1FC OP No. 12 of 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT NIZAMABAD
Present: Sri P.Uday Kumar
Judge, Family Court-cum-ADJ Court
Nizamabad
Dated this the 28thday of February, 2017
F.C OP.12 of 2015
Between:
Bandanakanti Vijaykumar, S/o Bandanakanti Sudhachary, aged about 31 years, occ: Teacher, R/o H.No. 10-9-13, Bhoigalli, Nizamabad.
…Petitioner AND
Smt. Krishnaveni @ Sridevi, D/o Late Harinarayana, aged 30 years, occ; Govt. teacher, Govt. Primary school, Kaldurki village, Bodhan Mandal, Dist. Nizamabad R/o Mosra village, Varni Mandal, Dist. Nizamabad R/o C/o P.Srinivas behind Syndicate bank opposite library, Mosra village, Varni Mandal, Dist. Nizamabad.
... Respondent
This petition came before me on 27-02-2017 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri MS.Srihari Acharya, Advocate for petitioner and Sri G.V.Krupakar Reddy, Advocate for the respondent and after hearing them and having stood over to this day for consideration, this Court has made the following:
O R D E R
1.This is a petition filed by the husband against his wife under
Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking for dissolution of their marriage by way of decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. .
2.The brief averments of the petition are as follows:
The petitioner’s marriage was performed with respondent on 21-3-2011 at Mosra village, Varni Mandal, Nizamabad as per Hindu rites and customs and it is an arranged marriage. At the time of their marriage the parents of petitioner presented 8 tulas of gold ornaments and clothes worth of Rs.50,000/- to her. The petitioner was working as teacher in Ramkrishna Vidya Niketan and 2FC OP No. 12 of 2015
Vishwashanthi junior college and coaching centers and was earning
Rs.15,000/- p.m and the respondent is a Govt. primary school teacher working at Awalgaon village, Madnoor Mandal and at that time she was getting consolidated salary of Rs.3500/- p.m and subsequently her services are regularized and since two years she is getting of Rs.20,000/- p.m.
3. It is averred that after the marriage they lead their marital life at petitioner’s house at Nizamabad for a period of 3 months. After reopening of schools, she traveled from Nizamabad to Awalgaon village about one month in a bus and attended to her duties. She expressed her difficulty in traveling bus daily from Nizamabad to
Awalgaon village and asked to set up their residence at Banswada.
The petitioner advised her to stay at Madnoor village in rented premises to avoid her inconvenience and after getting financial stability then he can put up their residence at convenient place. But she declined to stay at Madnoor which is very near to her working place and forced him to stay at Banswada. As such the petitioner put up his family at Banswada and he was traveling from Banswada to
Nizamabad to attend his duties.
4.It is averred that the petitioner incurred the total expenditure of his family and her personal expenditure also. She did not spend singe pie out of her salary even for her personal necessities also.
She never gave single pie from her salary even in acute needs. She used to say that he has no right to ask any amount from her salary and husband only should bear household expenditure, incidental expenditure and her personal expenditure also. During stay at
Banswada she and her brother quarreled with him on several occasions on petty matters. She always be in the clutches of her 3FC OP No. 12 of 2015 brother Srinivas and she used to quarrel with him on believing the version given against him by her brother. She never cooperated to lead their happy life. He also controlled himself many times about the attitude of the respondent and kept quite in order to avoid quarrel with her and moreover tried to adjust with her. She never tried to understand his feelings, goodness and cooperative attitude.
5.It is averred that in the meanwhile her pregnancy was confirmed in the month of July, 2012. The petitioner felt inconvenience to attend school at Nizamabad, as such he resigned and joined at Bodhan private school on lesser salary and traveled in a bus daily from Madnoor to Bodhan. She was suffering with allergy, thyroid and other ailments before and during pregnancy and he spent lot of money for her treatment. She did not prepare food at
Banswada and petitioner’s mother and father came to Banswada and also to assist her in her household works but she quarreled with them and scolded in filthy language and not allowed them to stay even for one day in their house. Moreover, she warned him if they allow to stay with them she would get her pregnancy aborted.
6.It is averred that respondent’s mother died in July, 2012 with chronic ill health. The respondent’s brother told her that their mother died due to black magic done by petitioner and his mother.
Since then she became enimical against him and his family members though they are not responsible for her death. Her brother created black magic word to develop gap between petitioner and respondent as she was under his control and believed his words and acted as per his wish.
