Sri P.Rajendra Prasad

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAZOLE.

PRESENT:: SRI P.RAJENDRA PRASAD, B.Sc., B.Ed., M.A., B.L.,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

Saturday, the 2nd day of May, 2015.

O.P. 42 of 2014.

Between Kadali Srinivasa Rao… Petitioner.

And

Kadali Naga Lakshmi @ Nani… Respondent.

This petition coming on 27-04-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.V. Krishnam Raju, Advocate for petitioner and the respondent called absent and set ex-parte and on perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the Petitioner counsel, this court made the following:

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed under Sec. 13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to dissolve the marriage and to grant divorce on the ground of cruelty.

2.The brief averments in the petition are as follows:-

The marriage between petitioner and respondent was performed on 21-8-2002 as per Hindu rites and caste custom at the house of parents’ of the respondent in

Vuyyurivari Meraka. The marriage between petitioner and respondent was duly consummated and during their wedlock they blessed with two female children viz., 1). Thrilokya 2). Jaya Smitha. The petitioner and respondent gave their younger daughter in adoption to the cousin brother of the petitioner when the child was aged about three months. The respondent is no other than the daughter of paternal aunt of the petitioner. The family of the petitioner and respondent’s parents are residing in the same village. The respondent joined with the petitioner and lead marital life with him in their house. By the time of marriage the petitioner was doing tailoring in

Hyderabad, so the petitioner and respondent shifted their residence to Hyderabad and lived there till the respondent became pregnant during the year 2004. The respondent was taken to her parents house for delivery and she gave birth to the female child during the year 2004. During the year 2005 the petitioner shifted to his native place and both of them lead marital life at the petitioner’s house. Later the 2 petitioner went to Mumbai and worked as tailor. During the year 2007 the petitioner went to Bahrain. Till then there were no much differences and disputes between the petitioner and respondent. The petitioner returned during the year 2009 and he came to know that the behaviour of the respondent was not good. One week after, the petitioner returned from gulf, he noticed that the respondent was talking in her cell phone and when the petitioner enquired, the respondent gave false information.

Having not satisfied with the information given by respondent, the petitioner enquired at the exchange and came to know that the person with whom the respondent talked is resident of Visweswarayapuram. Then the petitioner questioned the respondent with regard to giving false information and the respondent was taken to the house of her mother and informed about the secret talks and person with whom she was talking. Then the respondent disclosed that she did a mistake and assured that she will not repeat the things in future. Believing her words and advice of family members and elders the respondent was taken to the house of the petitioner and there they lived till November, 2009.

3.It is further stated that again the petitioner went to Bahrain during November, 2009. The respondent also visited Bahrain during February, 2010 and worked there till February, 2012. During the month of February, 2012 the petitioner and respondent came to India and both of them stayed for about one month and again went to Bahrain. The respondent returned to India during November, 2012. The petitioner advised the respondent to stay in the house and look after the welfare of the child and he also informed that he would return to India within one year and the respondent agreed for the same. During the year 2013, the respondent started to give pressures on the petitioner to permit her to go Dubai but the petitioner did not agree for the same and questioned her to entertain such an intention. Since then the respondent started to proclaim that she is interested to earn more money which will give much better comforts and living. The respondent further stated that if she sits idle in the house there is no money and she is unable to lead the life as she expected.

The petitioner used to remit his earnings to her but she is not satisfied with the same.

3

4.It is further stated that the respondent without knowledge of the petitioner went to Dubai during September, 2013 but she returned within 15 days. While working there, the respondent telephoned to petitioner and informed him that she is unable to do the work and requested him save her by sending amount so that she will return. Again having believed her words the petitioner sent an amount of Rs.45,000/- to the respondent and with the said amount the respondent could able to return to

India. The petitioner returned to India during October, 2013. The respondent requested the petitioner that she will stay in Hyderabad and if she visits their native place every one heckle her and intends to stay at Hyderabad. The respondent visited her relations house in Hyderabad and her mother also visited there. Both of them took a rented house and started to stay there. The respondent within few days used to give pressures on the petitioner to provide money to her to do business independently and she wants to earn money. The respondent did not care the advice of the petitioner and more over she is very much interested to earn money in one way or other. But the petitioner did not agree for her proposal. The respondent treated the petitioner cruelly when he expressed his inability to provide the money as demanded by her. The respondent started to leave the house on the pretext that she will observe the business trends despite protest by the petitioner. The respondent is very much interested to do business and earn money for the welfare of the family.

The relations and friends also advised the respondent that it is not proper on her part to have a such an idea. The respondent used to proclaim that the petitioner is unfit to earn money and she will show how to earn money to one and all.

5.It is further stated that the respondent caused much mental agony to the petitioner by threats and insult with regard to acquiring wealth. On 2-3-2014 the respondent left the house by representing that she is going to market but she did not return thereby the petitioner telephoned to her and enquired her and the respondent replied that she is not willing to lead marital life with him and further stated that the petitioner need not search for her and that the said fact was intimated to the mother of the respondent and to his surprise her mother informed that he need not worry for her daughter.

4

6.It is further averred that on 21-5-2014 in Hyderabad while the petitioner was going to market he found that the respondent covering her face with scarf and she tried to ran away on seeing the petitioner. Immediately the petitioner caught her and took her to the house. The respondent has developed money mania and in that she developed extra marital relations with others, as such the respondent is residing secretly leaving the matrimonial home. The conduct and behaviour of the respondent caused mental cruelty to the petitioner. The respondent is not interested to lead marital life with the petitioner. As such she selected her own path and living as she likes by leaving the petitioner and their child. There is no possibility for reconciliation between the parties and the petitioner did not file any petition under Hindu Marriage

Act previously, hence the petition.

