Sri.P.Raju

Senior Civil Judge,Vikarabad

Vikarabad, PDJ Court Complex · Vikarabad · Telangana

Sri.P.Raju, Senior Civil Judge,Vikarabad, is posted at Vikarabad, PDJ Court Complex, Vikarabad, Telangana, India. 44 court orders on record since 2020. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, H, EP cases.

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

H.M.O.P/56/2020

Sureshbabu Basanthpur vs Prasanna

06 Aug 2021

1 of 7

hmop56 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT VIKARABAD, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT: Sri P. Raju,

Prl. Sr. Civil Judge, R.R. Dist. FAC: Sr. Civil Judge, Vikarabad

Friday, on this the 06 th Day of August, 2021

H.M.O.P. No. 56 of 2020

BETWEEN:

Sureshbabu Basanthpur, S/o. Veeranna Basanthpur, aged 45 years, occ: Pvt.Employee, R/o. Flat No.3, Plot No.120 & 121, Manisha & Prathyusha, Next to: B.R. Classic, Pranam Hospital Lane,

Madinaguda, Hyderabad. … Petitioner no.,1

A N D

Smt. Prasanna, W/o. Sureshbabu Basanthpur, aged about 30 years,occ:Housewife, R/o. H.No.42202, Gumastha Colony,

Tandur, Vikarabad District. … Petitioner no.,2

This O.P. has come before me for final disposal on this day

in the presence of Sri K. Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the

Petitioner nos.,1 and 2; and having stood over for consideration

till this day this court passes the order as follows:

O R D E R

1. This petition is filed by the petitioners, who are husband

and wife, for dissolution of their marriage, under Section 13B of

the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 [for short 'the Act'], and to grant

such other relief or reliefs, in the circumstances of the case.

2 of 7

hmop56 of 2020

2. The brief averments of the affidavits, petition filed in

support of the petition, and the averments of the petition filed

by the petitioners are that:

[A] [a] The marriage between the petitioners was performed,

on 01102017 , at Arya Vysya Auditorium, Saavukarupeta, Tandur,

as per Hindu rites and customs, in the presence of their elders,

wellwishers, relatives and friends. The marriage between the

petitioners is an arranged marriage. After the marriage, the

petitioners lived together at the residence of petitioner no.,1 and

their marriage was consummated. After one year, they were

blessed with a daughter by name Rahitya, aged about two years.

Thereafter, disputes started among the petitioners and they are

not reconciled, even before the elders. There is no chance of

restitution of conjugal life, even at the intervention of elders of

both the sides. Therefore, the petitioners approached the Court.

[b] There was a Memorandum of Understanding, dated

04092020, in between the petitioners, under which, petitioner

no.,1 agreed to give an amount of Rs.5,00,000/ [Rupees Five

Lakhs only] as permanent alimony to petitioner no.,2 and to the

child by name Rahithya.

3 of 7

hmop56 of 2020

[c] Since there is no scope of living together, the

petitioners sought for mutual divorce, to dissolve their marriage,

performed on 01102017.

[d] Therefore, it is prayed for the grant of relief, by the

petitioners.

[B] [a] After institution of the case, counselling was

conducted in between the petitioners, on 19022021. But, the

petitioners did not accept for living by conjugal life.

[b] The petitioners filed their their chief examined

affidavits as PW1 and PW2 and got marked Exs.,P1 and P5,

documentary evidence.

3. [a] After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for

petitioners, on 30072021, the case is posted to today for orders.

[b] The learned counsel for the parties also filed an

affidavit, filed by petitioner no.,1/PW1 stating that he had no

objection for withdrawing Rs.5,00,000/, deposited at

‘The Advocates’ Mutually Aided Cooperative Society Ltd.,

Hyderabad, by petitioner no.,2/PW2.

4. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of the relief,

as prayed for, under Section 13B of the Act?

4 of 7

hmop56 of 2020

5. POINT:

[i] [a] On perusal of the affidavits, filed in support of the

petition, the averments of the petition, their chief examination

affidavits as PW1 and PW2 and Exs.,P1 and P5, documentary

evidence, would go to show that, after their marriage, that took

place on 01102017, the petitioners lived happily for a period of

one year and they are blessed with a female child by name

Rahithya. Thereafter, disputes arose between the petitioners,

which are not reconciled, even at the intervention of the elders

of both parties, and there is no chance of their living together of

conjugal life, between them, and, therefore, petitioner nos.,1

and 2 decided to live together by dissolving their marriage.

