along with Compact Disc.

Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram

(FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Kothapeta.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: KOTHAPETA

Present: Sri M.V.S.Prabhakar,

Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram.

(FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Kothapeta Monday the 8th day of March, 2021

H.M.O.P.No.41/2020

Between:

1) Sathi Poorna Chandrarao, son of Srinivas, Aged 35 years, Hindu, R/o.D.No.16-28/1, Tekivari Veedhi, Old Town, Tanuku Municipality, West Godavari District.

2) Smt.Sathi Satyaveni, wife of Poorna Chandrarao, D/o.Veerayya, Aged 28 years, Hindu, House Wife, R/o.D.No.1-216, Near Pedda Nuyya, Utchili Village,

Atreyapuram Mandal... Petitioners

And

Nil .. Respondent

This petition is coming on 04.03.2021 for final hearing before me, in the presence of Sri N.Ramesh, Advocate for petitioners and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

O R D E R

1.This application has been filed by the petitioners 1 and 2, who are husband and wife respectively for dissolution of their marriage by granting decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act.

2.The very brief facts of the petition in a nutshell are that the marriage between the 1st petitioner and 2nd petitioner was performed on 18.10.2019 at Sri

Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Dwaraka Tirumala, as per Hindu Rites and Caste

Customs. After the marriage 2nd petitioner joined the 1st petitioner at Tirumala.

From the beginning the petitioners are not willing to marry together and at the force of elders, the marriage was performed and as such the marriage was not consummated. The elders advised the petitioners to lead marital life at Utchili village near the house of 2nd petitioner. There the petitioners resided for ten days and even then there was no interest for the petitioners to consume their marriage. Then the 1st petitioner left Utchili village in the last week of November, 2019 and expressed his intention that he cannot lead marital life with the 2nd petitioner. On the other hand the 2nd petitioner also expressed her unwillingness towards 1st petitioner and the efforts of elders to tie up the marital link went in vain. The petitioners have decided to take divorce by mutual consent and they want to live separately. Further the 1st petitioner agreed to pay Rs.4,00,000/- to the 2nd petitioner towards her permanent alimony at the time of passing decree and it was deposited with elders. The 2nd petitioner agreed for the same. Hence, the petitioners filed the petition for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent.

3.The petition is presented on 27.11.2020. On 05.03.2021 they have filed

I.A.Nos.19/2021 and 20/2021 to waive the waiting period of six months by stating that the petitioners are residing separately since November, 2019 and their marriage was irretrievably broken down and there is no chance for reunion. Upon hearing both the petitioners and also upon hearing the submissions made by their counsel, this court has allowed the said petition by exercising its discretion by following the observations made in the decision between “Amardeep Singh Vs.

Harveen Kaur reported in 2017(5) ALT 23 of Hon’ble Apex Court. Further the reconciliation efforts made by this court have also failed.

4.During the course of enquiry, the evidence of chief affidavits of petitioners are filed before the court stating that they have not withdrawn their consent and they are examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2. Ex.P.1 and P.2 were marked through

P.W.1.

5.Heard the counsel for the petitioners.

6.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the petitioners are entitled for dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent?

7.Point: Admittedly, the petitioners 1 and 2 are husband and wife respectively and their marriage was held on 18.10.2019 at Sri Venkateswara

Swamy Temple, Dwaraka Tirumala, as per Hindu Rites and Caste Customs in the presence of elders and since the beginning of marriage they are not willing to live together and as such marriage was not consummated and even though they lived at Utchili village for ten days at the instance of elders, there was no cohabitation and as such the 1st petitioner left the 2nd petitioner and 2nd petitioner is also unwilling to reside with the 1st petitioner. On the other hand, the 1st petitioner has paid Rs.4,00,000/- to the 2nd petitioner towards her permanent alimony and 2nd petitioner who received the same has expressed that she will not file any case for future maintenance or any criminal case against the 1st petitioner. In the evidence of 1st petitioner Exs.P.1 and P.2 are marked. Ex.P.1 is the Marriage invitation card and

Ex.P.2 is the marriage photographs four in number along with compact disc disclose the fact of relationship between the petitioners. Both the parties have categorically deposed in respect of the contents in the petition and through their evidence the contents in the petition were established. Further the petitioners filed memo stating that 1st petitioner gave Rs.4,00,000/- and 2nd petitioner received the same towards her permanent alimony and the same was recorded by this court. It shows that both the petitioners have amicably settled their disputes including alimony. When the petitioners are not willing to reside together and amicably settled their disputes before elders, this court did not find any reason to dismiss the petition.

8.Upon considering the entire material on record, this court has satisfied that the averments in the petition are true and they were proved. As already discussed as there is no possibility for reunion of the couple, this court is inclined to allow the petition since agony will remain if the petition is not allowed.

9.In the result, the petition is allowed and the marriage between the petitioners 1 and 2 held on 18.10.2019 is dissolved by granting decree of divorce by mutual consent. In view of close relationship between the parties, there is no order as to costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of March, 2021.

Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram,

(FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Kothapeta.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined

For petitioners: For respondent:

P.W.1: Sathi Poorna ChandraraoNone. P.W.2: Smt.Sathi Satyaveni

Documents marked

For petitioners: For respondent:

Ex.P.1: Marriage Invitation cardNil. Ex.P.2: Marriage photographs four in number along with compact disc.

Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram,

(FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Kothapeta.