7.After registering the petition, this court issued notice to the respondent. The respondent was set ex-parte.

8.This court has got jurisdiction to entertain the petition as the marriage between petitioner and respondent was performed at the house of respondent in

Vuyyurivari Meraka (V) of Sakhinetipalli Mandal and both the petitioner and respondent are residing at Vuyyurivari Meraka (V) of Sakhinetipalli Mandal which is within the jurisdiction of this court.

9.To substantiate the version of the petitioner, the petitioner himself was examined as P.W.1 and got examined P.Ws.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5.

I have gone through the evidence of the trio.

10.In his chief examination affidavit the petitioner/husband as P.W.1 almost reiterated the petition contents. The evidence of P.W.1 reveals that his marriage with the respondent was performed on 21-8-2002 as per Hindu rites and caste custom at the house of the parents of the respondent in Vuyyurivari Meraka and the marriage is duly consummated and during the course of their wedlock they blessed with two female children viz., 1). Thrilokya 2). Jaya Smitha and they gave their younger daughter in adoption to his cousin when the child was aged about three months. The elder daughter is residing with him. The respondent is daughter of his maternal aunt.

After the marriage the respondent joined him and they lead marital life in his house in 5

Vuyyurivari Meraka. By the time of marriage he was doing tailoring in Hyderabad so that few months after the marriage, they shifted to Hyderabad and lived there till the respondent became pregnant during the year 2004. The respondent gave birth to 1st issue during the year 2004 and 2nd issue during the year 2007. During the year 2005 she shifted to his native place from Hyderabad. Later he went to Mumbai and worked there as tailor and during the year 2007 he went to Bahrain. Till then there were no differences and disputes between him and respondent. During the year 2009 he returned to India and he came to know that the behaviour of the respondent was not good. Again he went to Bahrain during November, 2009 and the respondent also visited Bahrain during February, 2010 and worked there till February, 2012 and during the month of February, 2012 both of them together returned to India and stayed for about one month and again they went to Bahrain and the respondent returned to

India during November, 2012.

11.The evidence of P.W.1 further reveals that as per their understanding to look after the welfare of the child the respondent returned to India and he would return to

India within one year and the respondent agreed for the same. During the year 2013, the respondent started to give pressures on him to permit her to go Dubai but he did not agree for the same. But she informed that she is interested in gulf earnings by stating that which will give better comforts and living but he did not agree for her proposal. The respondent without his knowledge went to Dubai during September, 2013 but she returned within 15 days. The respondent while working there, she telephoned him stating that she was unable to do the work and requested him save her by sending amount so that she will return and believing the words of her he send an amount of Rs.45,000/- to the respondent and with the said amount the respondent could able to return to India during October, 2013. The respondent before returned to India informed him that she will stay in Hyderabad and if she visits their native place every one heckle her. The respondent and her mother took a rented house and started to stay there and after few days he returned from gulf and he directly went to the said rented house. The respondent within few days used to give pressures on him to provide money to her to do business independently and she wants to earn money.

6

The respondent is very much interested to earn money and she used to live in imaginary world.

12. The evidence of P.W.1 further reveals that the respondent treated him cruelly when he expressed his inability to provide money as demanded by her. The respondent used to abuse and insult him and she used to proclaim before friends and relations that he is unfit to earn money and she will show how money can earn. The evidence of P.W.1 further reveals that though the respondent treated him cruelly, he lead marital life with a hope that she may change her behaviour but invain. On 2-3-2014 the respondent picked up a quarrel with him and caused much mental agony to him by threats and insulted him indecent language and left the house by representing that she is going to market but she did not return. Then he telephoned to her and enquired her and she replied that she is not willing to lead marital life with him and asked him do not search for her. The said fact intimated to the mother of the respondent and to his surprise her mother informed that he need not worry for her daughter. Then he enquired for her at the houses of his relatives and friends but he could not find her. The evidence of P.W.1 further reveals that three days later the respondent telephoned him and she informed that she is going to Bahrain and return with huge money. He was under impression that the respondent left to Kuwait. The evidence of P.W.1 further reveals that on 21-5-2014 in Hyderabad while he was going to market in Alwyn colony, he found the respondent covering her face with scarf and tried to run away on seeking him and immediately he caught her and took her to their house and when he enquired her she informed that she wants money and do anything for the same. The respondent did not disclose or informed where she was residing and why she gave false information that she is in Kuwait. The respondent informed that he has no right to question her and she will live in her own way to earn money.

When he was in kitchen room, she bolted the door from outside and left. The said fact was informed to the mother of the respondent, their relations and elders. The respondent though she is residing in Hyderabad she did not disclose about her residence or place where she is living and later on enquiry, he came to know that the 7 respondent fell in the net of some organization and leading unchaste life. Then he returned to his native place and informed things to her mother and his relations.

13. The evidence of P.W.1 further reveals that the respondent has been visiting her mother at Vuyyurivari Meraka and staying with her few days but she did not agree to join with him. The mother of the respondent is fully aware of the activities of the respondent. The respondent to earn money as she like and is residing secretly leaving the matrimonial home. She did not agree to attend before the elders. Though there are several relations in Hyderabad the respondent never visited them. The conduct and behaviour of the respondent caused mental agony to him and the respondent is not interested to lead marital life with him and she selected her own path and living as she likes by leaving him and their child.

14.P.W.2 is father of P.W.1. According to his testimony, the P.W.1 is his eldest son.

He also deposed in the same lines of P.W.1.

15.P.W.3 is also close relative of P.W.1. According to his testimony P.W.1 is the son of his senior paternal uncle. He also deposed in the same lines of P.Ws.1 and 2.