4FC OP No. 12 of 2015
7.It is averred that the respondent gave birth to a male baby on 18-2-13 with Jaundice and pneumonia. He provided special treatment for about 25 days to newly born baby. After two months the baby fell sick, she never cared the advice of doctors or elders.
She always heard the words of her brother and villagers, as such the baby fell sick and admitted in hospital and after discharge from hospital counseling was going on to get transfer from Awalgaon to
Nizamabad. As such the petitioner told her to submit application to get transfer to Nizamabad but she refused to do so by saying that he was heavily indebted and was not interested to continue matrimonial life with him.
8.It is averred that some elderly persons intervened and asked to attend counseling but she got transferred to Bodhan instead of
Nizamabad and went to Mosra with her belongings including gold ornaments and did not come back. Even before completion of maternity leave she took a portion on rent at Siddapoor village,
Bodhan. She did not allow him and his parents to see his son. The elders intervened and advised her to change her attitude and to lead happy married life.
9.It is averred that she became more arrogant and warned him if he forces her to join with him she would consume sleeping pills by writing a suicide note against his family members. She performed tonsured to his son at Tirupathi in his absence against his will. On one occasion by listening to her brother’s false words she also attempted to commit suicide by consuming sleeping pills by putting suicide note and she was got admitted in Bodhan hospital. The petitioner requested her several times to lead happy life at any place at her choice but she did not cooperate with him and abused 5FC OP No. 12 of 2015 in filthy language. The petitioner made a complaint to Swarnakara sangam before caste elders, who called both of them, their relatives and heard both sides. They found that the respondent harassing the petitioner without any fault of him and advised to change her attitude and stay at Nizamabad to lead their married life happily.
10.It is averred that the advice of elders he took a residential portion on monthly rent and invited her to lead happy life then she joined with him in the month of May, 2014 from that date, on one pretext or other she started quarreling with him without any reason and scolded his mother in filthy language without her fault. Even in nights also she did not cooperate to co-habit with an intention to insult him to get angry and also planned against him to gave complaint if he misbehaves.
11.It is averred that after marriage his health is getting spoiling day to day because of her attitude and he also incurred to heavy debts. It is also averred that she told him on several occasions that she has no interest in him and he is forcing her to stay then he use to say that she will get divorce and she would marry a govt.
employee. The respondent sent several messages to petitioner’s cell phone damaging his character and his family member’s character. Since beginning her attitude is cruel towards petitioner and his parents. There is no cohabitation since her delivery she deserted him since more than one year without any reason. Further, averred that she always tried to dominate him in all aspects. In these circumstances, the petitioner has no other option other than to approach this court for decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. Hence, this petition for divorce.
6FC OP No. 12 of 2015
12. The respondent filed her counter with the following contents:
She denied all the petition averments for want of strict proof except admitting their relationship. She contended that petitioner did not present anything to her. She also contended that after their marriage the respondent was getting a consolidated pay of
Rs.3500/- and respondent used to handed over her salary to him.
She further contended that the petitioner and respondent stayed happily for one year in Nizamabad. After reopening of schools, both discussed regarding the difficulties in traveling daily a distance of 100 kms and came to an understanding and decided to stay at
Banswada as the said place would be convenient to both had to travel a distance of 50 kms to reach to their work places, accordingly they both shifted their residence to Banswada. Respondent never refused to stay in Madnoor and the said proposal was not made during their conversation.
13.She further contended that in summer holidays the petitioner and respondent shifted their residence to Nizamabad from
Banswada. Even after the reopening of schools in the year 2012, the petitioner and respondent were staying at Nizamabad. He also contended that in the month of June, 2012 the respondent conceived and the mother of the petitioner demanded that the brother of the respondent shall bear the expenses of Srimantham and should present five tulas of gold and brother of respondent to fulfill their demand and could give only two tulas of gold to the petitioner due to which he and his parents were not happy.
14.She further contended that parents of the petitioner came to their house only once and during their stay her mother in law did not 7FC OP No. 12 of 2015 help and take care of the respondent did not speak properly and abused her and her brother. She further contended that she never demanded for any gold chain and the petitioner never presented any gold chain to her. She further contended that her brother never tried to spoil the relationship of the petitioner and respondent and he is more interested in good relationship between them with petitioner.
