Sri P Srinivasa Rao

1

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION):

PALAMANER.

Present:- Sri P.Srinivasa Rao,

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Palamaner

Friday, the 1st (First) day of November, 2024

HMOP.No. 4 / 2024

Between:

Smt S.Renuka.…..Petitioner

And

S.Mahendra. ….Respondent

This petition is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.Lakshman, L.Bhaskar and K. Rajasekhar, Advocates for the petitioner and the respondent remained Ex-parte, upon hearing the counsel for petitioner, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

O R D E R

This is a petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent

U/sec.13(1) (ia) & (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent by a decree of divorce.

2. The brief facts of the petition is that The marriage of petitioner with respondent was solemnized on 12.6.2015 at Sri

Kanipakam Varasiddi Vinayaka Swamy Temple, Kanipakam as per

Hindu rites and customs. The said marriage is love cum arranged marriage. After marriage petitioner and respondent lived happily for one years and out of wedlock, and the petitioner gave birth to 2 two male children. After birth of second child, the respondent neglected the petitioner and her children without providing basic needs. The respondent used to come to the house lately in drunken stage and demanded to bring more money from her parents, but she refused to bring money from her parents, as they have already incurred more money towards performing the marriage with respondent. Then the respondent has turned very cruel towards the petitioner and assaulted her to bring more dowry harassment and also used filthy language and beaten so many times without any reasonable cause. The harassment of the respondent towards the petitioner was unbearable and she obliterated the same hoping that there will be some change in his attitude in future, but absolutely there were no change in his attitude towards the petitioner and her children. The respondent so many times insults specifically to suspect her fidelity and also harassed physically mentally and cruelly. Petitioner has mediated the matter with the help of elders in the presence of elders and he admitted his illegal activities against the petitioner and at that juncture both the elders admonished the respondent for his activities and advised him to live happily with me without any illegal acts. Petitioner resided with the respondent at his house with great difficulty by bearing the cruelty harassment made by the respondent with the hope that he will rectify his defects, but all 3 efforts proved futile. The respondent always used to make bad propagation against the petitioner with the neighbours and also in the friends circle of petitioner. The respondent has snatched all my gold jewels provided to her by her parents and utilized the same for his own use. The respondent was neither extensively attached nor showed any love or affection towards the petitioner and her children, he was not provided any basic needs like good food, clothes, medical care and other needs, though he was earning more than Rs.40,000/- per month for his business etc and never spent any amount for the welfare of her children. On 15.12.2022 the respondent has unnecessarily picked up quarrel with the petitioner and beat her and necked out her along with children from her matrimonial house. As there is no other go petitioner joined with her parents house along with her children.

Subsequently also petitioner and her parents held mediation through the elders at the house of respondent but in vain. The acts of the respondent is very much caused both mental physical cruelty and as such she have no option to get divorce from the respondent by dissolving her marriage with respondent. Hence the petition.

3.Notice to respondent was received by him and he remained

Ex-parte.

4.To prove her case, the petitioner herself examined as PW-1 and 4

Exs.P1 to P5 documents are marked. Ex.P1 is wedding card and Ex.P2 marriage photographs.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. The point for determination is

“whether the petitioner is entitled for a decree of divorce as

prayed for ?”

P O I N T:

7.I have carefully perused the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that the marriage of petitioner with respondent was solemnized on 12.6.2015 at Sri Kanipakam Varasiddi Vinayaka Swamy Temple,

Kanipakam as per Hindu rites and customs and the said marriage is love cum arranged marriage. It is the further case of the petitioner that after marriage petitioner and respondent lived happily for one years and out of wedlock, and the petitioner gave birth to two male children and after birth of second child, the respondent neglected the petitioner and her children without providing basic needs. It is the further case of petitioner that the respondent used to come to the house lately in drunken stage and demanded to bring more money from her parents, but she refused to bring money from her parents, as they have already incurred 5 more money towards performing the marriage with respondent and then the respondent has turned very cruel towards the petitioner and assaulted her to bring more dowry harassment and also used filthy language and beaten so many times without any reasonable cause. It is the further case of petitioner that the harassment of the respondent towards the petitioner was unbearable and she obliterated the same hoping that there will be some change in his attitude in future, but absolutely there were no change in his attitude towards the petitioner and her children.