16.The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 categorically reveals that mother of the respondent informed that there is no need to search for her daughter i.e., respondent. It shows the respondent has no interest to lead marital life with the petitioner. As can be seen from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 coupled with Exs.A1 to

A5, it is very clear that the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the P.W.1. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 reveals that the respondent is interested to earn money but she is not interested to lead marital life with the P.W.1 and the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 further categorically reveals that she is not bothering about her daughter.

Admittedly the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is remained unchallenged. The version of

P.W.1 that the respondent used to abuse and insult him every time before relatives and friends cannot be thrown out. The further contention of P.W.1 that the respondent fell in the net of some organization and leading unchaste life is also unchallenged. In view of the attitude of the respondent as per the evidence of P.W.1, it amounts that the petitioner was subjected to mental cruelty in the hands of the 8 respondent and the petitioner was neglected by the respondent without having any just or reasonable cause.

17.Since the above evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is remained unchallenged and I see no reason to disbelieve their evidence, I feel it is a fit case to allow the petition, as prayed for.

18.In the result petition is allowed, the marriage between petitioner and respondent is dissolved and divorce is granted on the ground of cruelty as contemplated under Sec. 13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act. No order as to costs.

Dictated to the Personal Asst. transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court, on this the 2nd day of May, 2015.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAZOLE. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined for Petitioner:

P.W.1: Kadali Srinivasa Rao P.W.2: Kadali Narasimha Swamy P.W.3: Kadali Rama Chandra Rao

Respondent: Nil. Documents Marked.

For Petitioner:

Ex.A.1/21-08-2002 : Marriage wedding card of her with the respondent Exs.A.2 to A5/21-8-2013 : Joint marriage photographs of her with the respondent. (4 in Nos.)

For Respondent: Nil.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAZOLE.

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAZOLE.

PRESENT:: SRI P.RAJENDRA PRASAD, B.Sc., B.Ed., M.A., B.L.,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

Saturday, the 2nd day of May, 2015.

O.P. 42 of 2014.

Between Kadali Srinivasa Rao, S/o Narasimha Swamy, Hindu, 35 years, D.No.1-84, Tailoring, Vuyyurivarimeraka, Sakhinetipalli Mandal.… Petitioner.

And

Kadali Naga Lakshmi @ Nani, W/o Srinivasa Rao, C/o Pithani Jhoncy, Hindu, 30 years, Vuyyurivari Meraka, Sakhinetipalli Mandal.… Respondent.

This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Sec. 13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the respondent praying the court to dissolve the marriage and to grant divorce on the ground of cruelty.

Petition presented on 22-7-2014 and filed on 22-08-2014.

A Court fee of Rs.10/- is paid under Sch.I Art.I(vii) of A.C.F. Act.

Cause of action arose on 21-8-2002 the marriage in between the petitioner and respondent took place at Viyyurivari Meraka and their marriage is duly consummated and during their wedlock they blessed with two female children and they gave their younger daughter in adoption to the cousin brother of the petitioner and by the time of marriage the petitioner was doing tailoring in Hyderabad and when the petitioner returned from Bahrain in 2009 the behaviour of the respondent was not good and she was talking secretly in her cell phones and also she gave false information regarding her talks then the respondent also visited Bahrain in February, 2010 and worked there till February, 2012 and during the year 2013 she started to give pressures on the petitioner to permit her to go to Dubai but the petitioner did not agree for the same and she stated that she is interested to ear more money which gives much better comforts and living then she went to Dubai without his knowledge and returned within 15 days and she used to live in imaginary world and she treated him cruelly and when he expressed his inability to provide money as she demanded and finally she expressed her dislike towards the petitioner then she proclaimed that she is going to gulf but she stayed in Hyderabad only and fell in the net of some organization and leading unchaste life thus the respondent caused mental cruelty to him and their marriage took place at Vuyyurivari Meraka of Sakhinetipalli Mandal which is within the jurisdiction of this court.

This petition coming on 27-04-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri

P.V. Krishnam Raju, Advocate for petitioner and the respondent called absent and set ex- 10 parte and on perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the Petitioner counsel, this court doth order and decree as follows:

1)That the petition be and the same is hereby allowed;

2)that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent performed on 21-08-2002 is dissolved and divorce is granted on the ground of cruelty as contemplated under Sec.13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act; and

3)that there shall be no costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, on this the2nd day of May, 2015.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAZOLE.

No costs memo is filed on either side.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAZOLE.

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAZOLE.

PRESENT:: SRI P.RAJENDRA PRASAD, B.Sc., B.Ed., M.A., B.L.,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

Saturday, the 2nd day of May, 2015.

O.P. 47 of 2014.

Between Yadla Bhavani… Petitioner.

And

Yadla Ravi… Respondent.

This petition coming on 01-05-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri N. Satyanarayana, Sri S. Santha Rao, Sri M. Srinivasa Rao, Advocates for petitioner and the respondent called absent and set ex-parte and on perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the Petitioner counsel, this court made the following:

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed under Sec. 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to dissolve the marriage and to grant divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

2.The brief averments in the petition are as follows:-

The marriage between petitioner and respondent was performed on 3-2-2007 as per Hindu rites and caste custom at the parents’ house of the respondent at

Kesanapalli (V) and the marriage was duly consummated. Since the respondent and his elders insisted the parents of the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards dowry, her parents gave an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and ten sovereigns of gold at the time of marriage though they belongs to poor family. The respondent misrepresented that he has passed Polytechnic course and doing job. Immediately after the marriage, the petitioner joined the respondent at his house at Kesanapalli (V) to lead marital life. During the course of their wedlock, they blessed with two female children who are named as Pratheen and Prathyunna. The respondent used to ill-treat the petitioner both physically and mentally by demanding additional dowry and more over the respondent is a vagabond and he never resorted to do any work or any job. The respondent never looked after the necessities of the petitioner and her daughters. The respondent used to beat the petitioner without any reason and he 2 sold away gold ornaments of the petitioner. In such circumstances also the petitioner lead marital life with the respondent.