15.She also contended that she did not quarrel with anybody at the time of Srimantham, the petitioner and his mother belittled her and her family members stating that nothing presented on that occasion. She further contended that her brother approached the petitioner, his mother and requested to send for her first delivery and she also wanted to go to her brother’s house for the delivery of the child but her mother in law refused and demanded that the brother of respondent pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards expenditure of delivery, her brother insisted to send and expressed his inability to pay the said amount of Rs.1,00,000/- but paid Rs.30,000/- for which they were unhappy and started belittling her and her brother stating that her brother had no love and affection towards her.
16. She further contended that the petitioner and his mother always demanding for additional dowry and when the female baby was three months old. On 17-5-2013 at the instance of the parents of the petitioner they beat her and necked out of his house along with child by saying that if she does not bring Rs.3 lakhs as
additional dowry she should not enter their house. She also further
contended that she never refused to join the company of the petitioner, never refused to show the child, she never stated that she would commit suicide if the petitioner makes any attempts to live together and she would involve all the family members in cases.
8FC OP No. 12 of 2015
17.She also contended that the petitioner used to harass the respondent asking for additional dowry and also used to ask her to give all her salary to him and he never incurred any kind of medical expenses for her child. She also contended that the she never quarreled, abused her mother in law and sister in law. Further contending that she never refused to cohabit with the petitioner, infact he never used to touch her stating that he is staying on the advice of elders and that he is not interested to lead life with her.
She also contended that the petitioner started demanding additional dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- and harassing the respondent, she expressed her inability as her brother left their house. The petitioner staying with his mother and stopped coming to the house of respondent.
18.She also contended that the petitioner and his mother refused to keep her with them and the respondent has not left the company of the petitioner and has not deserted him, in fact the petitioner who initially necked her out of their house and later he left the company of the respondent. She further contended that the respondent and petitioner lived together until 13-9-2014 and the separation period is only four months as on the date of filing of the petition. The petitioner has no intention to lead the marital life with her. The petitioner completely neglected her and her child and to get rid of her, he foisted false cases against her. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
19. On behalf of the petitioners, PWs.1 to 6 are examined and marked Ex.A1 to A6. On behalf of the respondent, he himself examined as RW1 and his fathers friend is examined as RW2.
9FC OP No. 12 of 2015
20. On the above rival contentions of both the parties, the point that arises for consideration is as follows:
Whether the petitioner is made out any ground to dissolve his marriage with the respondent dated 21-03-2011 as prayed
21. Heard the learned counsels on record.
22. In order to establish the petitioner's case he himself examined as PW1 and reiterated petition averments along with his caste elders. The main grounds for dissolution of marriage are cruelty and desertion.
23. As per the evidence of PW1 that his marriage was performed with the respondent on 21-3-2011 at Mosra village, Varni Mandal,
Nizamabad according to Hindu Rites and customs. He was working as teacher in Ramakrishna Vidyanikethan and Viswasanthi junior colleges and in coaching center and was earning of Rs.15,000/-p.m and whereas the respondent is working as a teacher at Awalgon village, Madnoor mandal and she was getting consolidated salary of
Rs.3500/- p.m and subsequently her services are regularized and since three years she is getting salary of Rs.20,000/- p.m. As per his entire case that the respondent is not cooperative in financial matters as well as family matters. The brother of respondent use to intervened in their family life and she is in the clutches of her brother. As per contention of the petitioner that the respondent use to pick up quarrel with him at the instance of her brother and she attempted to commit suicide by writing a suicide note. The petitioner always requested her on several occasions to lead happy life with him at any place of her choice but she did not cooperate with him and she also use to abuse him in filthy language. Due to 1FC OP No. 12 of 2015 the intervention of caste elders the petitioner took a residential portion and invited her to lead happy life on the advice of elders the respondent joined with him in the month of May, 2014 and again started same attitude by picking up quarrel without any reason. The respondent went to an extent of abusing his mother without her fault. As per his further contention that the respondent did not cooperate to cohabit intentionally with a plan to insult him, by giving opportunity to loose his temperament and to take the said situation as a ground to file a complaint against him and his parents. Due to the said torture the petitioner unable to tolerate as such he left the house without informing his whereabouts.
24. The respondent made a complaint to Mahila police station in the month of June, 2014 with false allegations. In that connection the concerned police called him and elders and made detailed enquiry, further the respondent tried to beat father of the petitioner with her chappal in the police station itself. The police unable to mediate the matter properly due to her attitude and they found fault with her accordingly they closed the said matter.