The respondent so many times insults specifically to suspect her fidelity and also harassed physically mentally and cruelly. It is the further case of the petitioner that she has mediated the matter with the help of elders in the presence of elders and he admitted his illegal activities against the petitioner and at that juncture both the elders admonished the respondent for his activities and advised him to live happily with me without any illegal acts. The further case of the petitioner that she resided with the respondent at his house with great difficulty by bearing the cruelty harassment made by the respondent with the hope that he will rectify his defects, but all efforts proved futile. The further case of the petitioner that the respondent always used to make bad propagation against the petitioner with the neighbours and also in the friends circle of petitioner and the respondent has snatched all 6 my gold jewels provided to her by her parents and utilized the same for his own use and that the respondent was neither extensively attached nor showed any love or affection towards the petitioner and her children, he was not provided any basic needs like good food, clothes, medical care and other needs, though he was earning more than Rs.40,000/- per month for his business etc and never spent any amount for the welfare of her children. On 15.12.2022 the respondent has unnecessarily picked up quarrel with the petitioner and beat her and necked out her along with children from her matrimonial house. As there is no other go petitioner joined with her parents house along with her children and subsequently also petitioner and her parents held mediation through the elders at the house of respondent but in vain and the acts of the respondent is very much caused both mental physical cruelty and as such she have no option to get divorce from the respondent by dissolving her marriage with respondent

8. The petitioner has filed this petition u/s 13(1) (ia) of Hindu

Marriage act seeking divorce from the respondent on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. Cruelty is one of the main grounds to grant divorce to the parties as per Sec.13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act. In the legal parlance, the cruelty is a cumulative effect of all act and conduct of the other party which may have impact upon the other spouse. As per

Section 13 (1) (ib), the expression ‘desertion’ means the desertion of the 7 petitioner by the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without consent of or against the wish of the petitioner. Admittedly, the respondent remained ex-parte and he did not choose to contest the matter. Therefore, this Court proceed the material available on record whether the petitioner has made out a case for grant of decree on the grounds of desertion.

9.To prove her case, the petitioner herself entered into witness box and examined as PW-1 and in support of her case she relied on Ex.P1 is wedding card and Ex.P2 marriage photograph. The petitioner filed her examination-in-chief in the form of chief-affidavit assailing all the facts as narrated in the petition. So, there is no need to repeat the same to avoid repetition. The petitioner has stated almost same thing in her affidavit as she stated in her divorce petition. The petitioner has reiterating each and every incident and allegations against the respondent as stated in the petition and narrated herein above. The evidence of the PW-1 also reveals that the petitioner has been living separately and the respondent suspected her character, he used to addict bad vices and utilized all the amounts for his vices and when she questioned he beat her and deserted her. It is the clear evidence of petitioner that the respondent has no interest to lead marital life with her. The affidavit of the petitioner depicts the picture that the respondent is not interested to lead marital life with the petitioner. The petitioner in her evidence clearly stated about harassment meted out by her in the hands of respondent and in-spite advise of elders he has not evinced any interest to take back the petitioner and he refused to do so. The edifice of marital life is love and 8 affection and mutual trust towards each other, lack of which made the life miserable. As soon as the faith upon the wife has been vanished from the heart of the petitioner then how she can continue her marital life with the respondent under the same roof, is a considerable aspect. In the instant case, the respondent remained ex-parte and did not choose to contest the matter. The respondent did not rebut the case of the petitioner in- spite of having knowledge of the allegation, and therefore, the evidence of PW-1 remained intact and unchallenged. Hence, the grounds of desertion, stands established. Since, the respondent has no interest to resume the marriage and as there is no chance for conciliation between the parties the marriage between the parties can no longer survive for any fruitful purpose. So, the petitioner has prima-facie proved her case.

10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this

Court holds that the petitioner has been able to establish that the respondent deserted her. So, the petitioner is entitled to decree of divorce as prayed for and the marriage between the parties stands dissolved by a decree of divorce.

11. In the result, the petition is allowed by granting decree of divorce to the petitioner by dissolving the marriage took place between the parties. No costs.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 1st day of November, 2024.

9

Sd/-P.Srinivasa Rao

Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Palamaner.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for

Petitioner: Respondent: PW.1 :Smt S.Renuka. –Ex-parte-

Documents marked for Petitioner: Ex.P1: Wedding card, Ex.P2: Marriage photographs. .

Documents marked for Respondent:

-Nil-

Sd/-P.Srinivasa Rao

CJ (Sr.Div).PLMNR

// True Copy//

Draft / Fair Order in

HMOP.No. 4 / 2024

Dt.01. 11. 2024

1

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION)

PALAMANER.

