Sri. P. Ravi

DVC No.28 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS AT MANCHERIAL

PRESENT:- SRI P. RAVI, Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial.

Wednesday this the 8 th of November, 2023

DVC. No. 28 of 2023

BETWEEN:-

1. Kampelli Anusha W/o Shyam Kumar D/o Athmakuri Poshaiah, 30 years, Household, R/o H.No.18-287, Jyothinagar, Ramakrishnapur, R/M Mandamarri

2. Kampelli Shanvitha D/o Shyam Kumar, 3 years, minor represented by her mother and guardian Kampelli Anusha

...Petitioners

AND

1. Kampelli Shyam Kumar S/o Durgaiah, 33 years, Private employee

2. Kampelli Durgaiah S/o Durgaiah, 60 years, Retired Singareni employee

3. Kampelli Laxmi W/o Durgaiah, 55 years, Household All are R/o H.No.1-7-60, Shirke colony, CCC Naspur, District Mancherial …Respondents

This petition is coming before me on 07.11.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri A. Satyanarayana, Advocate for petitioners and the respondents having remained ex parte and on hearing the counsel for plaintiff and on perusal of material on record, the court made the following:-

:: O R D E R ::

1.This petition is filed by the Aggrieved Persons under sections 12 of

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the

Respondents praying the Court to grant the following reliefs: -

Nov 8 1/8 PRL.JMFC, MNCL

DVC No.28 of 2023

(i) To pass protection order prohibiting the respondents from causing domestic violence towards the petitioners.

(ii)To direct the respondent No.1 to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the petitioner No.1, and Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner No.2 from the date of petition.

(iii) To direct the respondents to return cash of Rs.2,50,000/-, 4 ½ tulas of gold, Pulsar motorcycle and household articles worth of Rs.1,00,000/- which were presented by the parents of petitioner No.1.

(iv)To direct the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- to the petitioner No.1 on account of domestic violence caused to her.

(v)Any other relief for which the Aggrieved persons are entitled in the given circumstances.

(vi)The cost of the proceedings.

2.Case of the petitioners as per the petition, in brief, is that the petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent No.1 and their marriage was performed on 15.03.2017 at her parents house as per Christian customs and both the parties are converted Christians. At the time of marriage, the parents of petitioner no.1 gave Rs.2,50,000/- cash, 4 ½ tulas of gold, one Pulsar motorcycle worth of Rs.1,00,000/- and other household articles worth of Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondents on their demand.

Nov 8 2/8 PRL.JMFC, MNCL

DVC No.28 of 2023 2(i)After the marriage, petitioner no.1 joined with the respondent no.1 at her in-laws house and lived with him. Out of their wedlock, petitioner No.1 blessed with one daughter, who is petitioner no.2. Thereafter, all the respondents started harassing the petitioner No.1 mentally and physically by demanding additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-. The respondent no.1 used to abuse and beat her for additional dowry and used to come to the house in drunken condition and harass the petitioner no.1. Respondents No.2 and 3 have taken away the dowry amount and cleared their loans and paid some chit amounts and respondent No.2 promised to repay the said amount on his retirement but he failed.

2(ii)The respondents used to beat her and send her to her parents house to bring additional dowry. In this regard, 4 or 5 panchayaths were conducted in the presence of elders and the elders found fault with the respondents and admonished them but the respondents did not change their attitude.

About six months back, all the respondents abused and beat petitioner No.1 and necked her out of the matrimonial home demanding her to bring

additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-. Since then petitioner No.1 is staying in her

parents house with petitioner No.2. Thus, all the respondents caused domestic violence to the petitioners and neglected them for maintenance.

Nov 8 3/8 PRL.JMFC, MNCL

DVC No.28 of 2023 2(iii)Petitioner No.1 is not having any source of income and she is household lady. Respondent No.1 is working as private employee and earning Rs.30,000/- per month and he is having sufficient means to provide maintenance to the petitioners. Petitioner No.1 requires Rs.10,000/- per month and petitioner No.2 requires Rs.5,000/- per month for their maintenance to meet the expenses of shelter, food, clothes and medicines etc. Hence, this petition.

3.After numbering the petition, notices were issued to the Respondents.

After receiving the notice, the respondents are absent and there is no representation on their behalf. As such they are set ex parte on 24.01.2023.

The 1st petitioner examined herself as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4.

4.Now the point that arises for determination is:

“Whether the petitioners are entitled for the reliefs as claimed in the petition from the Respondents”?

