Sri P.raja Ram

FAIR

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, (FTC), BAPATLA

Present Sri P.RAJA RAM,

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla

FAC Addl Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla Friday, the 29th day of March, 2019

ORIGINAL SUIT No:64/2012

Between

1. Venigalla Jagadish Bhaskar (Died).

2. Venigalla Ashoka Lakshmi (2nd Plaintiff is added as Legal Representative of deceased

1 plaintiff as per orders on Ι.Α.Νο.775/2015 dated 16-11-2018)..Plaintiffs.

And

1. Venigalla Subba Rao

2. Venigalla Koteswara Rao

3. Venigalla Prabhakara Rao..Defendants.

This suit coming on 25-01-2019 for hearing before me in the presence of Smt. Y.Usha Rani, Advocate for the second plaintiff, of Sri Mallela Eresu and Dandrapati Nasaramma, Advocates for the defendant Nos 1 and 3 The first defendant died during pendent-lite. Memo filed. Counsel for D1 reported dead. Memo filed. D2 called absent. No representation. Hence, D2 set exparte. Reported no instructions for D3. D3 is called absent. Adal Written statement is not filed and set exparte, upon hearing and considering the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following-

JUDG MENT

The second plaintiff seeking I. To declare that the 2 plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property, consequentially to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants from ever interfering with second plaintiff 's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property in any manner. II. To award costs of the suit, and III. To pass a decree in favour of the second plaintiff and against the defendants for such other and further reliefs.

2. The contents of the plaint filed by the plaintiff in brief are as follows:

The first plaintiff submitted that the first defendant is the first plaintiff's paternal grandfather, second defendant is his father and third defendant is his paternal uncle.

The first plaintiff submitted that plaint A schedule property exclusively belongs to the first defendant and it is a vacant site. The said property was purchased by the first defendant in the year 2004 under the Document No.985/2004 and it is a self acquired property and having absolute rights and the same was executed in favour of this first plaintiff on 20-08-2010 under a Registered Gift Deed under Document

Nol.2632 of 2010 of SRO Ponnur and possession also delivered on the same day and the settlement deed is an unconditional deed. Since then the first plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment in his own way.

The first plaintiff submitted that the paternal grand mother of the first plaintiff by name Venkata Rattamma has got an extent of Ac.0-52½ cents of wet land comprised in D.No.235-3 an extent of Ac.0-43 cents Poora and D.No.235-4 an extent of Ac.0.09 ½ cents out of Ac.1-46 cents of Munipalle Village as her

Sthridhana property under Document No.2801/1958. After her demise defndants 1 to 3 succeeded to the above said property as heirs. The defendants 1 and 2 executed an Unconditional Settement Deed dated 20-08- 2010 under Document

No.2633/2010 S.R.O., Ponnur for their 2/3rd share of the above said property in favour of the first plaintiff i.e., an extent of Ac.0-35 cents of wet land which is shown as plaint B schedule and delivered possession of the same on that day itself to the first plaintiff. Since the date of execution of Settlement Deed and delivery of the possession of the property, first plaintiff is enjoying the property as absolute owner in his own way.

The first plaintiff came to know that defendants are colluding together are trying to create some fictitious, sham and nominal documents in order to deprive the first plaintiff's rights in the plaint schedule property.

The defendants raised a cloud regarding the first plaintiff's title, right possession. Hence, the first plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for declaration of the title and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the first plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property in any manner. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff died on 15-10-2014 leaving behind him the second plaintiff as his legal heir. As such she is added as second plaintiff to the suit. (Added as per orders on I.A. No. 775/2015

dated 16-11-2018.

3. On the other hand, the first defendants contested the suit by denying the entire material allegations of the plaint except the relationship of the plaintiff, which was adopted by the third defendant and resisted the suit The brief averments in the written statement are as follows:- It is the case of the defendants 1 and 3 that the first defendant is aged about 86 years and Retired R.T.C employee and his wife is died long time back. The defendants 2 and 3 are natural sons of the first defendant.