[b] Ex.P3 is Memorandum of Understanding between the

petitioners, under which, it was agreed that an amount of

Rs.5,00,000/ is to be paid to petitioner no.,2 /PW2 and for their

child Rahithya, and that the child is kept with petitioner

no.,2/PW2.

[ii] [a] The marriage between the petitioners took place on

01102017. The present petition was filed before the Court on

11092020. The petitioners lived together only for one year,

from the date of their marriage, on 01102017.

5 of 7

hmop56 of 2020

[b] Petitioner no.,1 /PW1 filed an affidavit, before the

Court on 23072021, stating that he had no objection for

withdrawal of Rs.5,00,000/ by petitioner no.,2/PW2, which is

deposed in the ‘The Advocates’ Mutually Aided Cooperative

Society Ltd., Vikarabad Branch. Petitioner no.,2/PW2 also filed

the said Fixed Deposit Receipt, before the Court, dated 1109

2020, for Rs.5,00,000/.

[c] Thus, in view of the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and

Exs.,P1 to P5, which are, marriage card, marriage photos,

Memorandum of Understanding between the petitioners and

Aadhaar cards of them, respectively, this court is of the opinion

that the solemnization of the marriage between the petitioners,

on 01102017 and in view of the averments in the affidavits, filed

in support of the petition and the averments in the petition, filed

by the petitioners, are true for declaring their marriage

dissolved. As the petitioners are residing, separately, after one

year of their marriage and the petition was filed before the court

on 11092020, the period can be waived as mentioned under

Section 13B of the Act, in the circumstances of the case, where

there is no possibility of the parties for consummation for

cohabitation and there are no choice of alternative, and in spite

6 of 7

hmop56 of 2020

of conducting counselling between them before the Court, on

19022021, the petitioners proceeded with their petition, by

filing their chiefexamination affidavits, in support of their case.

[d] Therefore, this court is inclined to allow the petition,

filed by the petitioners.

6. In the result, [a] the petition filed by the petitioners/ PW1

and PW2 is allowed, dissolving the marriage between petitioner

no.,1/ PW1 and petitioner no.,2/ PW2, performed on 01102017 ,

from the date of the decree, in view of the provisions under

Section 13 [B] of the Act. In the circumstances of the case, there

is no order as to costs.

[b] Send the Fixed Deposit Receipt, dated 11092020,

bearing No.172240, for Rs.,5,00,000/ [Rupees Five Lakhs only],

to the ‘The Advocates’ Mutually Aided Cooperative Society Ltd.,

Vikarabad, for encashing the same, with interest, in the name of

petitioner no.,2/ PW2, on deposit of process.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 06 th Day of August,

2021.

FAC: Senior Civil Judge Vikarabad, R.R. District 7 of 7

hmop56 of 2020

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner nos.,1 and 2::

PW1 : Mr. Sureshbabu Basanthpur,

PW2 : Smt. Prasanna.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioner nos.,1 and 2::

Ex.P1 is the marriage card of the Petitioner nos.,1 and 2.

Ex.P2 is the marriage photograph of the Petitioner nos.,1 and 2.

Ex.P3 is the Memorandum of Understanding between the Petitioner

nos.,1 and 2 dated 11092020.

Ex.P4 is the xerox copy of Aadhaar card of Petitioner No.,1/PW1.

[verified with original Aadhaar card].

Ex.P5 is the xerox copy of Aadhaar card of Petitioner No.,2/PW2.

[verified with original Aadhaar card].

FAC: Sr. Civil Judge, Vikarabad, R.R. Dist.

H.M.O.P/38/2020

Smt. Jaanam Devika W/o. Jaanam Vinod Kumar vs Sri. Jaanam Vinod Kumar

13 Aug 2021

1 of 6

hmop38 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT VIKARABAD, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT: Sri P. Raju,

Prl. Sr. Civil Judge, R.R. Dist. FAC: Sr. Civil Judge, Vikarabad

Friday, on this the 13 th Day of August, 2021

H.M.O.P. No. 38 of 2020

BETWEEN:

Smt. Jaanam Devika, W/o. Jaanam Vinod Kumar, D/o.Late Pathi Chandrashekar, aged 34 years, occ: Housyehold, R/o.H.No.1427/71135, Pent House, Padmashalini Colony, Kavadi Guda, Hyderabad – 25. Presently residing with her Mother at H.No.44122, Gandhi Colony, Vikarabad,