25. Further, contended that the respondent told the petitioner on several occasions that she had no interest to lead life with him and she want to take divorce and she would marry government employee, so the main contention of the petitioner is that the respondent never cooperated with him in any issue from the date of their marriage and she always tried to spoil the good atmosphere.
The respondent is always tried to dominate the petitioner in all respects due to which the petitioner spent so many sleepiness nights. Due to this attitude of the respondent the health of the petitioner was spoiling day to day and also incurred heavy debts.
1FC OP No. 12 of 2015
The respondent use to send several messages to his mobile phone, damaging his character and characters of his family members. So petitioner filed this petition mainly on the ground of cruelty as well as desertion and there is no cohabitation since the date of delivery.
26.In order to prove the case of the petitioner, the petitioner who is the husband of the petitioner examined as PW1 and reiterated his pleadings. In the cross examination she suggested him that he demanded Rs.5,00,000/-,6 tulas of gold ornaments,
Rs.1,50,000/- for house household articles, Rs.1500/- for purchasing of clothes towards dowry. Of course PW1 denied this suggestion. He admitted that he has not agreed for the proposal of shifting their residence to Madnoor. He was suggested that her entire salary was withdrawn through ATM Card and he did not provide any amount to the respondent, the same was also denied. The respondent suggested to PW1 as each and every contention taken by her in her counter, of course she denied. He admitted that the PW1 gave complaint to the police stating that he was missing when he left the house. The settlement deed executed in between petitioner and respondent before the caste panchayath on 20-4-2014 the same is marked as Ex.A6. He clearly stated on the complaint given by the respondent to the caste association a panchayath was held where in Ex.A6 was executed. Further, stated that he also given a written application to their caste association. Due to the harassment is concerned the sole testimony of PW1 cannot be relied, as such the court has to rely on the other evidence available on record to find out the truth.
27.PW2 who worked as General secretary caste association of the parties stated that they asked the respondent to give an 1FC OP No. 12 of 2015 undertaking to lead happy married life but she declined to sign on undertaking and whereas the petitioner agreed to sign on the document. He further stated that due to her arrogance the compromise talks were failed. On the second occasion petitioner and respondent submitted their problems in writing on which the panchayathdars passed a resolution and obtained signatures of the both parties and also signed on it. He also stated that PW1 and RW1 were resided together with the same problems for a period of one month. Thereafter one day Mahila police called him and other as respondent made an application against him and his family members then they went to PS in the month of September, 2014.
He clearly stated that respondent never stated to them that petitioner and his family members demanded for additional dowry and harassed her. He clearly stated that discussions were going on in the police station in between the parties and all of sudden the respondent tried to beat father of the petitioner and petitioner with her chappal. He clearly stated that he heard from the close relatives of the respondent as she always quarrel with petitioner on petty reasons and never tried to adjust with him. As per his observation that the respondent is having superiority complex as such they cannot lead life happily due to her attitude. In the cross examination
PW2 clearly stated that the respondent beat the father of petitioner with chappal in the police station itself. So this attitude itself shows her cruelty against the petitioner and his family members. After scrutinizing all his evidence it is clear that the respondent is loosing her temperament occasionally and she will get angry often. Due to this temperament she might have tried to beat the father of PW1 in the police station itself.
1FC OP No. 12 of 2015
28. One Dubbaka Laxman, who worked as treasurer of their caste association is examined as PW3 and deposed as like PW2 in all aspects. In the cross examination he clearly stated that after 20- 4-2014 that PW1 and respondent are decided to live together away from the family members of PW1 on the advice of caste elders. So the evidence of PW3 is quite corroborating the evidence of PW2 with regard to the harassment made by the respondent against petitioner and his family members.
29. One Govind Ambekar who is a member of Ramakrishna Seva samithi and peace committee of Nizamabad and their seva samithi is running a school in which PW1 is working as a teacher. As per him that he was told by PW1 on several occasions about the differences between himself and his wife. He also stated that when he was in his office, Mahila police people called him to their station when he reached there respondent and her brother were in the police station.