3.It is further averred that in the month of November, 2009 while the petitioner was carrying 6th month pregnancy without any reason he beat and necked out her and their 1st daughter and having no other go she reached to her parents’ house at

Chennadam. The petitioner, her family members and elders tried for reconciliation but the respondent openly proclaimed before the elders that he has no interest to lead marital life with the petitioner and he wants to marry another girl as the petitioner gave birth to 2nd female child. Since 2009 the respondent never looked after the necessities of the petitioner and her daughter and he totally deserted the petitioner with an intention to put an end to the marital life with the petitioner. It is further averred that the elders of both petitioner and respondent settled the matter between them and directed the respondent to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- which was taken as dowry and ten sovereigns of gold to the petitioner and the elders directed the petitioner to file this petition. It is further averred that there is no possibility of any reconciliation and the relations between the petitioner and respondent is strained. No similar petition is pending before any court, hence filed this petition seeking divorce.

4.After registering the petition, this court issued notice to the respondent, the respondent was set ex-parte.

5.The marriage between petitioner and respondent took place at Kesanapalli (V) and at present the petitioner is residing at Cehnnadam and that both the places are within the jurisdiction of this court.

6.To substantiate the version of the petitioner, the petitioner herself was examined as P.W.1 and got examined P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A1 and A2.

I have gone through the evidence of the duo.

7.The petitioner/wife as P.W.1 in her chief examination affidavit has categorically stated that her marriage with the respondent was performed on 3-2-2007 at

Kesanapalli (V) at the parents’ house of the respondent as per Hindu rites and caste custom and the marriage was duly consummated. Since the respondent and his elders 3 insisted to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards dowry, though they belongs to poor family her parents gave an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards dowry and ten sovereigns of gold and after the marriage, she joined the respondent to lead marital life at Kesanapalli (V) and during the course of their wedlock, they blessed with two female children. The respondent misrepresented that he passed Polytechnic and doing job. The respondent used to ill-treat both physically and mentally for

additional dowry from her parents and the respondent is a vagabond and he never

never looked after her necessities so also her daughters. The respondent used to beat her without any reason and more over he sold away her gold ornaments and even in such circumstances also she lead marital life with a hope that the respondent may change his attitude but in vain.

8.The evidence of P.W.1 further reveals that while she was carrying 6th month pregnancy, in the month of November, 2009 he beat and necked out her and her 1st daughter and having no other go she reached to her parents’ house at Chennadam and subsequently she gave birth to 2nd issue. Since 2009, the respondent deserted her and though her parents raised dispute before elders, the respondent has stated that he has no interest to lead marital life with her and he wants to marry another girl.

The evidence of P.W.1 further reveals that in view of the above circumstances, the elders of both sides intervened and settled the matter and accordingly the respondent paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- which was taken towards dowry and also ten sovereigns of gold and that she filed the petition on hand. The evidence of P.W.1 further reveals that the relation between herself and the respondent is strained and there is no possibility of living together.

9.P.W.1 got marked her marriage wedding card with the respondent and joint marriage photograph of her with the respondent as Exs.A1 and A2.

10.P.W.2 is none other than the natural father of P.W.1. He also deposed in the same lines of P.W.1 regarding the marriage of P.W.1 with the respondent, payment of

Rs.1,00,000/- towards dowry and ten sovereigns of gold. The P.W.2 also deposed regarding birth of two female children to P.W.1 through the respondent. The evidence of P.W.2 further reveals that he raised dispute before elders but the 4 respondent did not agree to lead marital life with the P.W.1. The matter settled

before petitioner and respondent on the intervention of elders of both sides and that

the respondent gave the said amount of Rs.1,00,000/- which was taken towards dowry so also ten sovereigns of gold to the petitioner and both sides elders directed the petitioner to file this petition. The P.W.2 further reveals that there is no possibility of reunion between petitioner and respondent and the relationship between petitioner and respondent is strained.

11.The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.A1 and A2 categorically reveals that the respondent is none other than legally wedded husband of P.W.1 and the marriage was duly consummated and during the course of their wedlock they blessed with two female children. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 further reveals that the respondent is a vagabond and he used to beat the P.W.1 demanding her to bring

additional dowry and he necked out the P.W.1 and their 1st daughter while P.W.1 was

carrying 6th month pregnancy in the month of November, 2009. The evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 2 further reveals that though the P.Ws.1 and 2 raised dispute before elders, but the respondent openly proclaimed that he has no interest to lead marital life with the P.W.1 and he wants to marry another girl. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 further reveals that on the intervention of elders on both sides, the matter settled between petitioner and respondent and the respondent repaid Rs.1,00,000/- and ten sovereigns of gold ornaments to the P.W.1 as such the P.W.1 filed this petition. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 further reveals that there is no possibility of reunion between petitioner and respondent and the marital relationship between P.W.1 and respondent is strained. The P.W.1 is 26 years old lady and the respondent is 30 years old person. Admittedly the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is remained unchallenged. If really there is no truth in the evidence of P.W.1, the P.W.2 is natural father of P.W.1 has no necessity to speak falsehood against the respondent and in favour of P.W.1 because being natural father he may not spoil the marital life of P.W.1 and welfare of her two female children. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 categorically reveals that the respondent repaid the said amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and so also ten sovereigns of gold ornaments which was given to him at the time of marriage. The evidence of 5

P.Ws.1 and 2 categorically reveals that many times they placed the matter before elders for reconciliation but the respondent did not agree for the same.