Vikarabad District. … Petitioner no.,1

A N D

Sri Jaanam Vinod Kumar, S/o. Baswalingam, aged about 36 years, occ: Private Job, R/o.H.No.1427/71135, Pent House, Padmashalini Colony, Kavadi Guda Hyderabad. Prsently residing their native place at: H.No.14, Salbathapur village, Bantwaram Mandal,

Vikarabad District. … Petitioner no.,2

This Original Petition has come before me for final disposal on

this day in the presence of Sri K. Srinivas Rao, Sri Ramesh Goud,

learned counsel for the Petitioners nos.,1 and 2; and having stood

2 of 6

hmop38 of 2020

over for consideration till this day this court passes the order as

follows:

O R D E R

[1] This petition is filed by the petitioners, who are wife and

husband, for dissolving their marriage under Section 13[B] of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [for short “the Act”] and to grant other

relief or reliefs as deemed fit, in the circumstances of the case.

[2] The brief averments of the affidavits, filed in support of the

petition and teh petition filed sby the petitioners are that:

[a] The marriage between the petitioners took place on

16022017 as per Hindu rites and customs at Sri Kethaki

Sangameshwara Swamy Temple, Zarasangham village and Mandal,

Sanga Reddy District. Their marriage is an arranged marriage.

After marriage, the petitioners lived for one and half month only,

and, thereafter, there arose some misunderstandings in between

them, which lead the petitioners to live, separately. Therefore,

petitioner no.,1 left to her mother’s house and petitioner no.,2 left to

his native palce Salbathapur village, Bantwaram village, Vikarabad

District.

[b] In spite of several mediations between the petitioners by

the parents, relatives and well wishers there was no fruitful result.

A panchayat was also held at Vikarabad and in the presence of

elders the petitioners told that they wanted to dissolve their

marriage, as they are unable to perform marriage obligations and

unable to live together. Thus, the petitioners mutually agreed to

3 of 6

hmop38 of 2020

dissolve their marriage, as for more than one year they are living

separately.

[c] In view of the terms of settlement, it was agreed by

petitioner no.,2 to pay Rs.16,00,000/ [Rupees One Lakhs only] to

petitioner no.,1 as permanent alimony. Out of the said amount,

Rs.8,00,000/ [Rupees Eight Lakhs only], through cheque bearing

no.,962286, drawn on Andhra Bank, Vikarabad Branch, was already

given to petitioner no.,2 and ageed to pay the remaining balance

amount. Therefore, it is prayed for the grant of the relief by the

petitioners.

[3] Counselling was conducted between the parties, on 16112020.

But, both the parties are not willing for reunion. The petitioners

examined themselves as PW1 and PW2, respectively, and got

marked Ex.P1 to P3 documentary evidence.

[4] After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the

petitioners, on 06082021, the petition is posted to today for orders.

[5] Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of the relief, as prayed for, under Section 13B of the Act?

[6] POINT:

[a] On perusal of the affidavits, filed by petitioners, their

chief examination affidavits as PW1 and PW2 and Ex.,P1 to P3

would disclose that after their marriage, on 16022017, they lead

happy marital life for a period of one and half months only and,

thereafter, they started residing, separately. The pursuations made

by their parents, wellwishers, relatives, failed and that in the

panchayat, finally, they stated before the elders that they wanted to

4 of 6

hmop38 of 2020

dissolve their marriage, as they are unable to perform marital

obligations and unable to live together. For more than one and half

years, the petitioners are residing, separately. Therefore, they filed

the petition agreeing, mutually, that their marriage should be

dissolved.

[b] As per the terms of compromise between the parties,

PW2 agreed pay of Rs.16,00,000/ to PW1 as permanent alimony.

She received Rs.8,00,000/ by way of cheque bearing no.962286,

drawn on Andhra Bank, Vikarabad Branch and a receipt is also

filed by PW1 on 06082021 that she also received Rs.8,00,000/,

in cash, from PW2, which is the outstanding amount, on 23042021,

at Vikarabad.

[c] The present petition was filed before the Court, on 08072020.