In the year 2007 the defendants 2 and 3 necked out the first defendant from their house and refused and neglecting to maintain their natural father then the first defendant got filed M.C.No.4/2007 on the file of the Addl. Junior Civil Judge's Court,

Ponnur against the defendants 2 and 3. After elaborate enquiry the above court has been pleased to directing the defendants 2 and 3 to pay monthly maintenance of

Rs.2,000/- each the defendants. At that time the defendant No.2 to avoid the above maintenance created artificial love and affection on the first defendant took the first defendant to the house of the second defendant. Some days the defendant No.2 looked after the first defendant properly and the defendant No.2 and his son i.e..

plaintiff hatched up plan and evil design to grab the plaint schedule properties and created entire artificial love and affection with an evil intention to the first defendant to SRO Office, Ponnur put the signatures by fraudulently and misrepresentating the real facts created fraudulent transactions of the alleged Regd. Settlement Deeds

dated 20-08-2010. The contents of the alleged settlement deeds not read over the

same and the first defendant not executed the alleged settlement deeds with free consent and volition in favour of the plaintiff. After execution of alleged settlement deeds the plaintiff and the second defendant once again thrown out the first defendant into street. Then the defendant verified the fraud played by the plaintiff and second defendant and approached the SRO, Ponnur and executed a

Registered Revocation of Gift Deed on 18-11-2010. As per the said Revocation

Deed dated 18-11-2010 the alleged settlement deed dated 20-08- 2010 is stands cancelled. At present no settlement deed stands in the name of the plaintiff. The entire contents mentioned in the alleged settlement deeds are fraud, collusive, misrepresentation and the same are created by the plaintiff and the second defendant to cheat the first defendant but nothing else and the same are not binding on the first defendant at any point of time.

Even till today the plaint A and B schedule properties are under the possession and enjoyment of the first defendant. The first defendant alone paying necessary house tax and revenue tax to the Government. Neither the plaintiff nor the second defendant never be plaintiff nor the second defendant never been in possession of the plaint schedule properties at any point of time. The entire alleged documents dated 20-08-2010 stands in the name of the first plaintiff is only sham and nominal documents and the same are not created any physical possession over the plaint schedule properties till now The plaintiff neither valid title nor possession at any point of time basing on alleged documents which were created by the plaintiff and the second defendant with fraudulent manner The plaintiff and second defendant cheated the first defendant at the time of the alleged transaction.

Under the above circumstances, the first defendant prays the court to dismiss the sult with exemplary costs.

4. Basing on the pleadings of plaint, written statement and material on record this court framed the following issues for trial:-

1) Whether the plaintiff obtained the settlement deed, dated 20-08- 2010 by playing fraud with the connivance of D2?

2) Whether the revocation deed, dt.18-11-2010 is binding on the plaintiff?

3) Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment or the first defendant is in possession and enjoyment of plaint A and B schedule properties?

4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree to declare that plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. consequently to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants from every interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property?

5) To what relief?

5. Issue Nos.1 to 4:

In order to substantiate the case of the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. The evidence of P.W.1 coupled with

Exs.A1 to A4 established that as per Ex.A1 registered settlement deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the first plaintiff dated 20-08-2010, Ex.A2 is the registered settlement deed executed by the D1 and D2 in favour of the first plaintiff

dated 20-08-2010. Ex.A3 is the original sale deed executed in favour of the first

defendant dated 25-10-2014 and Ex.A4 is the settlement deed executed in favour of Venkata Ratnamma dated 17-11-1958. The first plaintiff submitted that the first defendant is the first plaintiff's paternal grandfather, second defendant is his father and third defendant is his paternal uncle.

The first plaintiff submitted that plaint A schedule property exclusively belongs to the first defendant and it is a vacant site. The said property was purchased by the first defendant in the year 2004 under the Document No.985/2004 and it is a self acquired property and having absolute rights and the same was executed in favour of this first plaintiff on 20-08-2010 under a Registered Gift Deed under Document

Nol.2632 of 2010 of SRO Ponnur and possession also delivered on the same day and the settlement deed is an unconditional deed. Since then the first plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment in his own way.