Present : Sri P. Srinivasa Rao,

Civil Judge(Senior Division)

Friday, the 25th (Twenty fifth) day of October, 2024

OS.No. 49 /2024

Between:

A.Thimma Reddy... Plaintiff.

And:

1.C.Balakrishna Reddy, 2.The State of AP Rep by the District Collector, Chittoor District, 3.The Tahsildhar, Gangavaram Mandal, Chittoor District.

.. Defendants.

This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Upendraiah, Advocate for the plaintiff, and of Sri V.Chandrasekhar, Advocate for the 1st defendant and the defendants 2 and 3 remained ex-parte, and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T

Suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property by the plaintiff and for costs.

2. The plaint averments are, in brief, as follows:-

Originally the plaint schedule property is DKT land and same assigned to one Avula Chengamma, who is paternal grandmother of the plaintiff and the then MRO of Gangavaram Mandal granted DKT Patta in 2 respect of the plaint schedule property in her favor vide D-Namuna No:

DKT No:946/4/92, dated:31-201-1983 and she had been in physical possession and enjoyment of the same by raising rain fed crops. Later, the revenue authorities issued Pattadar pass book and title deed in favor of the said Avula Chengamma by recognizing her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and also mutated her name in revenue records. The said Avula Chengamma died on 11-02-2013 intestate leaving behind the plaintiff and other her family members to succeed her estate including the plaint schedule property and then at instance of other all family members of the plaintiff, the plaint schedule property mutated in the name of the plaintiff in revenue records. It is further averred in the plaint that after due enquiry and recognizing the plaintiff right, title, continues possession and enjoyment in respect of the plaint schedule property, the then Tasildar, Gangavaram Mandal mutated the plaintiff name in revenue records for the suit property and also issued “e” Pattadar pass book in respect of the plaint schedule property. The defendants have no any manner of right, title in the suit schedule property and that the 1st defendant made proposal to the plaintiff to sell the plaint schedule property at low cost, but the plaintiff refused his proposal. While-so, on 26-08-2024 at about 10-00 am, while the plaintiff in the suit schedule property, with active support of the defendants 2 and 3, 1st defendant, his men and agents highhandedly tried trespass into the suit schedule property with an intention to knock away the suit schedule property and the same was thwarted and they went away proclaimed to 3 renew their attempts. Hence, the suit.

3. The 1st defendant filed written statement admitting the suit claim of the plaintiff and he has no objection to decree the suit as he is in no way concerned with the suit property.

4.The defendants 2 and 3 remained ex-parte.

5. To prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A5. Ex.A1 is original ‘e’ pass books in the name of the plaintiff, Ex.A2 is CC of IB Namoona in the name of plaintiff dt.29.8.2024,

Ex.A3 is CC of adangal in the name of plaintiff dt.29.8.2024, Ex.A4 is photographs showing cattle shed and Ex.A5 is copy of death certificate of

Avula Chengamma.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

7.Now the point for consideration is

“ Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction

against the defendants as prayed for ? “

POINT:-

8. I have perused the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the suit for mere injunction against the defendants and therefore, it is for the plaintiff to prove his lawful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. To establish his case, the plaintiff examined 4 himself as PW.1. PW.1 filed his evidence in the form of chief-affidavit and wherein which he re-iterated the plaint averments. As such, the examination-in-chief of PW.1 is nothing but, replica of plaint and therefore, there is no need to discuss the same for the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition. PW-1 deposed that the plaint schedule property is acquired by the plaintiff under oral partition among his joint family members and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same and Ex.A1 discloses that plaintiff is pattadar and enjoydar he has been in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule land. He also further deposed that considering his possession and enjoyment the revenue authorities issued Ex.A1/e-Pattadar pass book and mutated his name in revenue records under Exs.A2 and A3 and the defendants without having any right of interest, illegally trying to interfere into the plaint schedule property and also obstructed the plaintiff. In support of its case, the PW.1 also got marked Exs.A1 to A3. Out of them, Ex.A1 is patadar pass book which discloses that plaint schedule property is acquired by the plaintiff by way of inheritance through partition, Ex.A2 and A3 discloses that the name of plaintiff is mutated in revenue records.