[d] Thus, in view of the affidavits filed by petitioners, as

PW1 and PW2 and Ex.,P1 to P3, which are Aadhaar cards of

petitioners and the marriage photographs, this court is of the

opinion that the solemnization of the marriage between PW1 and

PW2, on 16022017, and the averments in the petition, supported by

their affidavits, are true for declaring their marriage dissolved,

particularly, when the parties are residing separately for the last

one and half years, that the marriage between them took place, on

16022017, and the petition was filed before the Court on

08072020, the period can be waived, as mentioned under Section

13–[B] of the Act, in the circumstances of the case, where there is no

possibility of the parties resuming for cohabitation and there are

chances of alternative rehabilitation. Further, in spite of

5 of 6

hmop38 of 2020

conducting counselling between them before the Court, on

16112020, the petitioners proceeded with the petition, by filing

their chief examination affidavits as PW1 and PW2, in support of

their case. Therefore, this court is inclined to allow the petition

filed by the petitioners.

[7] In the result, the petition filed by the petitioners/ PW1 and

PW2 is allowed, dissolving the marriage between petitioner no.,1/

PW1 and petitioner no.,2/ PW2, performed on 16022017, from the

date of the decree, in view of the provisions under Section 13 [B] of

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

costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13 th Day of August, 2021.

FAC: Senior Civil Judge Vikarabad, R.R. District

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner nos.,1 and 2::

PW1 : Smt. J. Devika,

PW2 : Mr. J. Vinod Kumar.

6 of 6

hmop38 of 2020

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioner nos.,1 and 2::

Ex.P1 is the Original Aadhaar card of Petitioner No.,1/PW1.

Ex.P2 is the Original Aadhaar card of Petitioner No.,2/PW2.

Ex.P3 is the marriage photographs of the petitioners.

FAC: Sr. Civil Judge, Vikarabad, R.R. Dist.

H.M.O.P/57/2020

Radhika Alias Kistapuram Bhargavi vs S. Ravi Kishore Reddy Alias S. Ravi Kishore

13 Aug 2021

1 of 5

hmop57 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT VIKARABAD, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT: Sri P. Raju,

Prl. Sr. Civil Judge, R.R. Dist. FAC: Sr. Civil Judge, Vikarabad

Friday, on this the 13 th Day of August, 2021

H.M.O.P. No. 57 of 2020

BETWEEN:

Smt. Radhika @ Kistapuram Bhargavi, W/o. S. Ravi Kishore Reddy, aged 26 years, occ: Household, R/o. Balampet village, Doultabad Mandal, Presently R/o.H.No.1120, Parvathpally

village, Basheerabad Mandal, Vikarabad. … Petitioner no.,1

A N D

S. Ravi Kishore Reddy @ S. Ravi Kishore, S/o. Narayana Reddy, aged 31 years, occ: DCC Bank Employee, R/o. Balampet village, Doultabad Mandal,

Tandur, Vikarabad District. … Petitioner no.,2

This Original Petition has come before me for final disposal

on this day in the presence of Sri G. Hanumanth Reddy, learned

counsel for the Petitioner nos.,1 and 2; and having stood over for

consideration till this day this court passes the order as follows:

O R D E R

1. This petition is filed by the petitioners, who are wife and

husband, for dissolution of their marriage, under Section 13B of

2 of 5

hmop57 of 2020

the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 [for short 'the Act'], and to grant

such other order or orders, in the interest of justice.

2. The brief averments of the affidavits filed by the

petitioners, in support of the petition, and the averments of them

in the petition are that:

[i] [a] Their marriage took place, on 23082018, at Arya

Vyshya Kalyana Mantapam, Tandur, Vikarabad District, as per

Hindu customs and rituals

[b] After marriage, they lead their marital life for a period

of one week, that is, from 23082018 to 30082018. The marriage

between the petitioners is as per the will and wish of their

parents. There are no issues, in between the petitioners, out of

their marriage, as their marriage was not consummated.

[c] The petitioners deserted from 30082018 onwards and

they are living separately at their parents houses and from

30082018 there is no marital life between the petitioners.

[d] The elders, relatives and friends made every effort for

leading marital life, on 30082018. But, there is no possibility

between the petitioners to continue their marital life.

Therefore, the petitioners decided to dissolve their marriage, by

way of decree of divorce.

[e] In view of the settlement between the parties,

petitioner no.,2 agreed to pay an amount of Rs.12,15,000/ [Rupees

Twelve Lakhs and Fifteen Thousand only] to petitioner no.,1 as

permanent alimony and the said amount was received by

petitioner no.,1.

3 of 5

hmop57 of 2020

[f] Therefore, it is prayed for the grant of the relief, by

the petitioners.

[ii] [a] After institution of the case, counselling was

conducted in between the petitioners, on 12022021. But, the

petitioners reported that they are not willing to live together.