The first plaintiff submitted that the paternal grand mother of the first plaintiff by name Venkata Rattamma has got an extent of Ac.0-52 % cents of wet land comprised in D.No.235-3 an extent of Ac.0-43 cents Poora and D.No.235-4 an extent of Ac.0.09 ½ cents out of Ac.1-46 cents of Munipalle Village as her

Sthridhana property under Document No.2801/1958. After her demise defndants 1 to 3 succeeded to the above said property as heirs. The defendants 1 and 2 executed an Unconditional Settement Deed dated 20-08 2010 under Document

No.2633/2010 S.R.O., Ponnur for their 2/3rd share of the above said property in favour of the first plaintiff i.e., an extent of Ac.0-35 cents of wet land which is shown as plaint B schedule and delivered possession of the same on that day itself to the first plaintiff. Since the date of execution of Settlement Deed and delivery of the possession of the property, first plaintiff is enjoying the property as absolute owner in his own way.

The first plaintiff came to know that defendants are colluding together are trying to create some fictitious, sham and nominal documents in order to deprive the first plaintiff's rights in the plaint schedule property.

6. Though the first defendant filed written statement which was adopted by the third defendant, but failed to cross examine P.W.1. The second defendant is called absent and set exparte. The first defendant died during pendent-lite of the suit.

Reported no instructions for D3. D3 is called absent Addl. written statement is not filed and set exparte. They were set exparte Hence, the testimony of PW.1 remained un-rebutted and unchallenged. As such, the un-rebutted testimony of PWI coupled with Exs.A1 to A4, would establish the case of the plaintiffs and it constrained the Court to believe the version of First Plaintiff/PW. 1. Therefore, this

Court finds that the plaintiffs are entitled for the suit amount. Thus, I answered the above Issue.

7. Issue No.5:

Accordingly, suit is decreed with costs in favour of second plaintiff as against defendants 2 and 3 by declaring a) the second plaintiff is the absolute owner of plaint schedule property.

By consequential granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants 2 and 3 from ever interfering with the second plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property in any manner.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced in the Open Court by me this the 29th day of March, 2019.

Sd/- P. Rajaram

PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAPATLA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:

P.W.1 Venigalla Ashoka Lakshmi.

FOR DEFENDANT No.1: Died-

FOR DEFENDANTS 2 and 3: EXPARTE-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: Ex.A1/--- Registered settlement deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the first plaintiff dated 20-08- 2010.

Ex.A2/... Registered settlement deed executed by the D1 and D2 in favour of the first plaintiff dated 20-08-2010.

Ex.A3/... Original sale deed executed in favour of the first defendant dated 25-10-2004

Ex. A4/... Settlement deed executed in favour of Venkata Ratnamma dated 17-11-1958

FOR DEFENDANTS 1 to 3:

NIL-

Sd/- P. Rajaram

PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAPATLA.

// True copy //

PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAPATLA.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAPATLA

Present: Sri P. RAJA RAM,

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla

Monday, this the 29 thday of April, 2019

E.P.09/2015 in O.S.175/2012

Between:-

M. Rajasekhar Babu… Decree Holder.

--And--

M. Ravi Kumar ... Judgment debtor.

This Execution Petition has come up on 27-03-2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri I. Bala Krishna, Advocate for Decree Holder and of

Sri I. Suresh Babu, Advocate for Judgment Debtor and the matter having stood over for consideration till this date, this court made the following:

O R D E R

This Execution Petition is filed by the Decree holder against the judgment debtor Under Order 21 Rule II Clause I Schedule I of C.P.C to arrest and send him to civil prison for realization of decreetal amount though having sufficient means to pay the decreetal amount.

02.In brief, the averments in the petition-affidavit are as follows:- It is the case of the decree holder he filed the above numbered suit against the J.Dr.