5.P O I N T:

5(i).The petitioner No.1 is stepped into witness box as PW-1 and filed her chief examination affidavit reiterating the contents of petition. As the

Respondents are set exparte, the evidence of PW-1 is remained unchallenged. From the unchallenged testimony of PW-1 coupled with Ex.P1

Nov 8 4/8 PRL.JMFC, MNCL

DVC No.28 of 2023 to Ex.P4, it is crystal clear that the PW-1 is the wife and petitioner No.2 is the daughter of the Respondent No.1. It is also clear that due to the harassment of the Respondents, the petitioners are residing at the house of parents of petitioner No.1. It is also clear that the Respondent No.1 neglected the petitioners and the petitioners are not having any means. On perusal of entire case record, PW1 stated that the respondent No.1 is a private employee and used to earn Rs.30,000/- per month. She has not filed any document to show the income of the Respondent No.1. Being husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2, it is moral as well as legal obligation on the part of the Respondent No.1 to maintain the petitioners.

By considering the present days cost of living and the evidence of PW-1 available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that granting an amount of Rs.3,000/-( Rupees Three Thousand only) per month towards maintenance of petitioner No.1 and Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand only) to the petitioner No.2, would meet the ends of justice.

5(ii)So far as the protection order under Section 18 is concerned, since, it is already established that the respondents have subjected the 1st petitioner to

Nov 8 5/8 PRL.JMFC, MNCL

DVC No.28 of 2023 domestic violence and the PWDV Act is a social welfare legislation, the 1st petitioner is entitled to the protection under Section 18 of the PWDV Act.

5(iii). So far as the presentation of cash of Rs.2,50,000/- and 4 ½ tulas of gold, one pulsar motorcycle worth of Rs.1,00,000/- and household articles worth of Rs.1,00,000/- is concerned, it is the evidence of the petitioner that her parents presented the same at the time of marriage due to love and affection. Except the oral testimony of PW-1, there is no evidence to prove the same. In the above circumstances, it can be held that no direction can be given to the Respondents to return the cash, gold, pulsar motorcycle and household articles to the petitioner No.1.

5(iv)So far as the amount to be granted towards compensation is concerned, PW1 did not produce any positive or cogent evidence regarding the immovable properties or income of the respondent No.1 to arrive at a definite conclusion. Further in the absence of any income proof of the

Respondent No.1, if any amount is granted towards compensation, he may not be in a position to pay the same. Moreover, it cannot be said that the amount as claimed by the aggrieved person would compensate her

Nov 8 6/8 PRL.JMFC, MNCL

DVC No.28 of 2023 sufferance in the hands of respondents. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant an amount towards compensation. The point is answered accordingly.

6.IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed partly by granting monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand only)per month to the petitioner No.1 and Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand only) per month to the petitioner No.2 from the date of petition. The total monthly maintenance amount is Rs.5,000/- per month.The respondents are directed not to commit any further acts of domestic violence upon the 1st petitioner.

The Respondent No.1 is directed to pay maintenance awarded to the petitioners on or before 10th day of every calendar month directly depositing in the bank account of the petitioner No.1. The arrears of maintenance accrued from the date of the petition till the date of the order shall be paid within six months from the date of this order. The petition is dismissed with regarding to the other reliefs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8 th day of November 2023

PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MANCHERIAL

Nov 8 7/8 PRL.JMFC, MNCL

DVC No.28 of 2023

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PETITIONERS: FOR THE RESPONDENTS:

PW1 Kampelli Anusha Ex parte

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P1 Wedding card dated 15.03.2017 - NIL -

Ex.P2 Marriage photos (2)

Ex.P3 Copy of certificate of marriage

Ex.P4 Copy of aadhar card of petitioner No.1

PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MANCHERIAL

Nov 8 8/8 PRL.JMFC, MNCL

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

MANCHERIAL

Present: - Sri P. Ravi Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Mancherial

TUESDAY THE 7 TH OF NOVEMBER 2023

O.S. NO. 230 OF 2022

Between:

Ravikanti Vyas S/o Satyanarayana, 27 years, Businessman, R/o H.No.4-57/4, Janmabhoomi Nagar, Mancherial … PLAINTIFF AND

1) Chevva Raju S/o Sathaiah, 43 years, Businessman, R/o H.No.9-96, Goseva MandalRoad,Mancherial,District Mancherial

2) Shankar Neelam S/o Hanumanthu, 46 years, FM-IV, AEE CIV, SDII in Telangana State Power Generation Corporation Limited, Ramagundam Thermal Station, Ramagundam, District Peddapalli, Emp. ID No.01010730, R/o Q.No.D-36, A colony, TS Genco, Ramagundam, District Peddapalli … DEFENDANTS

This suit coming on 06.11.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Bandavaram Jagan, counsel for the plaintiff and the defendants having remained ex parte, upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

PRL.JCJ, MNCL

2

O.S. No. 230 of 2022

On the file of

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Mancherial

J U D G M E N T

1) This suit has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of

Rs.6,64,000/-, based on promissory note dated 07.02.2021 for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 2% per month and the 2nd defendant is the guarantor of the said promissory note. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendants failed to repay the debt amount. Hence, the plaintiff has issued legal notice dated 27.04.2022 to the defendants, but did not repay the amount, hence the plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of amount.