[b] The petitioners filed their chief examination affidavits

as PW1 and PW2 and got marked Exs.,P1 and P2, selfattested

copies of Aadhaar cards and Original Aadhaar cards of the

petitioners.

3. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for

petitioners, on 06082021, the petition is posted to today for

orders.

4. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of the relief,

as prayed for, under Section 13B of the Act?

5. POINT:

[a] On perusal of the affidavits of PW1 and PW2, filed in

support of the petition, the averments of the petition, their chief

examination affidavits as PW1 and PW2 and Exs., P1 and P2,

documentary evidence, would disclose that their marriage took

place on 23082018, that they lead marital life for a period of a

week only, that is, from 23082018 to 30082018, that there is no

consummation of their marriage and that since 30082018

onwards they are living separately. Since there was no fruitful

results of the elders, relatives and friends on 30082018, it was

decided by the petitioners, voluntarily and independently to

4 of 5

hmop57 of 2020

dissolve their marriage. Therefore, PW1 and PW2 filed the

petition.

[b] Pursuant to the settlement between PW1 and PW2,

PW2 paid an amount of Rs.12,15,000/ [Rupees Twelve Lakhs and

Fifteen Thousand only] to PW1 as permanent alimony and it was

accepted by PW1. The present petition was filed before the

Court on 15092020.

[c] Thus, in view of the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and

Exs.,P1 and P2, which are, Aadhaar cards of the petitioners,

respectively, this court is of the opinion that the solemnization of

the marriage between the petitioners, on 23082018, and in view

of the averments in the affidavits, filed in support of the petition

and the averments in the petition, filed by the petitioners, are

true for declaring their marriage dissolved, particularly, PW1

and PW2 are residing, separately, from 30082018 and the

petition was filed before the court on 15092020, the period can

be waived as mentioned under Section 13B of the Act by

allowing I.A.no.,553 of 2020, in the circumstances of the case,

where there is no possibility resuming for cohabitation and there

are chances of alternative rehabilitation. Further, in spite of

conducting counselling between them before the Court, on

12022021, the petitioners proceeded with their petition,

by filing their chiefexamination affidavits, in support of their

case.

[d] Therefore, this court is inclined to allow the petition,

filed by the petitioners.

5 of 5

hmop57 of 2020

6. In the result, the petition filed by the petitioners/ PW1 and

PW2 is allowed, dissolving the marriage between petitioner

no.,1/ PW1 and petitioner no.,2/ PW2, performed on 23082018,

from the date of the decree, in view of the provisions under

Section 13 [B] of the Act. In the circumstances of the case, there

is no order as to costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13 th Day of August, 2021.

FAC: Senior Civil Judge Vikarabad, R.R. District

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner nos.,1 and 2::

PW1 : Smt. K. Bhargavi,

PW2 : Mr. S. Ravi Kishore Reddy.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioner nos.,1 and 2::

Ex.P1 is the selfattested copy of Aadhaar card of Petitioner No.,1/PW1.

[verified with original Aadhaar card].

Ex.P2 is the selfattested copy of Aadhaar card of Petitioner No.,2/PW2.

[verified with original Aadhaar card].

FAC: Sr. Civil Judge, Vikarabad, R.R. Dist.