The suit was decreed on 11-09-2014 directing the J.Dr to pay the amount dues to him. The Judgment Debtor has to pay the decree amount dues to him. As per the E.P claim, the Judgment Debtor has to pay Rs.1,72,000 ps with interest. The judgment debtor has the means to discharge the said debt. But he did not choose to repay the same on some pretext or other. Even though he has sufficient means to discharge the decree debt. More so, he is hale and healthy.

If the Judgment debtor is sent to the Civil Prison only, he can pay the decree amount dues to him. Or else, he will not pay the amount dues to him. The J.Dr 2 has no respect upon the court order. So that, having the knowledge of notice, he did not pay the amount dues to him so far. Therefore, the J.Dr may be sent to civil prison. Else, he will be put to irreparable loss and injury. Therefore, he prays the court to send the Judgment Debtor to civil prison and to enable him to recover the decree amount dues to him. Else, he will be put to irreparable loss and injury.

03.On the other hand, the judgment debtor by denying the entire material allegations in the petition-affidavit and filed a counter, interelia contended that the

J.Dr though young in age he is not hale and healthy. This JDR several times requested DHR to decrease the amount but the DHR did not decrease even a pie. The JDR is doing as a clerk in private firm and eking out his lively hood on a meal salary of Rs.5000/-. He has no other properties in his name or his family members except his salary of Rs.5000/-. Though knowing all these facts the

DHR has filed this present E.P. to harass the JDR. The JDR has no means to discharge the debt under this E.P. and prays to dismiss this petition.

04.POINT:- Now the point for consideration is whether this petition can be allowed as prayed for ?

05.During the course of enquiry in this petition, the decree holder himself examined as Pw1 and on behalf of the Judgment Debtor he himself examined as

R.W.1 and his witness as R.W.3 and no documents were marked on either side.

The evidence of R.W.2 was eschewed on 13.03.2019.

06.Heard and perused the record.

07.It is not in dispute that the decree holder obtained a decree against the judgment debtor in this suit O.S.No.175/2012 on the file of this court and the said decree is became final and executable one as the judgment debtor did not prefer any appeal over the said decree and judgment passed by this court and this court being the executing court, can not go beyond the decree and it has to be 3 implemented the said decree and judgment that was passed against the judgment debtor. It is the contention of Pw1 that the judgment debtor is having sufficient means to discharge the decreetal amount in lump sum, but intentionally evading to pay the same. In support of his contention, he himself examined as

Pw1 and he deposed that he filed the above numbered suit against the J.Dr. The suit was decreed on 11-09-2014 directing the J.Dr to pay the amount dues to him. The Judgment debtor has to pay the decree amount dues to him. As per the E.P claim, the Judgment debtor has to pay Rs.1,72,000/- with interest.

Though, he is capable to discharge the decree amount dues to him, he wantonly avoided to pay the decree amount dues to him. More so, he is hale and healthy.

If the Judgment Debtor is sent to the Civil Prison only, he can pay the decree amount dues to him. Or else, he will not pay the amount dues to him. The J.Dr has no respect upon the court decree. Even though he has knowledge of decree, he did not pay the amount dues to him so far. Therefore, the J.Dr may be sent to civil prison or Else, he will be put to irreparable loss and injury.

Therefore, he prays the court to send the Judgment debtor to civil prison and to enable him to recover the decree amount dues to him. Else, he will be put to irreparable loss and injury. On the other hand, the judgment debtor clearly denied the contention of the decree holder in respect of source of income as alleged by him in his chief affidavit and petition-affidavit. In support of his contention, he himself examined as Rw1. On perusal of cross-examination of

Pw1 he clearly admitted that he has not demanded the J.Dr to discharge the E.P debt subsequent to the decree. Except his oral testimony he did not produce any documentary evidence to show that JDR has movable and immovable properties and capacity to discharge his debt. The DHR in his cross examination further stated that he can not say in which bank the JDR is having cash. He admitted that the JDR is doing private job as clerk. On perusal of cross-examination of

R.W.1 and R.W.3 nothing worthwhile was elicited to the contention of the D.Hr 4 which was mentioned petition affidavit regarding source of income of the J.Dr.