2)In this case the defendant did not contest the case and remained ex-parte.

3)The plaintiff himself was examined as P.W.1 and got marked

Exs.A1 to A5.

4)Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

PRL.JCJ, MNCL

3

O.S. No. 230 of 2022

On the file of

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Mancherial

5)Now the point for consideration is whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount, as prayed for?

6)POINT:- The case and evidence of PW-1 is that on 07.02.2021, the 1st defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, for his family and personal necessities and executed Ex.A-1 pronote in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest at 2% per month and the 2nd defendant is the guarantor of the said Ex.A1. In spite of repeated demands, the defendants did not repay the amount due based on the promissory note with interest. The plaintiff got issued Ex.A-2 legal notice but did not repay the amount.

7)In support of the evidence of plaintiff, himself was examined as

P.W.1, he also got marked Exs.A.1 to Ex.A-5. Since the defendants are set ex parte, the evidence of P.W.1 remained un-challenged and un-impeached. In view of the un-challenged testimony of P.W.1 and on perusal of Ex.A.1 to A-5, this Court is satisfied that the plaintiff has proved his case, for grant of decree for a sum of Rs. 6,64,000/-, together with subsequent interest on the principal amount of

PRL.JCJ, MNCL

4

O.S. No. 230 of 2022

On the file of

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Mancherial

Rs.5,00,000/- and costs. Hence, the point is answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiff.

8)IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs against defendants for Rs. 6,64,000/-, together with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a., till the date of realization.

Typed by the Stenographer to my dictation and after correction pronounced by me in open Court this the 7th day of November 2023.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MANCHERIAL

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined for Plaintiff :- for Defendants:-

P.W.1: Ravikanti Vyas-None- (ex-Parte)

Documents Marked

Ex.A.1 : Original promissory note dated 07.02.2021- NIL - Ex.A.2 : Office copy of legal notice dated 27.04.2022 Ex.A.3 : Postal receipt dated 27.04.2022 Ex.A.4 : Returned RP cover of D1 dated 28.04.2022 Ex.A.5 : Postal acknowledgment of D2 dated 30.04.2022

PRL.JCJ, MNCL

5

O.S. No. 230 of 2022

On the file of

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Mancherial

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MANCHERIAL

PRL.JCJ, MNCL

Case Historyhttp://172.21.30.68/swecourtis/kiosk/cases/case_no.php...

Back Daily Status

In the Court of :Prl. Junior Civil Judge

Case No. :OS/0000177/2020 Madagani Narayana Vs Akireddy Bhemmaiah

Date : 07-11-2023

Business: Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate one. In the Result, the suit is decreed with costs against defendants for Rs.1,50,000/- together with subsequent interest @ 12 per annum, from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6 p.a., till the date of realization. Nature of Disposal: EXPARTE DECREE Disposal Date: 07-11-2023 Prl. Junior Civil Judge 1 of 122/05/24, 2:39 pm

Back Daily Status

In the Court of :Prl. Junior Civil Judge

Case No. :OS/0000003/2023 Thota Sumanth Vs Patti Madhu

Date : 07-11-2023

Business: Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate one. In the Result, the suit is decreed with costs against defendant for Rs.3,04,200/- together with subsequent interest @ 12 p.a., on the principal amount amount of Rs.2,60,000/- from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6 p.a., till the date of realization Nature of Disposal: EXPARTE DECREE Disposal Date: 07-11-2023 Prl. Junior Civil Judge

Case Historyhttp://172.21.30.68/swecourtis/kiosk/cases/case_no.ph...

Back

Daily Status

In the Court of :Prl. Junior Civil Judge

Case No. :EP/0000472/2022 M/s Mayura chit funds, Mancherial Vs Gollala Srinvias

Date : 07-11-2023

Business: Salary attachment warrant of Jdr3 and 4 is executed. Hence this EP is closed. No Costs Nature of Disposal: CLOSED Disposal Date: 07-11-2023 Prl. Junior Civil Judge 1 of 112/21/23, 2:52 PM