SC/30/2021

PS - DOMA vs Kolla Ramesh

06 Aug 2021

SC/260/2015

SHO,P.S.Kulakcherla vs Jorigalla Ramulu

06 Aug 2021

Order Record 39 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
H.M.O.P/38/2020	Smt. Jaanam Devika W/o. Jaanam Vinod Kumar vs Sri. Jaanam Vinod Kumar	13 Aug 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/57/2020	Radhika Alias Kistapuram Bhargavi vs S. Ravi Kishore Reddy Alias S. Ravi Kishore	13 Aug 2021	order	—
SC/30/2021	PS - DOMA vs Kolla Ramesh	06 Aug 2021	Others	—
SC/260/2015	SHO,P.S.Kulakcherla vs Jorigalla Ramulu	06 Aug 2021	Others	—
H.M.O.P/56/2020	Sureshbabu Basanthpur vs Prasanna	06 Aug 2021	order	—
EP/16/2019	Shahejudi vs Syed Arief	23 Jul 2021	Others	—
S.O.P/2/2020	Pathlavath Mounika vs Pathlavath Hemli Bai	23 Jul 2021	Others	—
OS/23/2021	M/s Edifice Infra A registered partnership rep by Rep by its Mang Partner, Sri. Charuwaka Mitra , vs M.A Haleem Hamid	30 Jun 2021	order	—
OS/47/2020	Sri. Hrijan @ Eedammabavi @ Boppi Beeda Kumar vs Sri. Harijan @ Eedammabavi @ Boppi Narsaiah	28 Jun 2021	order	—
OS/243/2019	Vadla Esawaramma vs Vadla Anandam Charry	21 Jun 2021	Others	—
OS/45/2020	M/s Seetaramaiah Dairy Farm vs Smt. N. Usha	18 Jun 2021	Others	—
OS/48/2019	Puppalla Sunitha vs Eaga Swadeep Raju	11 Jun 2021	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/60/2020	Chokkampeta Nagaraju vs Chokkapeta Sumalatha	11 Jun 2021	order	—
OS/9/2017	P.Anantaiah vs P.Pentaiah	30 Apr 2021	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/50/2020	Sri. Kondannolla Venkat Reddy vs Smt. Kondannolla @ Padmati Yashodhara, W/o. Venkat Reddy	30 Apr 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/61/2020	B. Santhosha vs B. Rama Krishna	23 Apr 2021	order	—
EP/22/2017	Gopala Krishna vs Sathanagari Mogulappa	16 Apr 2021	Others	—
OS/52/2020	Smt. Kummari Laxmi Alias Pushpamma vs Smt. Kummari Anjamma	26 Mar 2021	Others	—
OS/107/2011	m sandeep patil vs Vsm baswanappa patel	19 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
EP/6/2020	Sri. Kandivanam Jaganmohan Reddy vs Barka Yadaiah	05 Mar 2021	Others	—
OS/287/2019	Barkat Alam Khan vs B.Govardhan Reddy	05 Mar 2021	Others	—
H.M.O.P/50/2018	Gollaguda Sudheer Reddy vs Battagudm Swapna	05 Mar 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/93/2019	B.Vinayak Kumar vs B.Nagarani	05 Mar 2021	order	—
OS/198/2018	Tuppari Shiva Kumar vs Tuppari Sanjeeva	01 Mar 2021	Others	—
EP/9/2016	K.Santosh Kumar vs B.Jaganatha	12 Feb 2021	Others	—
OS/51/2019	Smt.Chanugomula Buchamma vs Chevella Balakistaiah	12 Feb 2021	Others	—
OS/39/2016	Feroz khan vs Kandanelly Sujatha	05 Feb 2021	Others	—
OS/176/2016	boya Narsiulu vs Golla Ramulu	05 Feb 2021	Others	—
OS/220/2019	Mrs. Waheeda Unnisa Begum vs The Tahsildar Moinabad	05 Feb 2021	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/35/2020	Pitala Suresh Kumar vs Dasari Santhoshi Kumari	05 Feb 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/80/2019	Pichakuntla Mahesh Kumar vs T.Sumalatha	29 Jan 2021	order	—
OS/43/2018	J.Krishna vs J.ram Chander	22 Jan 2021	Others	—
S.O.P/1/2020	Sara Narsubai vs Senior Divisional Personal Officer/ SC Railways	22 Jan 2021	Others	—
OS/124/2018	Algani Anjaneyulu vs Peddeti Mahender	19 Jan 2021	Others	—
OS/41/2020	Sheri Buchamma vs Katne Mallamma W/o. Mallesh	29 Dec 2020	Others	—
OS/33/2020	Sri. Pantham Sanjeev Kumar vs Garapati Srinivas Babu	22 Dec 2020	Others	—
OS/135/2015	Gujjari Pandu Rangam vs G.Raj Kumar	14 Dec 2020	Others	—
OS/64/2020	M/s Sai Sindhu Developers rep. by its proprietor Sri. P. Tharun Raju vs Racharla Srikanth Verma	07 Dec 2020	Others	—
OS/66/2020	M/s Sai Sindhu Developers rep. by its Proprietor, Sri. P. Tharun Raju vs Racharla Satyanarayana	07 Dec 2020	Others	—

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Aug 2021		5
Jul 2021		2
Jun 2021		10
Apr 2021		4
Mar 2021		8
Feb 2021		6
Jan 2021		4
Dec 2020		5

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri.P.Raju handled?

Sri.P.Raju has handled 44 court orders since 2020 at Vikarabad, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 5 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri.P.Raju hear?