As per his further evidence that the respondent calling PW1 as a thief and also warned him she would see his end and caused inconvenience by filing cases against him and the respondent and her brother calling PW1 as a beggar in the police station itself. In the police station the counseling was held and respondent was thoroughly convinced by PW4 and others but she declined to join with petitioner and moreover enquire the constable to give address of a government employee to marry him as PW1 is not suitable match to her. As per his evidence it is clear the respondent is very harsh, disobedient, and no respect towards elders. He was cross examined by the respondent but no useful material was elicited from him to discard his evidence.
1FC OP No. 12 of 2015
30.One Gajanand is examined as PW5, who deposed that she came to know the respondent who is the friend of his wife and his wife also working as government teacher. As per his evidence it is clear that RW1 was very reluctant to give her salary to PW1 to meet out their family expenditure, as the said fact informed by PW1. On that aspect himself and his wife discussed with RW1 and tried to convince her but she did not listen their words, as such they came to know that RW1 as a rude mentality. He also stated that the petitioner approached him in the month of october, 2013 and stated that respondent deserted him in the month of May, 2013 and she was not coming forward to lead her marital life with him and threatening him with suicide note. On this aspect himself and his wife tried to convince the respondent about 3 months for reconciliation but she did not show any interest. He further stated that the respondent never informed them about the harassment made by PW1 for additional dowry. He clearly stated that respondent conducted tonsure ceremony of her son at Thirupathi in the absence of petitioner though the petitioner informed the respondent that those days are not fit for tonsure due to
Pushyamasam. He clearly stated that the respondent’s is behaving arrogantly at the instance of her brother who is trying to get financial benefit for her, he too stated that as per his observation that the respondent is arrogant and was showing supremacy against her husband and she is very much interested to get divorce. In the cross examination he stated that he came to know about family disputes through his wife as she was told by the respondent. Any how there is no useful material was elicited from his evidence to discard his oral testimony.
1FC OP No. 12 of 2015
31. One Veerachary, who is relative of both the parties is examined as PW6. As per his evidence that the brother of respondent interfered in the family life of PW1 and RW1. He also stated that PW1 brought to his notice about her arrogance. They held panchayath and advised the respondent to share family expenditure as it is her moral responsibility but she declined to give a single pie for family expenditure. He clearly stated that the respondent and her brother never approached them by reporting that the petitioner harassing
RW1 for extra dowry. He also stated that the respondent performed tonsure ceremony of their son at Thirupathi in Pushyamasam in the absence of PW1. He clearly stated that she tried to change the arrogant behavior of the respondent and her brother but they did not change their behaviour then, he advised them to approach
Mahila mandali or caste elders to solve their problem. As per him a panchayath was held in Swarnakara sangam and he also attended the said panchayath in which the respondent is very much reluctant to join with the petitioner though the petitioner was very much ready to live separately away from his family. So as per this evidence it is clear that the respondent herself harassing the petitioner without any reason with an intention to get rid of him. In the cross examination he clearly stated that PW1 and RW1 live separate residence away from the mother of PW1, so as per this part of evidence it is clear that PW1 set up a separate residence away from his mother at the instance and pressurization of respondent. Further, when the wife demanded for separate residence away from her mother in law which itself show her adamant behaviour and her negligence towards the welfare of her family.
1FC OP No. 12 of 2015
32. The respondent herself examined as RW1 and she is reiterated her pleadings. In the cross examination she deposed that her father did not pool up any amount for her marriage. She clearly stated that she has no personal knowledge about payment of dowry.