Exs.A1 to A.3 show that plaintiff has in possession and enjoyment of the over the schedule property. Ex.A4 is photographs showing the cattle shed and Ex.A4 is Xerox copy of death certificate of Avula Chengamma who is grand mother of plaintiff. Exs.A1 to A4 clearly established the right of the plaintiff over the schedule property and also established the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the schedule land. The 1st 5 defendant who filed written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff over the suit property and he is in no way connected to the suit property and he has no objection to decree the suit. The remaining defendants 2 and 3 remained ex-parte having received the suit summons.

Furthermore, the revenue records under Ex.A2 and A3 clearly discloses that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and Ex.A1 e-pattadar pass book stands in the name of the plaintiff shows that the plaintiff is pattdar and enjoydar for the plaint schedule survey number. As stated supra, the defendants remained ex- parte and did not contest the matter and therefore, the evidence of PW-1 and Exs.A.1 to A.4 remains intact and unchallenged. Thus, the sole evidence of PW-1 goes un-rebutted and Exs.A1 to A4 documents clinchingly establishes the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule land and that the defendants are trying to invade into the right of the plaintiff without there being any title, right and interest over the schedule land. I do not find any reason to disbelieve the testimony of

PW.1 and also the documents under Exs.A1 to A3. The above documents would clearly goes to show that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land. Exs.A1 to A4 clearly supported the case of the plaintiff with regard to his right over the schedule property. It is also clear from the evidence of PW.1 that the defendants are trying to interfere into the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule land. Therefore, the defendants have no right to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over suit schedule property and they have no right to disturb the possession of the plaintiff 6 over the suit schedule property. The plaint averments and the documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff goes un-challenged. In view of the foregoing discussion, I hold that the plaintiff established his possession over the suit property as on the date of suit and that he also established interference of the defendants over the suit land.

9.For the reasons aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction against the defendants as prayed. I answered the point accordingly.

10.In the result, the suit is decreed granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants and their men, from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. In the circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me on this the 25th day of October, 2024.

Sd/-P.Srinivasa Rao

Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Palamaner

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For plaintiff: For defendants: P.W.1: A.Thimma Reddy. -- Ex-parte –

Exhibits marked for plaintiff:

7

Ex.A1:Original ‘e’ pass books in the name of the plaintiff,

Ex.A2:Certified copy of IB Namoona in the name of plaintiff dt.29.8.2024,

Ex.A3:Certified copy of adangal in the name of plaintiff dt.29.8.2024,

Ex.A4:Photographs showing cattle shed,

Ex.A5:Xerox copy of death certificate of Avula Chengamma.

Exhibits marked for defendants

-NIL -

Sd/-P.Srinivasa Rao

C.J.(Sr.Div). Palamaner //True Copy// 8

Draft / Fair Judgment

OS. No. 49 of 2024

Dt. 25. 10. 2024.

1

HMOP. No. 119 / 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION):

PALAMANER

Present:- Sri P.Srinivasa Rao,

Civil Judge (Senior Division) Palamaner

Tuesday, the 29th (Twenty Nineth ) day of October, 2024.

HMOP.No. 119 / 2023

Between: B. Bhanuprakash @ Bobby. … Petitioner

And

S. Uma Maheswari @ Mahi.… Respondent

This petition is coming on 28.10.2024 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri L.Bhaskar, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri G.S.Anjineyulu, Advocate for the respondent, upon hearing both sides, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:-

O R D E R

This is a petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent

U/sec.13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent by a decree of divorce.

2. The brief facts of petition is that marriage of petitioner with respondent was solemnized on 27.1.2022 in Hotel Prabha Grand Inn,

Vellore road, Chittoor as per Hindu rites and customs with the expenses of petitioner. After marriage the respondent joined with the petitioner and lived together for a period of one month. Out of their wedlock, there were no issues. After one month, the respondent fell in the house with fits and then only petitioner and family members came to know about the said health problem of the respondent. The said fact was questioned the parents of the respondent and they have given evasive replies and 2

HMOP. No. 119 / 2023

they are providing medical aid to the respondent in NIMHANS Hospital.

Later, petitioner came to know that the respondent is suffering with fits since several years and taking medicines for that disease and the same was suppressed by the parents of respondent and have mislead the petitioner and his family members and performed the marriage. All of sudden the parents of the respondent have taken away the respondent in the 3rd week of March, 2022 along with entire gold ornaments etc and living separately without any relationship with the petitioner and thereby the parents of the respondent have cheated the petitioner. Due to the acts of the respondent petitioner suffered a lot both mentally and physically and it amounts to cruelty on the parent of the respondent.