Based on available records, Sri.P.Raju primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Sessions Cases) at Vikarabad, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is Sri.P.Raju currently posted?

Sri.P.Raju is posted as Senior Civil Judge,Vikarabad at Vikarabad, PDJ Court Complex, Vikarabad, Telangana.

Are judgments by Sri.P.Raju available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Sri.P.Raju are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri.P.Raju dispose cases?

Sri.P.Raju disposes approximately 5 cases per month, based on 44 orders handled over their tenure at Vikarabad, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is Sri.P.Raju serving?

Sri.P.Raju has been serving at Vikarabad, PDJ Court Complex since 2020.

Case Types

OS 59%

H 23%

EP 9%

S 5%

SC 5%

Posting History

Nov 2020 — Aug 2021

Senior Civil Judge,Vikarabad · 44 orders

Other Judges at this Court

Sri M.Naga Raju

Principal District and Sessions Judge,Vikarabad

1 orders

Sri P.Pradeep Naik

I Addl District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Ses...

0 orders

Rallabandi Santhi Latha

Principal Junior Civil Judge

351 orders

Ms. S.Vaishnavi

I Addl Junior Civil Judge, Vikarabad

181 orders

Sri. M. Venkateswarlu

Senior Civil Judge,Vikarabad

403 orders

← View all judges at Vikarabad, PDJ Court Complex

Sri.P.Raju

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT VIKARABAD, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT: Sri P. Raju,

Friday, on this the 06 th Day of August, 2021

Madinaguda, Hyderabad. … Petitioner no.,1

A N D

Tandur, Vikarabad District. … Petitioner no.,2

This O.P. has come before me for final disposal on this day

in the presence of Sri K. Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the

Petitioner nos.,1 and 2; and having stood over for consideration

O R D E R

and wife, for dissolution of their marriage, under Section 13­B of

the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 [for short 'the Act'], and to grant

such other relief or reliefs, in the circumstances of the case.

support of the petition, and the averments of the petition filed

[A] [a] The marriage between the petitioners was performed,

on 01­10­2017 , at Arya Vysya Auditorium, Saavukarupeta, Tandur,

as per Hindu rites and customs, in the presence of their elders,

well­wishers, relatives and friends. The marriage between the

petitioners is an arranged marriage. After the marriage, the

petitioners lived together at the residence of petitioner no.,1 and

their marriage was consummated. After one year, they were

blessed with a daughter by name Rahitya, aged about two years.

Thereafter, disputes started among the petitioners and they are

not reconciled, even before the elders. There is no chance of

restitution of conjugal life, even at the intervention of elders of

both the sides. Therefore, the petitioners approached the Court.

[b] There was a Memorandum of Understanding, dated

04­09­2020, in between the petitioners, under which, petitioner

no.,1 agreed to give an amount of Rs.5,00,000/­ [Rupees Five

Lakhs only] as permanent alimony to petitioner no.,2 and to the

[c] Since there is no scope of living together, the

petitioners sought for mutual divorce, to dissolve their marriage,

[d] Therefore, it is prayed for the grant of relief, by the

[B] [a] After institution of the case, counselling was

conducted in between the petitioners, on 19­02­2021. But, the

[b] The petitioners filed their their chief examined

affidavits as PW­1 and PW­2 and got marked Exs.,P­1 and P­5,

petitioners, on 30­07­2021, the case is posted to today for orders.

[b] The learned counsel for the parties also filed an

affidavit, filed by petitioner no.,1/PW­1 stating that he had no

objection for withdrawing Rs.5,00,000/­, deposited at

‘The Advocates’ Mutually Aided Co­operative Society Ltd.,

Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of the relief,

[i] [a] On perusal of the affidavits, filed in support of the

petition, the averments of the petition, their chief examination

affidavits as PW­1 and PW­2 and Exs.,P­1 and P­5, documentary

evidence, would go to show that, after their marriage, that took

place on 01­10­2017, the petitioners lived happily for a period of

one year and they are blessed with a female child by name

Rahithya. Thereafter, disputes arose between the petitioners,

which are not reconciled, even at the intervention of the elders

of both parties, and there is no chance of their living together of

conjugal life, between them, and, therefore, petitioner nos.,1

and 2 decided to live together by dissolving their marriage.