More particularly J.Dr clearly denied the material suggestions put forth by the learned counsel for decree holder. Though, it is strong contention of decree holder that the J.Dr is having house however he clearly admitted in cross- examination that except his oral testimony he has not filed any medical report or prescription before this court to show that he is suffering from his ailments. If at all J.Dr is having immovable properties as alleged by the Decree holder he has to examine the neighbours where J.Dr has been residing or filed any proof like

Municipal Certificates/residential proofs showing that the said houses stands in the name of the J.Dr. If that is being so the contention of the D.hr that the J.Dr is having immovable properties in his name cannot be considered. As observed earlier the D.Hr himself clearly admitted about material aspects which were suggested by J.Dr in his cross-examination regarding source of income of his income. No document is filed by D.Hr to prove that the J.Dr has got a house in his name. When D.Hr did not establish with regard to source of income of the

J.Dr by placing cogent and convincing evidence the oral assertion of the D.Hr cannot be countenanced. So, having considered the both side evidence it is clear that the D.Hr failed to establish the source of income of the J.Dr to show that he is having capacity to discharge the E.P warrant amount. The learned counsel for J.Dr submitted while advancing arguments that he has no objection if

D.Hr proceed against the properties of J.Dr if at all J.Dr has any valuable immovable properties in his name. Therefore, in the light of the above discussion and facts and circumstances of the case, it can be said that the D.Hr failed to prove the means of the D.Hr by preponderance of probabilities and evidence on the record. In view of the above facts, I am not inclined to allow this petition and the decree holder is at liberty to file another petition and to prove the means of the judgment debtor by bringing documentary proof or he is at liberty to proceed against the properties of J.Dr if at all he is having any valuable immovable 5 properties as submitted by counsel for J.Dr. The point is decided accordingly.

08.IN THE RESULT, this petition is dismissed. No costs.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 29 thday of April, 2019.

Sd/- P. Raja Ram

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

BAPATLA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Decree Holder:For Judgment Debtor:

Pw1: M. Raja Sekhara BabuRw1: M. Ravi Kumar

Rw2: T. Vasantha Kumar (eschewed)

Rw3: G. John Suresh Kumar

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Decree Holder:For Judgment Debtor:

-- Nil.---- Nil.--

Sd/- P. Raja Ram

P.S.C.J., Bapatla

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: BAPATLA

Present: Sri P. RAJA RAM,

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla

Wednesday, this the 24 thday of April, 2019

H.M.O.P.No. 122/2018

Between:

Mendu Karthik S/o.Mendu Sathyasimha, aged about 32 years, Hindu, Housewife, C/o.H.No.5-106, Narasimha Swamy Temple, Khajipalem, Pittalavanipalem, Guntur District. …Petitioner And; Mendu Devi W/o.Mendu Karthik, aged about 32 years, Hindu, Private Employee, R/o.Dammannavaripalem Village, Karlapalem Mandal, Guntur District.…Respondent

This petition has come up for hearing on 24-04-2019 in the presence of Sri S. Ravindhra Babu, Advocate for Petitioner. Respondent is called absent, no representation, Set exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 13 (1) (iii) of Hindu Marriage Act seeking to pass a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent took place on 22-11-2015 on the ground of cruelty and desertion and for costs.