The disease suffering by the respondent incurable one and it is no longer safe to continue the marital relationship. Hence, the petition.

3. The respondent resisted the petition by filing counter admitting her marriage with petitioner. The petitioner on the ill advice of the others filed the petition to cheat and spoil the respondent life. The respondent is ready to live with the petitioner to lead happy life and prayed to restore conjugal rights and prayed to dismiss the petition.

4.On behalf of the petitioner, he himself examined as PW-1 and also examined PW2 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2. Ex.P1 is wedding card and Ex.P2 is marriage photograph. On behalf of the respondent, she herself examined as RW-1 and no documents marked.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent.

The point for consideration is :

3

HMOP. No. 119 / 2023

“ Whether the petitioner is entitled for a decree as prayed ?

“

P O I N T:

6.I have carefully perused the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner and respondent. As seen from the material on record, there is no dispute between the petitioner and respondent as husband and wife and their marriage took place on 27.1.2022 at Hotel

Prabha Grand Inn, Vellore Road, Chittoor Town and District as per Hindu rites and customs. It is also not in dispute that soon after the marriage, the respondent joined with the petitioner for conjugal life and they lived happily for a period of one month. It is undisputed fact that during their wedlock the respondent not begotten any child. Undisputedly, during the course of enquiry the respondent represented that she has no objection to allow the petition in view of the settlement and accordingly, she received Rs.5,00,000/- from the petitioner towards permanent alimony in cash apart gold ornaments and silver articles and copper items from the petitioner. The petitioner represented that he also returned all the clothing pertaining to the respondent her and in view of the settlement, the respondent has no objection to allow the petition by dissolving his marriage with respondent by decree of divorce.

7.To establish his case, the petitioner himself entered into witness box and examined as PW-1 and also relied on Exs.P1 and P2 and in support of the case of the petitioner also examined PW-2. The petitioner filed his examination-in-chief in the form of chief-affidavit and reiterated 4

HMOP. No. 119 / 2023

the petition averments. The petitioner in his evidence stated that the respondent and her family suppressed about the ill health of the respondent and performed marriage which amounts to cruelty and caused mental agony to the petitioner and subsequently several mediations held but became futile as the respondent not interested to lead marital life with him and as such, he decided that there is no chance of reunion between the petitioner and the respondent, and a panchayat was held in the presence of elders and relatives of both families in that panchayat both parties voluntarily agreed to dissolve their marriage.

8.The learned counsel for the respondent has cross examined Pw1 and PW-1 admitted that he paid Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent

as per advise of elders and also he returned all the gold

ornaments, silver articles and copper items to the respondent.

The respondent also examined as RW-1 and stated that she has no objection for dissolution of her marriage with petitioner. During her evidence she stated that she received Rs.5,00,000/- in cash from the petitioner along with her gold, silver and copper items including her clothing. RW-1 further stated that she has no objection to allow

the petition by dissolving her marriage with petitioner and she

will not claim any maintenance either in any manner from the

petitioner in future and also she is not going to initiate any civil and criminal cases against the petitioner or his family members in future.

RW-1 further stated that she forfeited all her rights in future from the propert6y of petitioner and she agreed to withdraw the MC.No.25 of 2024 5

HMOP. No. 119 / 2023

filed by her on the file of ADM Court, Ambur, Tamilnadu.

9.I have carefully considered the evidence brought on record. The petitioner filed this petition U/s 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act.

The petitioner in his evidence clearly testified that the respondent deserted him. It is apparent from the material on record that both parties submitted that they are living separately since long time and there are no chances of re-union between them for a peaceful conjugal life and there are no chances of re-union between them for a peaceful conjugal life. It clearly appears that the respondent has no objection to grant divorce to the petitioner to dissolve their marriage. Further, it appears from the record that respondent has no objection to allow the petition. In view of the above circumstances, the petitioner entitled to a decree of divorce. For their peaceful life this Court is of the considered opinion that it’s expedient to dissolve the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent as per Section 13 (1) (ia) of Hindu

Marriage Act.

10. In view of foregoing evaluation, the divorce petition of the petitioner is hereby accepted. Accordingly, the marriage solemnized between the petitioner and respondent dt.27.1.2022 is hereby dissolved and the petition is allowed. Hence, I answered the point accordingly.