[b] Ex.P­3 is Memorandum of Understanding between the

petitioners, under which, it was agreed that an amount of

Rs.5,00,000/­ is to be paid to petitioner no.,2 /PW­2 and for their

child Rahithya, and that the child is kept with petitioner

[ii] [a] The marriage between the petitioners took place on

01­10­2017. The present petition was filed before the Court on

11­09­2020. The petitioners lived together only for one year,

[b] Petitioner no.,1 /PW­1 filed an affidavit, before the

Court on 23­07­2021, stating that he had no objection for

withdrawal of Rs.5,00,000/­ by petitioner no.,2/PW­2, which is

deposed in the ‘The Advocates’ Mutually Aided Co­operative

Society Ltd., Vikarabad Branch. Petitioner no.,2/PW­2 also filed

the said Fixed Deposit Receipt, before the Court, dated 11­09­

[c] Thus, in view of the evidence of PW­1 and PW­2 and

Exs.,P­1 to P­5, which are, marriage card, marriage photos,

Memorandum of Understanding between the petitioners and

Aadhaar cards of them, respectively, this court is of the opinion

that the solemnization of the marriage between the petitioners,

on 01­10­2017 and in view of the averments in the affidavits, filed

in support of the petition and the averments in the petition, filed

by the petitioners, are true for declaring their marriage

dissolved. As the petitioners are residing, separately, after one

year of their marriage and the petition was filed before the court

on 11­09­2020, the period can be waived as mentioned under

and wife, for dissolution of their marriage, under Section 13B of

on 01102017 , at Arya Vysya Auditorium, Saavukarupeta, Tandur,

wellwishers, relatives and friends. The marriage between the

04092020, in between the petitioners, under which, petitioner

no.,1 agreed to give an amount of Rs.5,00,000/ [Rupees Five

conducted in between the petitioners, on 19022021. But, the

affidavits as PW1 and PW2 and got marked Exs.,P1 and P5,

petitioners, on 30072021, the case is posted to today for orders.

affidavit, filed by petitioner no.,1/PW1 stating that he had no

objection for withdrawing Rs.5,00,000/, deposited at

‘The Advocates’ Mutually Aided Cooperative Society Ltd.,

affidavits as PW1 and PW2 and Exs.,P1 and P5, documentary

place on 01102017, the petitioners lived happily for a period of

[b] Ex.P3 is Memorandum of Understanding between the

Rs.5,00,000/ is to be paid to petitioner no.,2 /PW2 and for their

01102017. The present petition was filed before the Court on

11092020. The petitioners lived together only for one year,

[b] Petitioner no.,1 /PW1 filed an affidavit, before the

Court on 23072021, stating that he had no objection for

withdrawal of Rs.5,00,000/ by petitioner no.,2/PW2, which is

deposed in the ‘The Advocates’ Mutually Aided Cooperative

Society Ltd., Vikarabad Branch. Petitioner no.,2/PW2 also filed

the said Fixed Deposit Receipt, before the Court, dated 1109

[c] Thus, in view of the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and

Exs.,P1 to P5, which are, marriage card, marriage photos,

on 01102017 and in view of the averments in the affidavits, filed

on 11092020, the period can be waived as mentioned under

Section 13B of the Act, in the circumstances of the case, where

19022021, the petitioners proceeded with their petition, by

filing their chiefexamination affidavits, in support of their case.

and PW2 is allowed, dissolving the marriage between petitioner

no.,1/ PW1 and petitioner no.,2/ PW2, performed on 01102017 ,

[b] Send the Fixed Deposit Receipt, dated 11092020,

bearing No.172240, for Rs.,5,00,000/ [Rupees Five Lakhs only],

to the ‘The Advocates’ Mutually Aided Cooperative Society Ltd.,

Ex.P3 is the Memorandum of Understanding between the Petitioner

Ex.P4 is the xerox copy of Aadhaar card of Petitioner No.,1/PW1.

Ex.P5 is the xerox copy of Aadhaar card of Petitioner No.,2/PW2.

husband, for dissolving their marriage under Section 13[B] of the

16022017 as per Hindu rites and customs at Sri Kethaki

petitioner no.,2 to pay Rs.16,00,000/ [Rupees One Lakhs only] to

Rs.8,00,000/ [Rupees Eight Lakhs only], through cheque bearing

[3] Counselling was conducted between the parties, on 16112020.

examined themselves as PW1 and PW2, respectively, and got

petitioners, on 06082021, the petition is posted to today for orders.

chief examination affidavits as PW1 and PW2 and Ex.,P1 to P3

would disclose that after their marriage, on 16022017, they lead

by their parents, wellwishers, relatives, failed and that in the