Further that her brother and Rangachary are know about payment of dowry and presentations to the petitioner. She clearly stated that there was no objection to petitioner and his parents about her visits to her parents house. She clearly stated that she use to spend an amount of Rs.120/-per day transportation charges so almost her salary will be spent towards transportation charges and she use to save Rs.1000/- p.m. she stated that she never paid any amount to the petitioner except her salary. She also stated that out of her salary the petitioner use to pay the transportation charges every day. She clearly stated that petitioner use to take her to the hospital for her treatment and also taken her to the hospital for periodical check up when she was pregnant and also spent amount for medical treatment. RW1 clearly admitted that his son tonsuring held at
Thirumala though PW1 requested her not to go Thirumala because of pushyamasam. So the tonsuring ceremony of her son was held in the absence of PW1 and against his will, which itself shows her cruelty against PW1. She clearly stated that PW1 approached their caste association to settle their matrimonial disputes and she also approached their association as they called her. She also stated that she expressed her willing to join with PW1. She also admitted that about execution of resolution in the said panchayath and obtaining their signatures. As per her they both agree to live together by not scolding and beating each other and use to give respects for each other and restrain the interference of respondent’s brother in their 1FC OP No. 12 of 2015 family affairs. As per the said petition it is clear that interference of the brother of respondent in her family affairs. She admitted that nothing was mentioned in the resolution about necked out her from the house of PW1 and beat her and also not mentioned about harassment of additional dowry. So it is clear non mentioning of said harassment as alleged by respondent in the resolution passed by the panchayath itself shows that there is no allegation raised by the respondent before the panchayath elders about the alleged harassment by PW1 as such it is clear that the respondent created the story of harassment in this case as a defence in order to deny the plea of petitioner. Further RW1 clearly admitted that she never issued any legal notice or file any petition for her restitution of conjugal rights against PW1 in any court of Law. So it is clear that
RW1 has no interest to lead life with PW1 for the best reasons known to her. Further, the main contention of the respondent is that PW1 use to take away all her salary and did not provide any amount to her , if it is so, how PW1 admitted in her evidence that PW1 use to pay Rs.120/-per day towards transportation charges and almost her salary use to spent towards transportation charges. So the question of withdrawing the entire amount by PW1 through ATM card of respondent appears to be fun. Further, the respondent herself admitted in her evidence that the petitioner use to spend amount towards her ailments of thyroid and also spent amounts for medical treatment when she was pregnant. So this part of her admission itself shows the concern of PW1 about taking care of respondent.
33. One Sangareddy is examined as RW2 who tried to support the oral evidence of petitioner but where in the cross examination he clearly stated that no dowry and presentations were made in 1FC OP No. 12 of 2015 their presence. Who categorically stated in his cross examination that PW1 gave written application to their caste association informing them that RW1 is not returned to his house to join in the society. He too stated nothing was held in the panchayath about payment of dowry and demanding for additional dowry. He also admitted about execution of settlement in the panchayath and he signed on it. He clearly stated that RW1 suffering from tension and she get irritated for nothing and also admitted that she always hear the advice given by her brother. So as per his evidence it is clear the respondent is in the clutches of her brothers and she will dance for the tunes of his brother. The case of the petitioner is also that due to the interference of the brother of the RW1 the petitioner is behaving adamantly and not accepted to lead life with PW1 and with his parents. As per Ex.A6 deed executed it is clear that there is no harassment made by the petitioner for additional dowry and he never necked out RW1 out of his house. Admittedly, I am not find any ground of desertion for getting divorce as PW1 and RW1 are living separately till May,2014. With regard to the cruelty is concerned that RW1 is not listening he words of PW1 and she is dancing for the tunes of her brother. As per the evidence discussed it is clear that the respondent is behaving adamantly and her own witness i.e, RW2 admitted in his evidence that she is suffering from tension and she irritated from nothing and he always hear the advice given by her brother. The said admission is quite support the case of the petitioner. So filing case against PW1 and his family members and other relatives for the offence punishable under section 498-A
IPC and section 3 & 4 of DP Act itself shows her cruelty as there is no evidence let in by the respondent to prove the alleged harassment 1FC OP No. 12 of 2015 made by PW1 and his family members. So in my hum'ble opinion that the petitioner made out his case on the ground of cruelty.
Accordingly the petitioner is entitled for divorce on the ground of cruelty. Accordingly the point for consideration is answered.
24. In the result, the petition is allowed. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent dated 21-03-2011 is hereby dissolved by way of decree of divorce. The parties of proceedings shall bear their respective costs.
Typed to my dictation to the Personal Assistant, corrected and
pronounced by me in open Court on this the 28th day of February,
2017.
Judge
Family Court-cum-ADJ Court Nizamabad
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PETITIONER FOR RESPONDENT
PW1: Bandanakanti Vijay kumarRW1:B.Krishnaveni
PW2: Narsing RaoRW2:B.Sangareddy
PW3: Dubbaka Laxman
PW4: Govind Ambekar
PW5: Chowti Gajanand
PW6: Tummanapalli Veerachary
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PETITIONER
Ex.P1 Marriage Card 2FC OP No. 12 of 2015
Ex.P2: Marriage Photograph
Ex.P3: Message sent to mobile phone NO.9948534461 with CD
Ex.P4: Complaint and FIR
Ex.P5: Charge sheet
Ex.P6: Settlement copy
FOR RESPONDENT:
-NIL-
Judge
Family Court-cum-ADJ Court Nizamabad