11. In the result, the petition is allowed by granting decree of divorce to the petitioner by dissolving the marriage took place between the parties. No costs.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and 6

HMOP. No. 119 / 2023

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 29th day of October, 2024.

Sd/-P.Srinivasa Rao

Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Palamaner.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for

Petitioner: Respondent: PW.1 : B.Bhanu Prakash @ Bobby Rw-1:S.Umamaheswari @ Mahi. PW.2 : V.Prasad Babu.

Documents marked for Petitioner:

Ex.P-1 : Wedding card, Ex.P-2 : Marriage photo,

Documents marked for Respondent:

-Nil-

Sd/-P.Srinivasa Rao

C.J (Sr.Div). PLMR //True Copy//

Draft / Fair order in

HMOP. No. 119 / 2024

Dt. 29. 10. 2024

7

HMOP. No. 119 / 2023

1 HMOP.NO. 41 / 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION): PALA-

MANER.

Present:- Sri P.Srinivasa Rao,

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palamaner

Friday, the 25th (Twenty Fifth) day of day of October, 2024.

HMOP.No. 41 / 2024

Between:- 1.R. Kumar Raja, 2.K.R.Kavya. … Petitioners.

And

--NONE-- ….Respondent

This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.Kuppa Raju and B.Girish, Advocates for the peti- tioners, and having perused the material papers and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:-

O R D E R

The petitioners have filed this petition under section 13-B of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying for dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce by way of mutual consent.

2. The case of the petitioners in brief are that marriage in between 2 HMOP.NO. 41 / 2024 the petitioners took place on 24.10.2019 at Sri Venkateswara Arya Vysya

Kalyana Mandapam, Palamaner as per Hindu Rites and Custom. After marriage the petitioners they lived happily for six months. The marriage of petitioner is not consummated. Later disputes arose in between the petitioners with regard to petty quarrels and they went up peak stage and they are not amicable to each to live happily. The 2nd petitioner com- pletely neglected the 1st petitioner and since the year 2021 both are re- siding separately without any connection due to misunderstandings in between them. At the instance of elders of both the petitioners, they came to conclusion that they should live separately and they want to put an end to the marriage bond and it is decided to take divorce by mutual consent. Several mediations were held but failed. Hence, the petition.

3.After presentation of the petition, six months mandatory provi- sions has been duly complied.

4.To prove their case, the 1st petitioner examined himself as PW-1 and the 2nd petitioner examined herself as PW-2. Ex.P1/ wedding card and Ex.P2/ marriage photograph.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

6. Now the point for consideration is:

“ Whether the petitioners are entitled for decree of di-

vorce on the ground of mutual consent ? ”

P O I N T:

3 HMOP.NO. 41 / 2024 7. I have perused the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the petitioners. Admittedly, the 1st petitioner is the husband of the 2nd petitioner and their marriage was solemnized on 24.10.2019 at Sri

Venkateswara Arya Vysya Kalyana Mandapam, Palamaner as per Hindu rites and customs. It is an admitted fact that petitioners lived happily for a period of six months. It is also an admitted fact that out of their wedlock they were not blessed with any children. There is no dispute that due some differences arose between them as their temperaments are quite different with each other and both are residing separately July, 2024. Admittedly, there is no dispute that at the intervention of elders both parties settled their dispute. It is also not in dispute there is no understanding between the petitioners and the mediations also failed and accordingly both are decided to take divorce with mutual consent.

8.The petitioners 1 and 2 filed this petition U/s 13-B of Hindu Mar- riage Act 1955 for passing of a decree of divorce by dissolving the mar- riage between them on mutual consent. After presentation of the peti- tion, statutory period of six months has been duly complied.

9. To prove their case, the 1st petitioner examined himself as PW-1 and 2nd petitioner examined herself as PW-2 and filed their evidence in the form of chief-affidavits and they have reiterated petition averments in verbatim which are not rebutted herein for the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition. PWs-1 and 2 in their evidence stated almost same thing as they mentioned in their divorce petition. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 amply corroborated with each other. The petitioners have filed their evi- 4 HMOP.NO. 41 / 2024 dence in affidavits and mentioned the petition averments. This Court also personally heard the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing on their behalf. In view of the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and circumstances and as the petitioners are living separately due to misunderstandings and they are not in a position to live together to lead marital tie between the petitioners ruptured after their marriage and the marital tie went be- yond the stage of repair. Since both the parties have no interest to re- sume the marriage and they agreed to take divorce under mutual con- sent, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to grant divorce on the ground of mutual consent. Both the petitioners submitted