12.The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 categorically reveals that the petitioner was subjected to physical and mental cruelty in the hands of the respondent and the petitioner was deserted by the respondent without having any just or reasonable cause since more than four years.

13.Since the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is remained unchallenged and in view of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, I feel the petition is liable to be allowed as prayed for.

14.In the result petition is allowed, the marriage between petitioner and respondent is dissolved and divorce is granted on the grounds of cruelty and desertion as contemplated under Sec. 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act. No order as to costs.

Dictated to the Personal Asst. transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court, on this the 2nd day of May, 2015.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAZOLE. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined for

Petitioner:

P.W.1: Yadla Bhavani P.W.2: Chianta Venkateswara Rao

Respondent: Nil.

Documents Marked.

For Petitioner:

Ex.A.1/03-02-2007 : Marriage wedding card of her with the respondent Ex.A.2/03-02-2007 : Joint marriage photograph of her with the respondent.

For Respondent: Nil.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAZOLE.

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAZOLE.

PRESENT:: SRI P.RAJENDRA PRASAD, B.Sc., B.Ed., M.A., B.L.,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

Saturday, the 2nd day of May, 2015.

O.P. 47 of 2014.

Between Yadla Bhavani… Petitioner.

And

Yadla Ravi… Respondent.

This petition coming on 01-05-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri N. Satyanarayana, Sri S. Santha Rao, Sri M. Srinivasa Rao, Advocates for petitioner and the respondent called absent and set ex-parte and on perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the Petitioner counsel, this court made the following:

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed under Sec. 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to dissolve the marriage and to grant divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

2.The brief averments in the petition are as follows:-

The marriage between petitioner and respondent was performed on 3-2-2007 as per Hindu rites and caste custom at the parents’ house of the respondent at

Kesanapalli (V) and the marriage was duly consummated. Since the respondent and his elders insisted the parents of the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards dowry, her parents gave an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and ten sovereigns of gold at the time of marriage though they belongs to poor family. The respondent misrepresented that he has passed Polytechnic course and doing job. Immediately after the marriage, the petitioner joined the respondent at his house at Kesanapalli (V) to lead marital life. During the course of their wedlock, they blessed with two female children who are named as Pratheen and Prathyunna. The respondent used to ill-treat the petitioner both physically and mentally by demanding additional dowry and more over the respondent is a vagabond and he never resorted to do any work or any job. The respondent never looked after the necessities of the petitioner and her daughters. The respondent used to beat the petitioner without any reason and he 2 sold away gold ornaments of the petitioner. In such circumstances also the petitioner lead marital life with the respondent.

3.It is further averred that in the month of November, 2009 while the petitioner was carrying 6th month pregnancy without any reason he beat and necked out her and their 1st daughter and having no other go she reached to her parents’ house at

Chennadam. The petitioner, her family members and elders tried for reconciliation but the respondent openly proclaimed before the elders that he has no interest to lead marital life with the petitioner and he wants to marry another girl as the petitioner gave birth to 2nd female child. Since 2009 the respondent never looked after the necessities of the petitioner and her daughter and he totally deserted the petitioner with an intention to put an end to the marital life with the petitioner. It is further averred that the elders of both petitioner and respondent settled the matter between them and directed the respondent to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- which was taken as dowry and ten sovereigns of gold to the petitioner and the elders directed the petitioner to file this petition. It is further averred that there is no possibility of any reconciliation and the relations between the petitioner and respondent is strained. No similar petition is pending before any court, hence filed this petition seeking divorce.

4.After registering the petition, this court issued notice to the respondent, the respondent was set ex-parte.

5.The marriage between petitioner and respondent took place at Kesanapalli (V) and at present the petitioner is residing at Cehnnadam and that both the places are within the jurisdiction of this court.

6.To substantiate the version of the petitioner, the petitioner herself was examined as P.W.1 and got examined P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A1 and A2.

I have gone through the evidence of the duo.

7.The petitioner/wife as P.W.1 in her chief examination affidavit has categorically stated that her marriage with the respondent was performed on 3-2-2007 at

Kesanapalli (V) at the parents’ house of the respondent as per Hindu rites and caste custom and the marriage was duly consummated. Since the respondent and his elders 3 insisted to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards dowry, though they belongs to poor family her parents gave an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards dowry and ten sovereigns of gold and after the marriage, she joined the respondent to lead marital life at Kesanapalli (V) and during the course of their wedlock, they blessed with two female children. The respondent misrepresented that he passed Polytechnic and doing job. The respondent used to ill-treat both physically and mentally for

additional dowry from her parents and the respondent is a vagabond and he never

never looked after her necessities so also her daughters. The respondent used to beat her without any reason and more over he sold away her gold ornaments and even in such circumstances also she lead marital life with a hope that the respondent may change his attitude but in vain.

8.The evidence of P.W.1 further reveals that while she was carrying 6th month pregnancy, in the month of November, 2009 he beat and necked out her and her 1st daughter and having no other go she reached to her parents’ house at Chennadam and subsequently she gave birth to 2nd issue. Since 2009, the respondent deserted her and though her parents raised dispute before elders, the respondent has stated that he has no interest to lead marital life with her and he wants to marry another girl.