2. The averments of the petition--affidavit in brief are that (a) the petitioner marriage was performed at Respondent residence in Dammannavaripalem Village with the respondent on 22.11.2015 as per Hindu Rites and Custom and Usage by observing all the formalities. After a week of marriage the petitioner and respondent jointly lead their happy conjugal life at respondent’s residence situated at Visakhapatnam and the petitioner stayed for four months in search of job. The petitioner observed the mental disability of the respondent and shocked about the abnormal behaviour of the respondent and he does not know about the respondent mental disability before marriage. The petitioner intimated the issue to the respondent parents, they convinced the petitioner that respondent will change her behaviour in due course of time and also assured they will consult specialist doctor to resolve the problem. Later the petitioner left his inlaws house but the respondent stayed with her parents only. The petitioner further submits that after one month the respondent parents along with some family members brought the respondent to the petitioner's house and convinced the petitioner to lead the conjugal life with the respondent. Then he thought that the respondent mental condition might alter once he starts conjugal life with the respondent. But there is no change in respondent's mental condition and due to her mental condition the petitioner family faced so many problems for about One year. Then the petitioner took the respondent for National Institute for the Empowerment of Persons with Intellectual Disabilities (NIEPID) at Secunderabad. After Health checkup of respondent, the doctor gave reports based on Personal History, Development History, Behavioral observation and results of the tests Administered and currently the respondent functioning with MILD INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY and also recommended to attend regular counselling for One year. a). Parental counselling and guidance regarding the condition of respondent, b) Life Skills training, c) Training in vocational pursuits, d) Regular follows up at National Institute for the Empowerment of Persons with Intellectual Disabilities (NIEPID) at Secunderabad. The petitioner intimated the same to the respondent parents and requested to co-operate for the treatment of respondent, but they neglected the request and not attended for a). Parental counselling and guidance regarding the condition of respondent, b) Life Skills training, c) Training in 2 vocational pursuits, d) Regular follows up at National Institute for the Empowerment of Persons with Intellectual Disabilities (NIEPID) at Secunderabad. Then in the month of May, 2017 the petitioner dropped the respondent in his inlaws house. Thereafter the respondent brother and respondent parents harassed the petitioner mentally and physically and threateneded that they will file Criminal cases against petitioner and his family members with false avements and also propagating false stories against the petitioner and his family members. Finally the petitioner vexed about the rude behaviour of the respondent and her family members, he filed this divorce petition before this Honourable Court praying to dissolve the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent performed on 22-11-2015. Hence, this petition.

3.The respondent is called absent and no representation. Sri V.R.B., Advocate filed vakalat for Respondent, either the respondent or her counsel did not filed counter though stipulated time is elapsed. Hence, the respondent was made set exparte. So far, the respondent has not taken any steps to set aside the exparte order.

4.To substantiate his case, the petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P1 and P2. Ex.P1 is wedding photographs (4 in number) with C.D, Ex.P2 is wedding card.

5.Heard the petitioner's counsel.

6.Now the point for determination is: Whether the petitioner is entitled for a decree of divorce, as prayed for?

7.The petitioner in his chief examination affidavit reiterated the contents of the petition filed by him. The evidence of the petitioner is remained unchallenged. Thus, from the contents of the chief examination affidavit and from the documents filed by the petitioner, the petitioner proved his case that respondent is his wife and that the respondent subjected her to cruelty and deserted her without any reasonable cause. Hence, this Court holds that the petitioner is entitled for dissolution of marriage with the respondent as prayed for.

8.IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed by granting a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent took place on 22-11-2015 from the date of this order. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to the costs. Typed to my dictation by Typist on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 24 thday of April, 2019.

Sd/- P. Raja Ram

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BAPATLA.

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE//

//WITNESSES EXAMINED //

For Petitioner: For Respondent : Exparte

PW.1 : Mendu Karthik

//DOCUMENTS MARKED//

For Petitioner:

Ex.P1 : wedding photographs (4 in number) with C.D. Ex.P2 : wedding card.

For Respondent : Nil

Sd/- P. Raja Ram

P.S.C.J., Bapatla

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: BAPATLA

Present: Sri P. RAJA RAM,

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla

Tuesday, this the 23 rdday of April, 2019

H.M.O.P.No. 16/2019

Between: Nakkala @ Yarrakula Venkata Ramani W/o.N. Srinivasa Rao D/o.N. Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, aged about 28 years, R/o.D.No.4-3-32, Patel Nagar, Bapatla Town and Mandal. …Petitioner

And; Nakkala Srinivasa Rao S/o.Yanadi, Hindu, aged about 40 years, R/o.D.No.1-76, Kadavakuduru Village, Chinnaganjam Mandal, Prakasam District.…Respondent

This petition has come up for hearing on 22-04-2019 in the presence of Sri Z. Basha, Advocate for Petitioner. Respondent is called absent, no representation, Set exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act seeking to pass a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent took place on 24-08-2017 on the ground of desertion and for costs.

2. The averments of the petition--affidavit in brief are that (a) the petitioner marriage was performed at Tenali Vykuntapuram in Venkateswara Swamy Temple with the respondent on 24-08-2017 as per Hindu Rites and Custom and Usage by observing all the formalities.

The petitioner submits that as her father Sivaiah is no more, so her mother

Padmavathi performed and observed all the formalities of the marriage. Soon after the marriage the petitioner joined with the respondent at Vizag, as he is employee in Damodaran National Law

University. They lead their marital life happily for 10 months. The marriage was not consummated due to the adamant attitude of the respondent. The petitioner further submits that the respondent did not cooperate in domestic works or conjugal life and he used to inform that he is not having any interest in the family life. So the petitioner came to Bapatla and informed the same to her parents.

On that a mediation of caste elders, they decided to put family at Patel Nagar, Bapatla Town but they resided there for One month only. But there is no fruitful result come out. On 25-12-2017 the respondent abruptly left the petitioner at Patel Nagar, Bapatla Town and did not turned up so far.

Finally she proposed to file this divorce petition before this Honourable Court. Therefore, the 2 petitioner prays the court to dissolve the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent performed on 24-08-2017. Hence, this petition.

3.The respondent is called absent and no representation is made, though notice of the respondent is served personally. Service of notice against the respondent held sufficient. Hence, the respondent was made set exparte. So far, the respondent has not taken any steps to set aside the exparte order.

4.To substantiate her case, the petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked

Ex.P1 and P2. Ex.P1 is marriage photo and Ex.P2 is Wedding Card.

5.Heard the petitioner's counsel.

6.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for a decree of divorce, as prayed for?

7.The petitioner in her chief examination affidavit reiterated the contents of the petition filed by her. The evidence of the petitioner is remained unchallenged. Thus, from the contents of the chief examination affidavit and from the documents filed by the petitioner, the petitioner proved her case that respondent is his husband and that the respondent deserted her without any reasonable cause. Hence, this Court holds that the petitioner is entitled for dissolution of marriage with the respondent as prayed for.

8.IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed by granting a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the parties took place on 24-08-2017 from the date of this order.

In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to the costs.

Typed to my dictation by Typist on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 23 rdday of April, 2019.

Sd/- P. Raja Ram

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BAPATLA

3

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE//

//WITNESSES EXAMINED //

For Petitioner: For Respondent : Exparte

PW.1 : Nakkala @ Yarrakula Venkata Ramani

//DOCUMENTS MARKED//

For Petitioner:

Ex.P1 : Marriage photo. Ex.P2 : Wedding card.

For Respondent : Nil

Sd/- P. Raja Ram

P.S.C.J., Bapatla

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (F.TC.): BAPATLA.

Present: S RI D.V ENKATESWARLU N AIK , Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla. FAC Additional Senior Civil Judge (F.T.C), Bapatla

Wednesday the 27th day of March, 2019.

OS.No.70/2010

Between: Kolla Koteswararao… Plaintif

And

1) The Pedanadipadu College of Arts and Sciences

2) The secretary and Corrspondent

3) The President

4) K Madhava rao… Defendants

This suit is coming on this day before me for in the presence of Sri JVSM ., Advocate for the Plaintif and Sri P. Raghuram, Advocate for the defendants and upon perusing the material available on record and stood over till this day, this Court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

Steps not taken. Hence suit is dismissed as abated. No costs.

Pronounced by me in the open court, this the 27th day of March, 2019.

Sd/-S RI D.V ENKATESWARLU N AIK ,

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla. FAC Additional Senior Civil Judge (F.T.C), Bapatla

: Appendix of Evidence :

No oral or documentary evidence adduced on either side.

Sd/-S RI D.V ENKATESWARLU N AIK ,

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla. FAC Additional Senior Civil Judge (F.T.C), Bapatla

// True copy //

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla. FAC Additional Senior Civil Judge (F.T.C), Bapatla