before bench that the marriage between them has broken down and that

they shall not be able to live together as husband and wife. As stated supra, as per the panchayat held in the presence of elders, they have stated that there is no force or inducement from either side in case of fil- ing this mutual petition for divorce. This Court satisfied that the parties lived separately since the year 2021 and that there is no collusion be- tween the parties. The 1st petitioner as PW-1 in his evidence stated at the instance their elders mediated the matter and 2nd petitioner agreed to relinquish her right of permanent alimony from the 1st petitioner and she will not claim any permanent alimony from him by receiving

Rs.4,00,000/- from him. Both of them expressed their un-willing to live together. The 2nd petitioner who is examined as PW-2 clearly stated that at the intervention of elders the matter is settled and both of them were living separately since long time and the 2nd petitioner and she reiterated 5 HMOP.NO. 41 / 2024 the version of Pw-1 and her evidence is corroborated with each other.

Further, I am also satisfied that the parties are still not able to stay to- gether as husband and wife. The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 categorically that there is no chance of re-union between them and accordingly they filed the present petition with mutual consent and out of their own accord voluntarily.

10. Having considered all the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that it is a fit case where the dissolution of marriage on mutual consent as sought by the petitioners should be granted. Both the peti- tioners have been living separately since long time as their marital rela- tionship broke down. Both the petitioners are matured enough and have agreed to put an end of their relation, knowing all consequences.

Hence, I am of the considered view that the petitioners clearly estab- lished their case to grant divorce under mutual consent as envisaged

U/s 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act. Accordingly, the marriage which was solemnized on 24.10.2019 betweenthe petitioners under the Hindu

Marriage Act is hereby dissolved from the date of passing of the order.

11. In the result, the petition is allowed dissolving the marriage be- tween the petitioners on the ground of mutual consent U/s 13-B of

Hindu Marriage Act and decree of divorce is granted. A decree shall be drawn up accordingly. However, there is no order as to costs.

Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pro- nounced by me in Open Court, this the 25th day of October, 2024.

6 HMOP.NO. 41 / 2024

Sd/-P.Srinivasa Rao

Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Palamaner.

Palamaner

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for

Petitioner: Respondent: PW-1:R.Kumar Raja PW-2:Smt K.R. Kavya. -None-

Documents marked for Petitioner: Ex.P1 : Wedding card, Ex.P2 : Marriage photograph.

Documents marked for Respondent: -Nil-

Sd/-P.Srinivasa Rao

C.J (Sr.Div). Palamaner

//True Copy//

Draft / Fair Order in

HMOP. 41 of 2024

Dt. 25. 10. 2024.

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) : PALAMANER.

Present: Sri P.Srinivasa Rao,

Civil Judge(Senior Division), Palamaner.

Friday, the 1st (First) day of November, 2024.

H.M.O.P. 74 OF 2024

Between:-

P.Nagappa ...... Petitioner

And:-

N.Jasnavi …. Respondent

This petition Under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

has been filed by the petitioner against the respondent, praying

for passing a decree for Restitution of Conjugal Right of the

petitioner with the respondent.

This petition coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Sri. K.Lakshmipathy Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri. B.Mohan Reddy, Advocate for respondent and having stood over for consideration, this court made the following:-

O R D E R

Petitioner present. Respondent present. The learned counsel on both sides are present. The petitioner and respondent submitted that the matter is settled at the instance of both side elders and joint memo also filed. Memo is recorded. In the light of memo, the petition is dismissed as both parties are living together. No costs.

Pronounced by me in the open court this the 1st day of November, 2024.

Sd/- P.Srinivasa Rao

Civil Judge(Senior Division),

Palamaner .

Appendix of Evidence

--Nil--

Sd/- P.Srinivasa Rao

Civil Judge(Senior Division)

Palamaner.

-2-

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Petitioner:- For Respondent:-

Pw-1.M.Manjunath -Nil-

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Petitioner:-

Ex.P.1 :-Invitation card dt:03.10.2011 Ex.P.2 :-Marriage photograph of the petitioner with respondent Ex.P.3:- Served copy of the M.C. petition in M.C. No.10/2021 Ex.P.4:- Served copy of the D.V.C Petition in D.V.C. No.8/2021.

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Respondent:- --Nil--

Civil Judge(Senior Division)

Palamaner.