The evidence of P.W.1 further reveals that in view of the above circumstances, the elders of both sides intervened and settled the matter and accordingly the respondent paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- which was taken towards dowry and also ten sovereigns of gold and that she filed the petition on hand. The evidence of P.W.1 further reveals that the relation between herself and the respondent is strained and there is no possibility of living together.

9.P.W.1 got marked her marriage wedding card with the respondent and joint marriage photograph of her with the respondent as Exs.A1 and A2.

10.P.W.2 is none other than the natural father of P.W.1. He also deposed in the same lines of P.W.1 regarding the marriage of P.W.1 with the respondent, payment of

Rs.1,00,000/- towards dowry and ten sovereigns of gold. The P.W.2 also deposed regarding birth of two female children to P.W.1 through the respondent. The evidence of P.W.2 further reveals that he raised dispute before elders but the 4 respondent did not agree to lead marital life with the P.W.1. The matter settled

before petitioner and respondent on the intervention of elders of both sides and that

the respondent gave the said amount of Rs.1,00,000/- which was taken towards dowry so also ten sovereigns of gold to the petitioner and both sides elders directed the petitioner to file this petition. The P.W.2 further reveals that there is no possibility of reunion between petitioner and respondent and the relationship between petitioner and respondent is strained.

11.The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.A1 and A2 categorically reveals that the respondent is none other than legally wedded husband of P.W.1 and the marriage was duly consummated and during the course of their wedlock they blessed with two female children. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 further reveals that the respondent is a vagabond and he used to beat the P.W.1 demanding her to bring

additional dowry and he necked out the P.W.1 and their 1st daughter while P.W.1 was

carrying 6th month pregnancy in the month of November, 2009. The evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 2 further reveals that though the P.Ws.1 and 2 raised dispute before elders, but the respondent openly proclaimed that he has no interest to lead marital life with the P.W.1 and he wants to marry another girl. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 further reveals that on the intervention of elders on both sides, the matter settled between petitioner and respondent and the respondent repaid Rs.1,00,000/- and ten sovereigns of gold ornaments to the P.W.1 as such the P.W.1 filed this petition. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 further reveals that there is no possibility of reunion between petitioner and respondent and the marital relationship between P.W.1 and respondent is strained. The P.W.1 is 26 years old lady and the respondent is 30 years old person. Admittedly the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is remained unchallenged. If really there is no truth in the evidence of P.W.1, the P.W.2 is natural father of P.W.1 has no necessity to speak falsehood against the respondent and in favour of P.W.1 because being natural father he may not spoil the marital life of P.W.1 and welfare of her two female children. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 categorically reveals that the respondent repaid the said amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and so also ten sovereigns of gold ornaments which was given to him at the time of marriage. The evidence of 5

P.Ws.1 and 2 categorically reveals that many times they placed the matter before elders for reconciliation but the respondent did not agree for the same.

12.The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 categorically reveals that the petitioner was subjected to physical and mental cruelty in the hands of the respondent and the petitioner was deserted by the respondent without having any just or reasonable cause since more than four years.

13.Since the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is remained unchallenged and in view of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, I feel the petition is liable to be allowed as prayed for.

14.In the result petition is allowed, the marriage between petitioner and respondent is dissolved and divorce is granted on the grounds of cruelty and desertion as contemplated under Sec. 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act. No order as to costs.

Dictated to the Personal Asst. transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court, on this the 2nd day of May, 2015.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAZOLE. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined for

Petitioner:

P.W.1: Yadla Bhavani P.W.2: Chianta Venkateswara Rao

Respondent: Nil.

Documents Marked.

For Petitioner:

Ex.A.1/03-02-2007 : Marriage wedding card of her with the respondent Ex.A.2/03-02-2007 : Joint marriage photograph of her with the respondent.

For Respondent: Nil.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAZOLE.

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAZOLE.

PRESENT:: SRI P.RAJENDRA PRASAD, B.Sc., B.Ed., M.A., B.L.,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

Saturday, the 2nd day of May, 2015.

O.P. 52 of 2014.

Between Tadi Kanaka Durga… Petitioner.

And

Tadi Sai Ram… Respondent.

This petition coming on 30-04-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt. G. Rajitha, Advocate for petitioner and the respondent called absent and set ex-parte and on perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the Petitioner counsel, this court made the following:

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed under Sec. 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to dissolve the marriage and to grant divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

2.The brief averments in the petition are as follows:-

The marriage between petitioner and respondent was performed on 3-3-2009 at Bala Balaji Temple, Appanapalli as per Hindu rites and caste custom. Later the petitioner joined the respondent at Nagullanka and the marriage was duly consummated and later the respondent shifted their residence to Hyderabad and the respondent worked as taxi driver there. The respondent used to come to the house in late nights under the influence of alcohol and used to beat the petitioner demanding her to bring additional dowry amount of Rs.50,000/- having not satisfied with the amount of Rs.45,000/- which was given at the time of marriage and lanchanams of

Rs.10,000/-. The petitioner used to express her inability to bring the said amount of

Rs.50,000/-. On 1-1-2012 at about 2-00 p.m. the respondent came to the house under the influence of alcohol and abused the petitioner in vulgar language and beat her indiscriminately and having came to know the same as she telephoned to her parents, they came to Hyderabad and admitted her to hospital on 4-1-2012. It is further averred that on 8-1-2012 the respondent came to petitioner’s parents house at Razole and beat the petitioner indiscriminately on the ground that she left the house at 2

Hyderabad without obtaining his permission. On that the petitioner filed a case in

C.C.No.165/2012 on the file of J.F.C.M. Court, Razole U/Secs.342, 324, 498-A I.P.C.,

Sec. 3 and 4 of D.P. Act against the respondent. It is further averred that since 1-1-2012 there are no contacts between the petitioner and respondent as the respondent completely deserted the petitioner. During the court of their wedlock they did not bless with any children. There is no chance of reunion and the marital relations between petitioner and respondent is irretrievable broken. There is no collusion in filing the petition and no proceedings are pending in any other court, hence the petition.

3.After registering the petition, this court issued notice to the respondent, the was set ex-parte.

4.The marriage between petitioner and respondent took place at Appanapalli (V) and the petitioner is residing at Razole which are within the jurisdiction of this court.

5.To prove the version of the petitioner, the petitioner herself was examined as

P.W.1 and got examined P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4.

I have gone through the evidence of the duo.

6.The petitioner/wife as P.W.1 in her chief examination affidavit almost reiterated the petition averments. The evidence of P.W.1 categorically reveals that her marriage with the respondent was performed on 3-3-2009 at Bala Balaji Temple,

Appanapalli as per Hindu rites and caste custom and the marriage was duly consummated but no issues were born to them. After some time they shifted to

Hyderabad where the respondent used to work as taxi driver. The respondent used to come to the house in late nights under the influence of alcohol and used to beat her demanding her to bring additional dowry amount of Rs.50,000/- to purchase a taxi, having not satisfied with the dowry amount of Rs.45,000/- which was given at the time of marriage and lanchanams of Rs.10,000/-. As and when the P.W.1 expressed her inability, the respondent used to beat her indiscriminately. On 1-1-2012 at about 2-00 p.m. the respondent came to the house at Hyderabad under the influence of alcohol and abused her in vulgar language and behaved as a sadist and she informed the same to her parents over phone and that her parents came to Hyderabad and admitted her 3 in hospital and on 4-1-2012 they took her to Razole and on 8-1-2012 at about 10-00 a.m., the respondent came to her parents’ house at Razole and beat her indiscriminately saying as to why she left Hyderabad without his permission and that she raised cries and on hearing her cries the neighbours came there and on seeing them he ran away. The evidence of P.W.1 further reveals that she filed a criminal case against the respondent on the file of J.F.C.M. Court, Razole. The evidence of P.W.1 further reveals that in spite of efforts made by the elders, there is no change in the attitude of the respondent and he totally deserted her from 1-1-2012. The evidence of P.W.1 further reveals that there is no possibility of reunion between them and the marital relations between herself and respondent is irretrievable broken.

P.W.1 got marked Exs.A1 to A4 i.e., her marriage wedding card with the respondent, two joint marriage photographs of herself and respondent and true copy of marriage receipt issued by Executive Officer, Bala Balaji Temple, Appanapalli respectively.

7.P.W.2 is father of P.W.1. The P.W.2 also deposed in the same lines of P.W.1.

The evidence of P.W.2 also categorically reveals that he placed the matter before elders but the respondent did not change his attitude and he openly expressed his intention that he will not join the P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.2 also reveals that there is no possibility of reunion and the attitude of the respondent towards P.W.1 amounts to legal cruelty and desertion. The evidence of P.W.2 also reveals that since 2012, the respondent deserted the P.W.1.

8.As can be seen from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to A4, it is very clear that the petitioner is legally wedded wife of the respondent. Since P.W.2 is no other than natural father of P.W.1, he has no necessity to speak falsehood against the respondent and in favour of the P.W.1. Since being natural father of P.W.1, the P.W.2 has no necessity to speak falsehood and to spoil the marital life of the petitioner with the respondent. Admittedly the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is remained unchallenged.

The P.W.1 is 25 years old woman. As can be seen from the evidence of P.W.1, it is very clear that she was subjected to both physical and mental cruelty in the hands of the respondent and she was deserted by the respondent without having any just or 4 reasonable cause since more than two years. Since the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is remained unchallenged and I see no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1 so also the evidence of P.W.2 I feel it is a fit case to allow the petition, as prayed for.

9.In the result petition is allowed, the marriage between petitioner and respondent is dissolved and divorce is granted on the grounds of cruelty and desertion as contemplated under Sec. 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act. No order as to costs.

Dictated to the Personal Asst. transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court, on this the 2nd day of May, 2015.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAZOLE. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined for

Petitioner:

P.W.1: Tadi Kanaka Durga P.W.2: Golla Narasimha Murthy

Respondent: Nil.

Documents Marked.

For Petitioner:

Ex.A.1/03-03-2009 : Marriage wedding card of her with the respondent Exs.A.2 & A3/3-3-2009 : Joint marriage photographs of her with the respondent. (2 in Nos.) Ex.A.4/03-03-2009 : True copy of marriage receipt issued by E.O., Bala Balaji Temple, Appanapalli.

For Respondent: Nil.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAZOLE.

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAZOLE.

PRESENT:: SRI P.RAJENDRA PRASAD, B.Sc., B.Ed., M.A., B.L.,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

Saturday, the 2nd day of May, 2015.

O.P. 52 of 2014.

Between Tadi Kanaka Durga… Petitioner.

And

Tadi Sai Ram… Respondent.

This petition coming on 30-04-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt. G. Rajitha, Advocate for petitioner and the respondent called absent and set ex-parte and on perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the Petitioner counsel, this court made the following:

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed under Sec. 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to dissolve the marriage and to grant divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

2.The brief averments in the petition are as follows:-

The marriage between petitioner and respondent was performed on 3-3-2009 at Bala Balaji Temple, Appanapalli as per Hindu rites and caste custom. Later the petitioner joined the respondent at Nagullanka and the marriage was duly consummated and later the respondent shifted their residence to Hyderabad and the respondent worked as taxi driver there. The respondent used to come to the house in late nights under the influence of alcohol and used to beat the petitioner demanding her to bring additional dowry amount of Rs.50,000/- having not satisfied with the amount of Rs.45,000/- which was given at the time of marriage and lanchanams of

Rs.10,000/-. The petitioner used to express her inability to bring the said amount of

Rs.50,000/-. On 1-1-2012 at about 2-00 p.m. the respondent came to the house under the influence of alcohol and abused the petitioner in vulgar language and beat her indiscriminately and having came to know the same as she telephoned to her parents, they came to Hyderabad and admitted her to hospital on 4-1-2012. It is further averred that on 8-1-2012 the respondent came to petitioner’s parents house at Razole and beat the petitioner indiscriminately on the ground that she left the house at 2

Hyderabad without obtaining his permission. On that the petitioner filed a case in

C.C.No.165/2012 on the file of J.F.C.M. Court, Razole U/Secs.342, 324, 498-A I.P.C.,

Sec. 3 and 4 of D.P. Act against the respondent. It is further averred that since 1-1-2012 there are no contacts between the petitioner and respondent as the respondent completely deserted the petitioner. During the court of their wedlock they did not bless with any children. There is no chance of reunion and the marital relations between petitioner and respondent is irretrievable broken. There is no collusion in filing the petition and no proceedings are pending in any other court, hence the petition.

3.After registering the petition, this court issued notice to the respondent, the was set ex-parte.

4.The marriage between petitioner and respondent took place at Appanapalli (V) and the petitioner is residing at Razole which are within the jurisdiction of this court.

5.To prove the version of the petitioner, the petitioner herself was examined as

P.W.1 and got examined P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4.

I have gone through the evidence of the duo.

6.The petitioner/wife as P.W.1 in her chief examination affidavit almost reiterated the petition averments. The evidence of P.W.1 categorically reveals that her marriage with the respondent was performed on 3-3-2009 at Bala Balaji Temple,

Appanapalli as per Hindu rites and caste custom and the marriage was duly consummated but no issues were born to them. After some time they shifted to

Hyderabad where the respondent used to work as taxi driver. The respondent used to come to the house in late nights under the influence of alcohol and used to beat her demanding her to bring additional dowry amount of Rs.50,000/- to purchase a taxi, having not satisfied with the dowry amount of Rs.45,000/- which was given at the time of marriage and lanchanams of Rs.10,000/-. As and when the P.W.1 expressed her inability, the respondent used to beat her indiscriminately. On 1-1-2012 at about 2-00 p.m. the respondent came to the house at Hyderabad under the influence of alcohol and abused her in vulgar language and behaved as a sadist and she informed the same to her parents over phone and that her parents came to Hyderabad and admitted her 3 in hospital and on 4-1-2012 they took her to Razole and on 8-1-2012 at about 10-00 a.m., the respondent came to her parents’ house at Razole and beat her indiscriminately saying as to why she left Hyderabad without his permission and that she raised cries and on hearing her cries the neighbours came there and on seeing them he ran away. The evidence of P.W.1 further reveals that she filed a criminal case against the respondent on the file of J.F.C.M. Court, Razole. The evidence of P.W.1 further reveals that in spite of efforts made by the elders, there is no change in the attitude of the respondent and he totally deserted her from 1-1-2012. The evidence of P.W.1 further reveals that there is no possibility of reunion between them and the marital relations between herself and respondent is irretrievable broken.

P.W.1 got marked Exs.A1 to A4 i.e., her marriage wedding card with the respondent, two joint marriage photographs of herself and respondent and true copy of marriage receipt issued by Executive Officer, Bala Balaji Temple, Appanapalli respectively.

7.P.W.2 is father of P.W.1. The P.W.2 also deposed in the same lines of P.W.1.

The evidence of P.W.2 also categorically reveals that he placed the matter before elders but the respondent did not change his attitude and he openly expressed his intention that he will not join the P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.2 also reveals that there is no possibility of reunion and the attitude of the respondent towards P.W.1 amounts to legal cruelty and desertion. The evidence of P.W.2 also reveals that since 2012, the respondent deserted the P.W.1.

8.As can be seen from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to A4, it is very clear that the petitioner is legally wedded wife of the respondent. Since P.W.2 is no other than natural father of P.W.1, he has no necessity to speak falsehood against the respondent and in favour of the P.W.1. Since being natural father of P.W.1, the P.W.2 has no necessity to speak falsehood and to spoil the marital life of the petitioner with the respondent. Admittedly the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is remained unchallenged.

The P.W.1 is 25 years old woman. As can be seen from the evidence of P.W.1, it is very clear that she was subjected to both physical and mental cruelty in the hands of the respondent and she was deserted by the respondent without having any just or 4 reasonable cause since more than two years. Since the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is remained unchallenged and I see no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1 so also the evidence of P.W.2 I feel it is a fit case to allow the petition, as prayed for.

9.In the result petition is allowed, the marriage between petitioner and respondent is dissolved and divorce is granted on the grounds of cruelty and desertion as contemplated under Sec. 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act. No order as to costs.

Dictated to the Personal Asst. transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court, on this the 2nd day of May, 2015.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAZOLE. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined for

Petitioner:

P.W.1: Tadi Kanaka Durga P.W.2: Golla Narasimha Murthy

Respondent: Nil.

Documents Marked.

For Petitioner:

Ex.A.1/03-03-2009 : Marriage wedding card of her with the respondent Exs.A.2 & A3/3-3-2009 : Joint marriage photographs of her with the respondent. (2 in Nos.) Ex.A.4/03-03-2009 : True copy of marriage receipt issued by E.O., Bala Balaji Temple, Appanapalli.

For Respondent: Nil.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAZOLE.