P.Vasu

HMOP 35/2015 ­1­ Addl.Sr.Civil Judge’s Court/Anakapalle

Anguluri Rajesh Vs. Anguluri Umadevi. Dt.04­09­2019.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: ANAKAPALLE

Present: Sri P. Vasu

Additional Senior Civil Judge, 

Anakapalle 

Dated: Wednesday, this the 4th day of September, 2019

H.M.O.P.No.35/2015

Between: Anguluri Rajesh, S/o Ramu, Age: 32 years, Hindu, Military Service, R/at D.No.15­15, Near Head Water Works, Gundala Street of Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District

... Petitioner.

Vs.

Anguluri Umadevi, W/o Rajesh, Age: 23 Years, Hindu, C/o.Guttikonda Nookaraju, R/at D.No.6­224, Muttharasu Colony, 4th Street, Saradanagar, Kotturu of Anakapalle Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

... Respondent.

This Hindu Marriage Original Petition coming on 29­08­2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt.K.Kusuma, Advocate for Petitioner and

Sri.A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad and K.Satyanarayana, Advocates for Respondent, having heard on both sides, having perused the material papers available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

O R D E R 

This is a Hindu Marriage Original Petition filed U/Sec.13 (1) (ib) of

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of the petitioner/husband with the Respondent/Wife dt.12­02­2011.

2.Brief reference of facts lead to file this Hindu Marriage Original

Petition are:

“The Petitioner and Respondent are the husband and wife whose marriage performed on 12­02­2011 at Petitioner’s parents’ house and matrimonial house of Respondent situated near Head Water Works,

Gundala Street of Anakapalle as per Hindu Rites and Customs prevailing in their caste community and immediately the marriage was consummated and that the parties to this OP lived for a period of one month in Petitioner’s house in Anakapalle and thereafter the petitioner left for his employment in Military and thereafter the petitioner

HMOP 35/2015 ­2­ Addl.Sr.Civil Judge’s Court/Anakapalle

Anguluri Rajesh Vs. Anguluri Umadevi. Dt.04­09­2019.

returned in the month of September, 2011 at which time again the

Respondent joined him for marital life where she lived only for one month and left for her parent’s house. 

It is also alleged that the Respondent had a movement in her matrimonial house by inhibition by preferring confining in a room itself for which he did not have any suspicion for such hiding and later he came to know that the Respondent is suffering with some eye effect since prior to marriage and due to which only she could not move freely with other inmates and then he questioned her parents as well as marriage elders in respect of concealment of imperfection of

Respondent’s eye sight and since then the Respondent not opted to join with the petitioner with shy and guilty inspite of mediations held by the petitioner and so since September, 2011 the Respondent has been staying in her parent’s house. 

It is also alleged that when the petitioner approached the

Respondent’s parents to send the Respondent to her matrimonial house at which time they abused him in filthy language apart from threatening with dire consequences including foisting a false case against him and his family members unless he refrain from requesting the respondent for marital life at which time the respondent also did not prevent her parents about unlawful acts against him and that recently he came to know that the respondent has no chance to get good eye sight due to her eye defect has a genetic problem and that the respondent did not express about her disability directly to the petitioner at any point of time and thereby she was in continuous desertion of petitioner for long time and that since the concealment of eye effect and disability of respondent by her parents as well as marriage elders apart from spoiling his marital life amounts to cruelty which made him to file this Original Petition for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty as well as desertion and that there is no similar petition filed in any court of law for the same relief and there is no collusion in between him and the respondent in filing this petition.

Hence, this Original Petition.”

2.The Respondent resisted this Original Petition by filing counter with the following brief averments:­ “This Respondent, at the first instance, denied the allegations of

Original Petition except which are admitted by her regarding

HMOP 35/2015 ­3­ Addl.Sr.Civil Judge’s Court/Anakapalle

Anguluri Rajesh Vs. Anguluri Umadevi. Dt.04­09­2019.

performance of her marriage with the petitioner as per Hindu Rites and Customs prevailing in their caste community on 12­02­2011 and which is an arranged marriage and that she lived at her in­laws’ house for about 6 months and that since the petitioner being Military man working in Military Barracks visits his parents’ house and on those visits she lead her married life. 

It is also alleged that since the families of herself and petitioner are joint family as such the marriage alliance took place with a hope that she will have company and the help of joint family members of petitioner and that at the time of marriage proposals initiated from the side of petitioner/husband she is doing her 1st Year Graduation in

B.Sc., (Chemistry) Degree Course in Hima Sekhar Degree College in

Anakapalle and now she completed her Post Graduation in M.A (English) and in fact the petitioner encouraged her to complete her studies and that the family members of petitioner’s parents who moved marriage proposals persuaded her parents for marriage match and that on the invitation of petitioner’s parents, her uncles viz.,

B.Kondalarao, K.Venkatarao and her Senior Paternal Uncle by name

G.Ganeswararao appraised all the facts, merits and demerits relating to her including eye sight problem in dark nights with poor lighting at their house to the petitioner’s father and elder brother viz., Anguluri

Ramu and Anguluri Srinivasarao and in those circumstances they expressed that it is not at all a problem as the petitioner being working in Military and his brother working in Army, they will get her eyes treated in any Military Hospitals. 

It is further submitted that both families of parties to this OP visited their respective houses as per customary practice before betrothal for the marriage and on one occasion the petitioner’s mother was also enlightened about her eye problem through one B.V.Triveni being her aunt and also informed to her that due to eye problem she is not in a position to insert thread in to the eye of needle and the said marriage engagement ceremony took place at her parents’ house on 27.08.2010 and that the petitioner forced her to accept a gift of mobile phone by making entreaty to her by coming over to her college for which she reluctantly received the same which was informed to her father who called the petitioner and advised him to take back the gift

HMOP 35/2015 ­4­ Addl.Sr.Civil Judge’s Court/Anakapalle

Anguluri Rajesh Vs. Anguluri Umadevi. Dt.04­09­2019.

of mobile phone which is not proper prior to marriage for which he received the same and thereafter after marriage he gave it to her. 

It is also alleged that it was agreed by parents’ of parties to this

OP after discussions, to present a cash of Rs.4,00,000/­ towards dowry and Rs.70,000/­ to the petitioner towards dowry and for purchase of motor cycle and 3 tulas of gold ornaments and

Rs.2,00,000/­ towards sare samans and thereafter the marriage was held in a grand manner and also alleged that she and petitioner also had personal meets in between the date of betrothal and marriage exchanged their views including her eye sight problem in dark nights with poor lighting for which the petitioner received the same as gently and never make it as a serious and that after marriage she and petitioner lived happily with love and affection in the leave periods of petitioner and so she lead married life for a period of 6 months and that since she has been prosecuting her studies as such she used to reside in her parents’ house with permission of petitioner and his parents.

It is further alleged that she experienced troubles after coming over of petitioner’s elder brother to her matrimonial joint house after his retirement and the petitioner’s elder brother injected in the mind of her husband stating that she is having an eye problem being a generic problem due to which the children born to them inherit the same problem with similar disease which will become hurdle to get jobs in beneficiary quota of children of Ex­Service man and since then it was a thought that she should be sent back to her parent’s house by forcing her to divorce and all the efforts of mediation became in vain for reunion between her and the petitioner. 

It is also alleged that in all the mediations the petitioner’s parents’ revealed about knowledge of her eye sight problem before marriage engagement after making persuasion to her parents’ to accept for marriage proposal and at which time the petitioner and her parents’ were advised to take back her to the matrimonial home and that the petitioner used to shower love and affection towards her in the leave period which became eye shore and jealousness in the family due to which they developed ill will and as such her co sisters created panic in the minds of petitioner’s parents’ of insecurity if the respondent proceeds to Rajasthan along with her husband i.e.,

HMOP 35/2015 ­5­ Addl.Sr.Civil Judge’s Court/Anakapalle

Anguluri Rajesh Vs. Anguluri Umadevi. Dt.04­09­2019.

petitioner. It is also alleged that she has attended her studies by making hard work for completion of her Graduation and Post

Graduation in day and night under the electrical lights and she could able to success and that she is not a blind woman as the petitioner, her parents’ and brothers canvassing to demoralize her in the public to seek relief of divorce and that during her study she used to travel to Visakhapatnam and once the petitioner also dropped her at

Duvvada and the petitioner dropped her on two occasions i.e., at the time of dropping at Duvvada and again after completion of examinations at Anakapalle Railway Station where they talked for about 3 hours and finally submitted, by denying the allegations of

Original Petition, that this Original Petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed having no merits and also requested to dismiss this OP and decree her counter claim.”

3.On behalf of petitioner, P.W1 examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 marked and on behalf of the Respondent, RW1 examined and no documents marked.

4.Heard on both sides.

5.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether this Hindu Marriage Original Petition be allowed to grant adecree of divorce to the Petitioner/Husband with the Respondent/Wife dt.12­02­2011 or not? 

6.The Learned counsel for parties to this Original petition argued that there is no dispute in respect of marriage between the parties to this OP and it is clear about living of parties separately several years but differentiated the other allegations denying as not true and correct and consequent to which the

Petitioner’s learned Counsel prayed to grant a decree of divorce to the petitioner and on the other hand the learned Counsel for the Respondent prayed to dismiss this Original Petition.

7.The petitioner, to substantiate his version, himself examined as P.W1 in chief examination by way of affidavit as usual reiterated the entire contents of

Original Petition which brief facts this court already discussed in the above paras as such again not inclined to narrate the same in order to avoid repeatance of allegations and apart from that marked the marriage invitation card, Positive

HMOP 35/2015 ­6­ Addl.Sr.Civil Judge’s Court/Anakapalle

Anguluri Rajesh Vs. Anguluri Umadevi. Dt.04­09­2019.

Marriage Photos as ExA.1 and Ex.A.2 and Xerox Copy of Demand Drafts bearing

No.940712 and No.940713 as Ex.A.3 and Ex.A.4.

8.This court would also like to narrate the contents of chief examination affidavit of Respondent examined as R.W.1 in order to discuss common evidence in the witnesses of parties in order to avoid repeatance of allegations as well as evidence.

9.The Respondent, to substantiate her version, herself examined examined as R.W1 in chief examination by way of affidavit as usual reiterated the entire contents of Original Petition which brief facts this court already discussed in the above paras as such again not inclined to narrate the same in order to avoid repeatance of allegations.

10.Now let us discuss the cross examination of P.W1 and R.W1 in order to ascertain whether the petitioner is entitled for a decree of divorce for dissolution of his marriage with the Respondent/Wife or not.

11.It is not in dispute between the parties to this OP regarding the performance of their marriage on 12­02­2011 at the Petitioner’s Parents’ house near Head Water Works in Anakapalle as per Hindu Rites and Customs prevailing in their caste community as it is an arranged marriage and they are at dispute in respect of other allegations leveled against each other in their respective pleadings.

12.The petitioner and respondent as P.W1 and R.W1 admitted about the aspect stating that the Respondent as R.W.1 studying final year B.Sc., at the time of marriage and subsequently completed her Post Graduation (M.A). P.W.1 and

R.W.1 also admitted that there are no other cases between them except this OP.

P.W.1 in his cross examination admitted the aspect stating that he has no doubt or suspicion over the character of Respondent i.e., R.W.1. There is no admission from the mouth of P.W.1 regarding the aspect stating that prior to the marriage the Respondent’s parents informed to him about health condition of Respondent in respect of her eye vision and the said aspect was denied by the Petitioner.

HMOP 35/2015 ­7­ Addl.Sr.Civil Judge’s Court/Anakapalle

Anguluri Rajesh Vs. Anguluri Umadevi. Dt.04­09­2019.

13.The petitioner and respondent as P.W1 and R.W1 admitted that during the pendency of this OP they both settled their dispute with the intervention of elders and well wishers and as per terms of settlement the

Respondent i.e., R.W.1 agreed to not press the Counter Claim for restitution of conjugal rights made in the above Original Petition and accordingly not pressed the said Counter Claim by filing not pressing Memo. P.W.1 and R.W.1 admitted the fact stating that since there is no possibility for reunion between them to lead married life as such they both decided to take divorce in the court of law to put an end to all their disputes in future. P.W.1 and R.W.1 admitted the fact stating that as per terms of settlement exchange of gold items took place between them and returned back the Sthreedhana articles and movables on 28­08­2019. P.W.1 and

R.W.1 admitted the fact stating that as per terms of settlement P.W.1 agreed to pay and R.W.1 agreed to receive Rs.8,00,000/­ towards full and final settlement of this Original Petition as well as towards permanent alimony of Respondent and also P.W.1 agreed to pay Rs.2,80,000/­ to the Respondent i.e., R.W.1 towards the marriage expenses which were incurred by the Respondent’s parents at the time of marriage.

13.P.W.1 and R.W.1 admitted that as per terms P.W.1 agreed to pay settlement amount of Rs.8,00,000/­ + Rs.2,80,000/­ = Rs.10,80,000/­ by way of two Demand Drafts bearing No.940712 and 940713 dt.28­08­2019 respectively drawn on Andhra Bank, Woodpeta of Anakapalle to Respondent for which R.W.1 also agreed to receive the same and accordingly R.W.1 received the above said

Demand Drafts for Rs.10,80,000/­ from P.W.1 on the date of evidence i.e., 29­08­ 2019 and as such the Xerox copy of the above said two Demand Drafts marked as

Ex.A.3 and Ex.A.4. P.W1 and R.W1 admitted the fact stating that they both agreed not to lay any claim against each other in future in any court of law in view of compromise entered into between them and also as per terms they both agreed not to interfere with each other at any point of time on any aspect and they further

HMOP 35/2015 ­8­ Addl.Sr.Civil Judge’s Court/Anakapalle

Anguluri Rajesh Vs. Anguluri Umadevi. Dt.04­09­2019.

agreed to marry any other person in future at their option for which they agreed not to raise any objection.

14.As seen from the above said discussion, it could be said that the

Petitioner established his relationship with the Respondent as Husband and

Wife and during pendency of this Original Petition the parties to the OP entered into compromise and settled their disputes and as seen from evidence of parties, it

would disclosed that some pecuniary allotment taken place between them in

the form of permanent alimony to the Respondent/Wife as discussed in the above paras and so it could be said that the parties settled all their disputes in order to put an end to future litigation and unnecessary complication to lead their life peacefully in future. Hence, the Petitioner is rightly entitled to the relief of decree of divorce as prayed in this OP. Hence the Petitioner must succeed.

In the result, this Hindu Marriage Original Petition is allowed and thereby a decree of divorce is granted to the Petitioner/Husband by dissolving his marriage with the Respondent/Wife dt.12­02­2011 but in the circumstances both parties do bear their own costs.

 Partly typed to my dictation by Stenographer, partly typed by me and partly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4th day of September, 2019.

Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Anakapalle.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED 

FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENTS:

P.W.1: Anguluri Rajesh. R.W.1: Anguluri Umadevi.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS: FOR RESPONDENT:

Ex.P.1: Marriage Invitation Card. Ex.P.2: Positives marriage photos Ex.P.3: Xerox Copy of Demand Draft bearing No.940712 dt.28.08.2019 for Rs.9,00,000/­ drawn on Andhra Bank, Woodpet of Anakapalli. Ex.P.4: Xerox Copy of Demand Draft bearing No.940713 dt.28.08.2019 for Rs.1,80,000/­ drawn on Andhra Bank, Woodpet of Anakapalli.

Additional Senior Civil Judge, 

Anakapalle.

HMOP 35/2015 ­9­ Addl.Sr.Civil Judge’s Court/Anakapalle

Anguluri Rajesh Vs. Anguluri Umadevi. Dt.04­09­2019.

Date of presentation : 01­06­2015 Date of filing : 03­06­2015

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: ANAKAPALLE

Present: Sri P. Vasu

Additional Senior Civil Judge, 

Anakapalle 

Dated: Wednesday, this the 4th day of September, 2019

H.M.O.P.No.35/2015

Between:? Anguluri Rajesh, S/o Ramu, Age: 32 years, Hindu, Military Service, R/at D.No.15­15, Near Head Water Works, Gundala Street of Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District

... Petitioner.

Vs.

Anguluri Umadevi, W/o Rajesh, Age: 23 Years, Hindu, C/o.Guttikonda Nookaraju, R/at D.No.6­224, Muttharasu Colony, 4th Street, Saradanagar, Kotturu of Anakapalle Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

... Respondent.

This is a Hindu Marriage Original Petition filed U/Sec.13 (1) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of the petitioner/husband with the Respondent/Wife dt.12­02­2011.

A fixed court fee of Rs.10/­ is paid U/Sec.20 R/w Sch.II of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act. This Hindu Marriage Original Petition coming on 29­08­2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt.K.Kusuma, Advocate for Petitioner and

Sri.A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad and K.Satyanarayana, Advocates for Respondent, having heard on both sides, having perused the material papers available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and:

D E C R E E

1.that this Hindu Marriage Original Petition is allowed and thereby a decree of divorce is granted to the Petitioner/Husband by dissolving his marriage with the Respondent/Wife dt.12­02­2011;

2.that there be no order as to costs.

 Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the 04th day September, 2019.

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalle.

HMOP 35/2015 ­10­ Addl.Sr.Civil Judge’s Court/Anakapalle

Anguluri Rajesh Vs. Anguluri Umadevi. Dt.04­09­2019.

Memorandum of Costs

For Respondent:­Rs. Ps.

Stamp on Vakalat2 Advicate fee3000 Writing Charges200 Costs allowed 3202­00

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalle. NOTE: The parties should apply as soon as possible for the return of all exhibits which they may wish to preserve, as the record will be liable to be destroyed after three years from this date.

S.C.No.175/2017 -1- ASJC/NRPM Dt.10-10-2018

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE: NARSIPATNAM

Present: Sri P. Vasu Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Anakapalle, (FAC) Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsipatnam

Wednesday, this the 10th day of October, 2018

Sessions Case No.175/2017

P.R.C.No. 18/2014 of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Chintapalli (Crime No.85/2013 of Chintapalli Police Station)

Name of the complainant : State, rep. by the Circle Inspector of Police, Chintapalli.

Name of the accused: Mukkali Murali, S/o Parameswara Rao, Valmiki by caste, 33 years, S.G.T. Teacher, Bailukinchangi Village, Chintapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam district.

Plea of the accused: Not guilty.

Prosecution conducted by: Sri K.Satyanarayana, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

Whether the accused is : Defended by Sri G.Sankara Rao, defended or not: Advocate for Accused

This case has come up on 3.10.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Satyanarayana, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, and of Sri G.Sankara Rao, Advocate for accused, having heard on both sides, having perused the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Circle Inspector of Police, Chintapalli Police Station laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No.85/2013 punishable under Sections 376, 342, 312, 506 I.P.C.

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, are that :- “L.W.1 (victim) being resident of Tajangi village while studying 10th class in Gudem High School for the year 2004-05 at which time the accused who is studying in Visakhapatnam used to chase her on the pretext of love upon which she believed that it is true love, she also used to talk with him and that L.W.1 (victim) used to reside in Paderu village from 2009-2011 for the purpose of attending correspondence decree examinations at which time she used to reside in her friend L.W.8 (Elivala Mayuri @ Chinna)’s house in Paderu and while she is living in Paderu, the accused also used to

S.C.No.175/2017 -2- ASJC/NRPM Dt.10-10-2018 visit her friend’s house apart from staying in the said house which aspect also known to her friends i.e., L.W.8 and L.W.9 (Elivala Mayuri and Chintada Saroja)and that at some times the accused used to take her on his bike in the evening times to his room situated in Gunulanka Street of Chintapalli where he used to enjoy her physically in the night times i.e., having sexual intercourse with her which also known to the friends of accused i.e., L.W.6 (Gasad Bhargava Satyanarayana) and L.W.7 (Depuri Somalingam @ Pandu)and at sometimes they four i.e., L.W.1 (victim), the accused and his friends i.e., L.W.6 (Gasad Bhargava Satyanarayana) and L.W.7 (Depuri Somalingam @ Pandu) used to have meals in the room of accused and while it is so either L.W.6 (Gasad Bhargava Satyanarayana) and L.W.7 (Depuri Somalingam @ Pandu) used to leave L.W.1 (victim) to Chinthapalli from Gunulanka Streeton the bike of the accused and whenever she is in Tajangi village the accused used to send a message to come to his room and whenever she did not come to room and whenever the accused saw her in Chinthapalli at which time the accused used to make her to come to his room while informing the same to L.W.7 (Depuri Somalingam @ Pandu) through phone and after visiting his room, the accused used to confine her in the room by locking the doors in order to go to his duties and in these circumstances she did not get monthly periods which was informed to the accused for which he used to bring contraceptive pills and got drinking the same forcibly by L.W.1 (victim) and that the accused also expressed that he will go to marry her and not to disclose their secret affair to anybody otherwise threatened to commit suicide or to kill L.W.1 (victim) by pouring acid and when she came to know about the accused going to marry another woman at which time she filed this complaint against the accused to take necessary action upon which a case was registered in Cr.No.85/2013 by L.W.16 (V.Satyanarayana)being the then Probationary Sub Inspector of Police, Chintapalli Police Station under Sections 417, 420, 342 and 312 I.P.C. and after completion of investigation L.W.17 (K.N.S.V. Prasad)being the then Inspector of Police, Chintapalli Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused under the above sections of law.”

3.After filing of charge sheet, the learned Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Chintapallitaken the cognizance of offence under Section 376, 342,

312 and 506 against the accused by assigning P.R.C. No. 18/2014.

S.C.No.175/2017 -3- ASJC/NRPM Dt.10-10-2018

4.On appearance of the accused, the learned Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Chintapalli, furnished, the copies of documents, as required under

section 207 Cr.P.C and on hearing on both sides this case was committed to the

Hon'ble Court of Sessions, Visakhapatnam Division, Visakhapatnam vide

committal order dt.21.8.2015.

5.The Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam is pleased to made over this case to this court for disposal according to law vide Sessions

Case No.175/2017.

6.On the appearance of the accused and on hearing both sides, my learned Predecessor-in-Office examined the accused U/sec.228 Cr.P.C for which he denied the offences leveled against him upon which a charge under Section 376, 342, 312 and 506 IPC framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.4 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 marked and no material objects marked.

8.Since there is no incriminating evidence appeared against the accused as such examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with and posted to today for judgment.

9.Heard on both sides.

10.Now the point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the charge under section 376, 342, 312

and 506 IPC beyond reasonable doubt or not?”

11.The learned counsel for the accused argued that the prosecution evidences have not elicited the incriminating act on the part of accused i.e., having sexual intercourse by the accused with the de-facto complainant (victim) on the pretext of love on several times, confining the victim in his room by the accused in order to attend his duties, forcibly administering tablets to get abortion of pregnancy for miscarriage to the victim apart from threatening to commit suicide by himself or kill the victim by pouring acid if she reveals their secret affair to anybody, etc., and hence prayed to acquit the accused.

S.C.No.175/2017 -4- ASJC/NRPM Dt.10-10-2018

12.Whereas the learned Additional Public Prosecutor frankly argued that there is no evidence available to the Court to appreciate the case of prosecution.

13.The prosecution, to prove the guilt of the accused, examined the de-facto complainant (victim), her elder brother i.e., L.W.2 (Kanta Ramu) and her mother i.e., L.W.4 (Kanta Akkamma) as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and one independent witness who alleged to be knowing the illegal affair between the accused and the victim as P.W.4 who expected to speak the incriminating act on the part of the accused as described in the above paragraphs.

14.Now let us discuss whether the evidence of prosecution witnesses disclosed the commission of offence by the accused or not.

15.The de-facto complainant (victim) and her brother as P.W.1 and

P.W.2 deposed about their inter-relationship between them as P.W.2 is the elder brother of the victim and that P.W.3 and L.W.3 (Kanta Kannababu) are their parents. P.W.1 and P.W.2 deposed that they know the accused who is present in the Court hall as well as L.W.5 to L.W.9 (Gorle Kasulamma, Gasad Bhargava

Satyanarayana, Depuri Somalingam @ Pandu, Elivala Mayuri @ Chinna and

Chintada Saroja).

16.The victim as P.W.1 deposed that she studied upto degree and that she and the accused fell in love with each other since at the time of her 10th class studying and which love aspect was informed to their parents and also requested to perform marriage between them for which their parents refused to perform marriage. P.W.2 in this regard stated that in the year 2013 P.W.1 informed to them about loving of accused by her for which they asked her stating that he is not a match to their family as there are small disputes between their families and accordingly they refused to have relationship with the accused by giving P.W.1 in marriage to the accused. P.W.1 deposed that since her parents refused to perform her marriage with the accused as such she lodged a complaint marked as Ex.P.1 in Chintapalli Police Station but she do not know the contents of her complaint. P.W.2 in this aspect stated that without their knowledge and consent, P.W.1 gave complaint in Chintapalli Police

Station.

S.C.No.175/2017 -5- ASJC/NRPM Dt.10-10-2018

17.The brother of victim as P.W.2 deposed that police not examined him and so his 161 Cr.P.C. statement was marked as P.W.2.

18.The prosecution examined the mother of the victim as P.W.3 and

L.W.6 (Gasad Bhargava Satyanarayana)alleged to be the friend of accused as

P.W.4. P.W.3 as usual deposed about her relationship with P.W.1 and P.W.2 as her children and L.W.3(Kanta Kannababu) being her husband who is bed ridden for the last one year and who is unable to move but stated that she know the accused who is present in the Court hall. Now coming to the main aspect of offence, P.W.3 stated that she did not know anything about this case and police also not examined her, so her 161 Cr.P.C. statement was marked as Ex.P.3.

19.P.W.4 simply stated that he do not know the prosecution witnesses i.e., P.W.1 to P.W.3, L.W.3 (Kanta Kannababu), L.W.5 (Gorle Kasulamma), L.W.7 to 9 (Depuri Somalingam @ Pandu, Elivala Mayuri @ Chinna and Chintada

Saroja) as well as the accused who is present in the Court hall. P.W.4 also stated that he do not know about this case and police not examined him and so his 161 Cr.P.C. statement was marked as Ex.P.4.

20.In view of the above discussion, it could be said that the prosecution witnesses have not elicited the incriminating act on the part of accused i.e., having sexual intercourse by the accused with the de-facto complainant (victim) on the pretext of love on several times, confining the victim in his room by the accused in order to attend his duties, forcibly administering tablets to get abortion of pregnancy for miscarriage to the victim apart from threatening to commit suicide by himself or kill the victim by pouring acid if she reveals their secret affair to anybody, etc., as because they have given a go-bye to the case of prosecution. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt but there are clouds of doubts which have not been unveiled by the prosecution. It is not just and proper on the part of Court to convict the accused without any corroborative evidence and that too no prosecution witnesses stated anything against the accused. Hence, prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt.

S.C.No.175/2017 -6- ASJC/NRPM Dt.10-10-2018

21.In the result, the accused found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 376, 342, 312 and 506 IPC and acquitted under Sec.232

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for further period of six months from the date of judgment U/sec. 437(A) Cr.P.C and thereafter it stands cancelled. The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed forthwith.

Dictated to theSuperintendent deputed to act as

Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 10th day of October, 2018.

Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Anakapalle, (FAC) Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsipatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE: P.W.1 : Victim. -NIL- P.W.2 : Kanta Ramu. P.W.3 : Kanta Akkamma. P.W.4 : G.Bhargava Satyanarayana.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE: Ex.P.1: Complaint dt.10-12-2013 given by P.W.1. -Nil- Ex.P.2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.2. Ex.P.3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.3. Ex.P.4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Anakapalle, (FAC) Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsipatnam.

S.C.No.175/2017 -7- ASJC/NRPM Dt.10-10-2018

C A L E N D A R

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE: NARSIPATNAM

Present: Sri P. Vasu Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Anakapalle, (FAC) Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsipatnam

Wednesday, the 10th day of October, 2018

Sessions Case No.175/2017

P.R.C.No. 18/2014 of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Chintapalli (Crime No.85/2013 of Chintapalli Police Station)

Name of the complainant: State, rep. By the Circle Inspector of

Police, Chintapalli Police Station

Name of the accused: Mukkali Murali, S./o Parameswara Rao,

Valmiki bycaste, 33 years, S.G.T. Teacher,

Bailukinchangivillage,Chintapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District

Charges framed: 376, 342, 312 and 506 IPC

Date of offence : Prior to 10.12.2013

Date of complaint: 13.1.2014

Date of Committal: 21.8.2015

Date of apprehension: 30.6.2015

Date of commencement of trial: 4.6.2018

Date of closure of trial: 3.10.2018

Date of judgment: 10.10.2018

Whether the accused is in jail or on bail: On bail

Prosecution conducted by: Sri K. Satyanarayana, Addl. P.P.

Whether the accused is : Defended by Sri G. Sankara Rao, defended or not: Advocate for Accused

Explanation for the delay and remarks:

S.C.No.175/2017 -8- ASJC/NRPM Dt.10-10-2018

This case is filed by the Inspector of Police, Chintapalli Police Station, against the accused for the offence U/Sec. Sec.376, 342, 312 and 506 I.P.C in Cr. No.85/2013 and the same was committed to the Hon'ble District Court, Visakhapatnam by Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chintapalli in P.R.C.No.18/14 as the case is triable by Court of Sessions.

This case has been made over to this Court (Asst. Sessions Judge's Court, Narsipatnam) by the District Court, Visakhapatnam after assigning Sessions Case No.175/2017, as per the Proceedings in Dis. No. 7780 dt. 4.9.2017. The case was posted to 30-11-2017 for appearance of accused.

On 30.11.2017 accused present and requested time to engage counsel. On 3.1.2018 Sri G. Sankara Rao, Advocate, filed Memo of appearance for accused. On 2.2.18, 16.2.2018, 5.3.2018, 6.4.2018, 1.5.2018, 4.5.2018, 7.5.2018 and 14.5.2018 the matter underwent adjournments from time to time for hearing on charges at the request of learned counsel for accused while representing that the matter is likely to be settled.

On 4.6.18 the accused was present, examined U/Sec.228 Cr.P.C. about the allegations contained in charge sheet for which he pleaded not guilty and Charges U/Sec.376, 3342, 312 and 506 I.P.C framed against the accused. Accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried, hence posted for hearing on fixation of trial. From 26.6.2018 the matter adjourned to 10.7.2018 and from 10.7.2018 at the request of the learned Addl. P.P., and learned Advocate for the accused, the matter was posted to 19.9.2018 for fixation of trial. On 19.9.2018 accused present and schedule was fixed for trial from 3.10.2018. On 3.10.2018 accused present and L.W.1, L.W.2, L.W.4 and L.W.6 called present and examined as P.W.1 to P.W.4 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 marked. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor given up the remaining witnesses i.e., L.W.3, L.W.5, L.W.7 to

17. Hence prosecution evidence is closed. Since there is no incriminating evidence appeared against the accused as such the examination of accused U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with. Heard arguments on both sides and posted to 10.10.2018 for judgment. On 10.10.2018 accused called present and judgment pronounced in the open Court vide separate.

Offence:Sec. 376, 342, 312 and 506 I.P.C.

Finding of the Court:Not guilty.

Sentence:In the result, the accused found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 342, 312 and 506 I.P.C and acquitted under Sec.232 Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for further period of six months from the date of judgment U/sec. 437(A) Cr.P.C and thereafter the

S.C.No.175/2017 -9- ASJC/NRPM Dt.10-10-2018 same stands cancelled. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed forthwith.

Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Anakapalle, (FAC) Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsipatnam.

//TRUE COPY//

Superintendent Addl.Asst. Sessions Judge’s Court, Anakapalle.

Copy submitted to:

1. The Hon’ble Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

2. The Hon’ble District Judge, Visakhapatnam.

Copy to: The Superintendent of Police (Town),Visakhapatnam.

S.C.No.175/2017 -10- ASJC/NRPM Dt.10-10-2018

S.C.No.199//2017 - 1 - ASJC/Narsipatnam Dt.10-10-2018

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE: NARSIPATNAM

Present: Sri P. Vasu Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Anakapalle. (FAC) Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsipatnam.

Dated: Wednesday, this the 10th day of October, 2018

Sessions Case No.199/2017

P.R.C.No. 43/2014 of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Narsipatnam (Crime No.10/14 of Rolugunta Police Station)

Name of the complainant : State, rep. By the Sub Inspector of Police, Rolugunta Police Station

Name of the accused : Loda Raja Rao, S/o Yerrayya, S.C. Mala, 28 years, Darlapudi village, S. Rayavaram Mandal.

Plea of the accused : Not guilty

Prosecution conducted by : Sri K.Satyanarayana, Addl. Public Prosecutor

Whether the accused is : Defended by Sri Kosuru Appalanaidu defended or not Advocate for Accused

This case has come up on 3.10.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Satyanarayana, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri Kosuru Appalanaidu, Advocate for accused, having heard on both sides, having perused the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Rolugunta Police Station laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No.10/2014 punishable under Sections 307 and 324 I.P.C.

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, are that :- “L.W.1 (Mangi Mani)being resident of Butchhiempeta village studied II year Intermediate education and that the accused introduced himself as the nearest relative of L.W.1 (Mangi Mani) and thereafter he developed illegal contact with her and that in recent days L.W.1 (Mangi Mani)and the accused disputed with each other for petty aspects and that after having knowledge that the accused having wife and children, she has given go-bye to the illegal contract and living with her parents’ house and that the

S.C.No.199//2017 - 2 - ASJC/Narsipatnam Dt.10-10-2018 accused came to the house of L.W.1 (Mangi Mani) i.e., her parents’ house and expressed that he will not live without her company and whenever she used to go to attend calls of nature at which time also the accused chasing her which aspect informed to her parents and ultimately it was decided that L.W.1 (Mangi Mani) should be given in marriage to the accused by fixing an auspicious day and while it is so on 26-01-2014 at about 6 p.m.,in the evening the accused came to the house of L.W.1 (Mangi Mani) i.e., Butchhiempeta Village where he took dispute with her and her parents and tried to lit fire after pouring kerosene on him as well as on her and in those circumstances her parents obstructed but the accused beat L.W.1 (Mangi Mani) with the available stick and brick on her head causing bleeding injuries and on the complaint given by L.W.1 (Mangi Mani)a case was registered in Cr.No.10/14 under Sections 307 and 324 IPC by L.W.13 (B. Krishna Rao), being the then Sub Inspector of Police, Rolugunta Police Station and after completion of investigation, L.W.14 (S. Pydayya Naidu)being the then Sub Inspector of Police, Rolugunta Police Stationfiled charge sheet against the accused under the above sections of law.”

3.After filing of charge sheet, the learned Additional Judicial First

Class Magistrate,Narsipatnam taken the cognizance of offence under Section 307 and 324 I.P.C. against the accused by assigning P.R.C. No. 43/2014.

4.On appearance of the accused, the learned Additional Judicial First

Class Magistrate, Narsipatnam, furnished, the copies of documents, as required under section 207 Cr.P.C and on hearing on both sides this case was committed to the Hon'ble Court of Sessions, Visakhapatnam Division, Visakhapatnam vide committal order dt.12-11-2015.

5.The Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam is pleased to made over this case to this court for disposal according to law vide Sessions

Case No.199/2017.

6.On the appearance of the accused and on hearing both sides, my learned predecessor-in-office framed charge under Sec.307 and 324 IPC, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 marked and no material objects marked.

S.C.No.199//2017 - 3 - ASJC/Narsipatnam Dt.10-10-2018

8.Since there is no incriminating evidence appeared against the accused as such examination of accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C dispensed with and posted to today for judgment.

9.Heard on both sides.

10.Now the point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the charge under section 307 and 324 IPC beyond reasonable doubt or not?”

11.The learned counsel for the accused argued that the prosecution evidences have not elicited the incriminating act on the part of accused i.e., attempting to commit murder of de-facto complainant by becoming wild of her cessation of her illegal contact with the accused apart from causing hurt to her by beating with stick and brick, etc., and hence prayed to acquit the accused.

12.Whereas the learned Additional Public Prosecutor frankly argued that there is no evidence available to the Court to appreciate the case of prosecution.

13.The prosecution, to prove the guilt of the accused, examined the de-facto complainant and her parents as P.W.1 to P.W.3 who expected to speak about the incriminating act on the part of the accused as described in the above paragraphs.

14.Now let us discuss whether the evidence of prosecution witnesses disclosed the commission of offence by the accused or not.

15.The de-facto complainant and her parents as P.W.1 to P.W.3 deposed about their inter relationship between them as P.W.1 is the daughter of

P.W.2 and P.W.3 and also stated about their relationship with L.W.4 (Varakumari) as her elder sister. P.W.1 deposed that she do not know L.W.5 (Kollabathula

Bhujulakshmi) and L.W.6 (Nikkala Varalakshmi) whereas P.W.2 and P.W.3 stated that they know the above witnesses. P.W.1 to P.W.3 stated that they know the accused who is present in the Court hall.

16.The de-facto complainant as P.W.1 deposed that she and the accused fell in love with each other from 2014 and that the accused came to her parents’ house situated in Butchmmapeta village and expressed before her parents stating that he loved her as well as going to marry her. P.W.1 deposed

S.C.No.199//2017 - 4 - ASJC/Narsipatnam Dt.10-10-2018 that after hearing only from others stating that the accused already got married with another lady she raised a dispute and in that they both scuffled due to which she fell on the ground and subsequently she lodged a complaint marked as Ex.P.1 in Rolugunta Police Station but she do not know the contents of Ex.P.1 as she was in Government Hospital, Narsipatnam.

17.The parents of the de-facto complainant i.e., P.W.2 and P.W.3 deposed that they do not know anything about this case and that all the prosecution witnesses i.e., P.W.1 to P.W.3 deposed that Police not examined them and so their Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statements marked as Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.4.

18.In view of the above discussion, it could be said that the prosecution witnesses have not elicited the incriminating act on the part of accused i.e., attempting to commit murder of de-facto complainant by becoming wild of her cessation of her illegal contact with the accused apart from causing hurt to her by beating with stick and brick, etc., as because they have given go-bye to the case of prosecution. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt but there are clouds of doubts which have not been unveiled by the prosecution. It is not just and proper on the part of Court to convict the accused without any corroborative evidence and that too no prosecution witnesses stated anything against the accused. Hence, the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt.

21.In the result, the accused found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sec. 307 and 324 IPC and acquitted under Sec.232 Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for further period of six months from the date of judgment U/sec. 437(A) Cr.P.C and thereafter it stands cancelled.

The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed forthwith.

Dictated to the Superintendent, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 10th day of October, 2018.

Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Anakapalle, (FAC) Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsipatnam.

S.C.No.199//2017 - 5 - ASJC/Narsipatnam Dt.10-10-2018

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE: P.W.1: Mangi Mani. -NIL- P.W.2: Mangi Yerrayyamma. P.W.3: Mangi Kalyanam.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE: Ex.P.1: Complaint dt.30-01-2014 given by P.W.1. -NIL- Ex.P.2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.1. Ex.P.3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.2. Ex.P.4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.3.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Anakapalle, (FAC) Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsipatnam.

S.C.No.199//2017 - 6 - ASJC/Narsipatnam Dt.10-10-2018

C A L E N D A R

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE: NARSIPATNAM

Present: Sri P. Vasu Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Anakapalle, (FAC) Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsipatnam

Wednesday, the 10th day of October, 2018

Sessions Case No.199/2017

P.R.C.No. 43/2014 of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court Narsipatnam (Crime No.10/14 of Rolugunta Police Station)

Name of the complainant: State, rep. By the Sub Inspector of

Police, Rolugunta Police Station

Name of the accused: Loda Raja Rao, S/oYerrayya, 28 years,

Darlapudi village, S. Rayavaram

Charges framed: 307 and 324 I.P.C.

Date of offence : 26.1.2014

Date of complaint: 28.1.2014

Date of Committal: 12.11.2015

Date of apprehension: 28.7.2015

Date of commencement of trial: 7.6.2018

Date of closure of trial: 3.10.2018

Date of judgment: 10.10.2018

Whether the accused is in jail or on bail: On bail

Prosecution conducted by: Sri K. Satyanarayana Addl. Public

Prosecutor

Whether the accused is : Defended by Sri Kosuru Appalanaidu, defended or not: Advocate for Accused

Explanation for the delay and remarks:

S.C.No.199//2017 - 7 - ASJC/Narsipatnam Dt.10-10-2018

This case is filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Rolugunta Police Station, against the accused for the offence U/Sec. Sec.307 and 324 I.P.C in Cr. No.10/2014 and the same was committed to the Hon'ble District Court, Visakhapatnam by Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsipatnam in P.R.C. No. 43/2014 as the case is triable by Court of Sessions.

This case has been made over to this Court (Asst. Sessions Judge's Court, Narsipatnam) by the District Court, Visakhapatnam after assigning Sessions Case No.199/2017, as per the Proceedings in Dis. No. 9520 dt.23.10.2017. The case was posted to 19.4.2018 for appearance of accused. On 19.4.2018 and on 14.5.2018 accused present. On 14.5.2018 Sri K. Appalanaidu, Advocate filed Memo of appearance for accused. On 17.5.2018 accused present and matter was posted to 7.6.2018 for framing charges. On 7.6.2018 the accused was present, examined U/Sec.228 Cr.P.C. about the allegations contained in charge sheet for which he pleaded not guilty and Charges U/Sec. 307 and 324 I.P.C framed against the accused. Accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried, hence posted for hearing on fixation of trial to 4.7.2018. From 4.7.2018 the matter adjourned to 26.7.2018 and from 26.7.2018 the matter was posted to 16.8.2018. From 16.8.2018 the matter is posted to 12.9.2018 for trial and on 12.9.2018, accused present and schedule was fixed for trial from 19.9.2018. On 19.9.2018 accused was present and L.W.1, L.W.2 and L.W.3 called present and examined as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 marked. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor given up the remaining witnesses i.e., L.W.4 to L.W.12 and posted to 3.10.2018 for the evidence of L.Ws.13 and L.W.14. On 3.10.2018 the learned A.P.P. given up the evidence of L.W.13 and L.W.14. Hence prosecution evidence is closed. Since there is no incriminating evidence appeared against the accused as such the examination of accused U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with. Heard arguments on both sides and posted to 10.10.2018 for judgment. On 10.10.2018 accused called present and judgment pronounced in the open Court vide separate.

Offence:Sec.307 and 307 I.P.C.

Finding of the Court:Not guilty

Sentence:In the result, the accused found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.307 and 324 I.P.C and acquitted under Sec.232 Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for further period of six months from the date of judgment U/sec. 437(A) Cr.P.C and thereafter it stands cancelled. The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed forthwith.

Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge,

S.C.No.199//2017 - 8 - ASJC/Narsipatnam Dt.10-10-2018

Anakapalle, (FAC) Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsipatnam.

S.C.No.199//2017 - 9 - ASJC/Narsipatnam Dt.10-10-2018 //TRUE COPY//

Superintendent Addl.Asst. Sessions Judge’s Court, Anakapalle.

Copy submitted to:

1. The Hon’ble Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

2. The Hon’ble District Judge, Visakhapatnam.

Copy to: The Superintendent of Police (Town),Visakhapatnam.

S.C.No.199//2017 - 10 - ASJC/Narsipatnam Dt.10-10- 2018

HMOP.72/2018 ­1­ Addl.Sr.Civil Judge’s Court/Anakapalle

Dt.13.09.2019.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: ANAKAPALLE

Present: Sri P. Vasu

Additional Senior Civil Judge, 

Anakapalle 

Dated: Friday, this the 13th day of September, 2019

H.M.O.P.No.72/2018

Between:?

1.Chukkala Ramana S/o late Sriramulu, Age: 34 years, Hindu, R/at D.No.31­13­30, Venkateswarametta, Allipuram of Visakhapatnam.

2.Chukkala Roja, W/o Ramana, Age: 26 years, Hindu, R/at D.No.15­16­10/1, P.V.R.Naidu Street, Gavarapalem of Anakapalle Visakhapatnam District.

... Petitioners.

This Hindu Marriage Original Petition coming on 11­09­2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.V.Reddynaidu, Advocate for Petitioners, having heard the Petitioners, having perused the material papers available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

O R D E R 

This is a Hindu Marriage Original Petition filed U/Sec.13 (B) of Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of the petitioners’ dt.05.11.2008 by way of mutual consent.

2.Brief reference of facts lead to file this Hindu Marriage Original

Petition are:

“That the petitioners are the husband and wife whose marriage performed on 05.11.2008 at Sri Mahatma Gandhi Community

Hall, Allipuram of Visakhapatnam as per Hindu Rites and

Customs prevailing in their caste community and that the 2nd petitioner’s parents presented gold jewelery and saresamans to the 1st petitioner towards gift and that the petitioners’ marriage was consummated. 

It is also alleged that the petitioners’ marital life did not run smoothly due to differences of opinions on each and every issue and the said petitioner did not tolerate the late coming of 1st petitioner to the house due to which also several differences arose and thereby those issues crop up the gap between them and that

HMOP.72/2018 ­2­ Addl.Sr.Civil Judge’s Court/Anakapalle

Dt.13.09.2019. the petitioners’ lived for a period of one year and 6 months only and thereafter they decided that there is no possibility for conjugal life between them and in which circumstances the 2nd petitioner left for her parent’s house by leaving the company of 1st petitioner and since then the petitioners’ are living separately and during their wedlock they have not blessed with any children. 

It is further alleged that in view of non possibility of reunion between the petitioners’ to lead married life and no change in their attitudes and that the petitioners’ could not able to receive good suggestions from parents and that on conciliation by the elders and on the advise of elders the petitioners’ put up their family at Anakapalle where also they did not live long life and with great difficulty they lived together till 2014 and in view of non change in the attitude of petitioners’ in their minds and no possibility for living together to lead married life as such they both are staying at their parents house and ultimately the petitioners’ decided to take divorce in the court of law and that they have not filed any such similar petition in any court of law and there is no collusion between the petitioners in filing this

Original Petition. Hence, this OP for grant of divorce by way of mutual consent.”

3. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the petitioners be entitled to a decree of divorce for dissolution of their marriage dt.05­11­2008 or not?”

4.On behalf of of petitioners P.W1 and P.W2 examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 marked through P.W.1 (husband).

5.Heard.

6.The petitioners, to substantiate their version, themselves examined as

P.W1 and P.W2 in chief examination by way of affidavits as usual reiterated the entire contents of Original Petition which brief facts this court already discussed in the above paras as such again not inclined to narrate the same in order to avoid repeatance of allegations and apart from that marked the marriage photos (2 in number), Xerox Copy of Voter Identity Card and Xerox Copy of 2nd petitioners’

Aadhaar Card of 2nd petitioner as Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 and apart from that stated that the

HMOP.72/2018 ­3­ Addl.Sr.Civil Judge’s Court/Anakapalle

Dt.13.09.2019. gold jewelery and sare samans presented by 2nd petitioners’ parents were returned to her and that since it is a Hindu Marriage Original Petition for grant of divorce by way of mutual consent as such this court inclined to examine the witnesses (petitioners) on the bench apart from chief affidavits to seek admission on their contents and bind over them on their evidence.

7.The petitioners as P.W1 and P.W2 deposed about the performance of their marriage on 05.11.2008 at Sri Mahatma Gandhi Community Hall, Allipuram of

Visakhapatnam as per Hindu Rites and Customs prevailing in their caste community and after marriage they lived only for the period of one and half year and there after disputes arose between them which became unbearable to live together to lead married life.

8.P.W1 and P.W2 on the bench deposed that they have not blessed with any children due to their short living of more than one year only. P.W1 deposed that he and P.W2 residing separately for the last more than 3 years and it is for the last 4 years from the say of P.W2. P.W1 and P.W2 deposed that in spite of their best efforts for re union between them to lead marriage life, they could not able to settle their issue and adjust in their life. P.W1 and P.W2 deposed that since there is no possibility for reunion between them as such they both entered into compromise with the intervention of elders in which they decided to take mutual divorce.

9.P.W1 and P.W2 deposed that as per terms of settlement P.W1 agreed to return back the gold jewelery and sare samans, presented to the 2nd petitioner by her parents at the time of marriage, to P.W2 who also agreed to receive the same towards full and final settlement of this Original Petition as well as towards permanent alimony to the 2nd petitioner i.e., P.W2 and accordingly P.W.2 received the gold jewelery and sare samans from P.W.1. P.W1 and P.W2 deposed that as per terms they agreed to marry any other person of their choice in future after getting divorce for which they agreed not to raise any objection in view of above settlement. 

10.In view of above discussion, it could be said that there is no dispute with regard to relationship between the petitioners as husband and wife whose marriage

HMOP.72/2018 ­4­ Addl.Sr.Civil Judge’s Court/Anakapalle

Dt.13.09.2019. performed as per Hindu Rites and Customs and as seen from the evidence of petitioners, it could disclosed that some arrangement was made towards full and final settlement as well as permanent alimony in order to put an end to future litigation and unnecessary complications in order to lead their life peacefully in future. Hence, the petitioners are rightly entitled for the relief as prayed for.

In the result, this Hindu Marriage Original Petition is allowed and thereby a decree of divorce is granted to the petitioners by dissolving their marriage dt.05.11.2008 but in the circumstances both parties do bear their own costs. 

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day of September, 2019.

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

ANAKAPALLE.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS: FOR RESPONDENT:

P.W.1: Chukkala Ramana. ­NIL­ P.W.2: Chukkala Roja.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS: FOR RESPONDENT:

Ex.P.1: Marriage photos (2 in number). ­NIL­ Ex.P.2: Xerox Copy of Voter Identity Card of petitioner. Ex.P.3: Xerox Copy of Adhar Card of 2nd Petitioner.

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

ANAKAPALLE.

HMOP.72/2018 ­5­ Addl.Sr.Civil Judge’s Court/Anakapalle

Dt.13.09.2019. Date of presentation : 18­08­2018 Date of filing : 29­03­2019

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: ANAKAPALLE

Present: Sri P. Vasu

Additional Senior Civil Judge, 

Anakapalle 

Dated: Friday, this the 13th day of September, 2019

H.M.O.P.No.72/2018

Between:?

1.Chukkala Ramana S/o late Sriramulu, Age: 34 years, Hindu, R/at D.No.31­13­30, Venkateswarametta, Allipuram of Visakhapatnam.

2.Chukkala Roja, W/o Ramana, Age: 26 years, Hindu, R/at D.No.15­16­10/1, P.V.R.Naidu Street, Gavarapalem of Anakapalle Visakhapatnam District.

... Petitioners.

This is a Hindu Marriage Original Petition filed U/Sec.13 (B) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of the petitioners’ dt.05.11.2008 by way of mutual consent.

A fixed court fee of Rs.10/­ is paid U/Sec.20 R/w Sch.II of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act. This Hindu Marriage Original Petition coming on 11­09­2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.V.Reddynaidu, Advocate for Petitioners, having heard the Petitioners, having perused the material papers available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and:

D E C R E E

1.that this this Hindu Marriage Original Petition is allowed and thereby a decree of divorce is granted to the petitioners by dissolving their marriage dt.05.11.2008;

2.that there be no order as to costs.

 Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the 13th day September, 2019.

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalle. Memorandum of Costs

No costs memo is filed on either side.

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalle. NOTE: The parties should apply as soon as possible for the return of all exhibits which they may wish to preserve, as the record will be liable to be destroyed after three years from this date.

HMOP.72/2018 ­6­ Addl.Sr.Civil Judge’s Court/Anakapalle

Dt.13.09.2019.

BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT BENCH AT ANAKAPALLE,

VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

(Constituted by the Mandal Legal Services Committee, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District Under Section 19 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987)

On Saturday 14th day of September, 2019

L.S.C.No.221/2019 in O.S.62/2017

(On the file of Hon’ble Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District)

Present: Sri S. Srinivasa Rao Presiding Judge­cum­ Lok Adalat Bench, Anakapalle.

Sri R.Appalanaidu Member, Lok Adalat Bench, Anakapalle

Sri P.Harasrinivasa Rao Member, Lok Adalat Bench, Anakapalle

Nainavarapu Surya Kumari, W/o Ramana, Hindu, aged 40 years, house wife. R/o C/o Kadluri Suryanarayana, Eswarapalli Chowduwada, Kannurupalem Village, Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

…..Plaintiff

And:

Jana Varalakshmi, W/o Srinivas, aged about 40 years, Hindu, housewife, r/a D.No.3- 77, Eswarapalli Chowduwada, Kannurupalem Village, Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

…..Defendant

Brief Facts of the Case:

Suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.03,49,333/­ being the principal of Rs,2,50,000/­ due on a promissory note dt.20.08.2015 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 12% p.a., and with subsequent interest and for costs of the suit. Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.03,49,333/­ and a court fee of Rs.5926/­ is paid thereon under section 20 Sch.I Art.1 (b) and (c) of APCF and SV Act. This suit was referred to Lok­Adalat at the request of both the parties by the

Additional senior Civil Judge, Anakapalle. 

This Suit is coming on this day for final settlement in the presence of the Plaintiff & the defendant and Sri M..Srinivazsarao and M.V.R.Bhupathi Rao, Advocates for Plaintiff and Sri B.V.R.Joga Rao., Advocate for defendant. Both the Parties to the suit have agreed for amicable settlement and filed terms of compromise with free will and vilation. Hence, compromise is recorded and the following AWARD is passed as per settlement arrived by the parties.

: 2”

AWARD U/S.21 OF LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITIES ACT, 1987 &

AMENDMENT ACT, 1994.

TERMS OF COMPROMISE

Both the plaintiff and defendant entered into compromise with the

intervension of elders with the following terms of compromise :

1. That the defendant agreed to pay Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One

Lakh Fifty Thousands only) to the plaintiff towards full and final

settlement of the suit claim for which the plaintiff also agreed for

the same.

2. That the defendant agreed to pay the above the settlement

amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousands

only) in two installments among them one installment of

Rs.1,00,000/- agreed to pay on 11.9.2019 and the remaining

balance of settlement amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty

thousands only) agreed to be paid within five months from the

date of Award i.e., on or before 14.02.2020 and accordingly as

per terms the part payment amount of Rs.1,00,000/- paid on

11.09.2019 to the plaintiff who also agreed for the receipt of the

above said payment of Rs.1,00,000/- on 11.09.2019.

3. The defendant agreed that in case if she fails to pay the balance

of settlement amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousands

only) on or before the stipulated period of five months i.e., on or

before 14.02.2020, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the entire

suit claim of Rs.3,49,333/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Fourty nine

Thousands Three Hundred and Thirty Three Only) with costs and

subsequent interest at 18% p.a., on Rs.2,50,000/- from the date

of filing of the suit till the date of realization.

4. That the defendant agreed that in case if she fails to pay the

remaining settlement amount of Rs.50,000/- on or before

14.2.2020, the plaintiff is at liberty to recover the suit amount

with costs by selling my attached property in IA No.131/2017

:3 :

which was attached on 25.4.2017 for which the plaintiff

also agreed for the same.

5. Both parties agreed to bear their own costs.

6. The court fee of Rs.5926/- (Rupees Five thousands Nine

Hundreds and twenty six only) paid by the Plaintiff/Petitioner

shall be returned to the plaintiff/petitioner by the Court before

which the proceedings have been pending U/Sec.21(1), r/w

Section 25 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and it shall

not form part of the costs payable by the Respondent/Defendant. 

Both parties have affixed their signatures in evidence of their consent for the terms of Award.]

Signature of Plaintiff Signature of Defendant.

Signature of Counsel for Plaintiff Signature of Counsel Defendant.

Given under our hands and the seal of Lok Adalat on this 14th day of September, 2019 at Mandal Legal Services Committee, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District. 

MEMBERS OF THE BENCH: 1) 2)

PRESIDING OFFICER, 

LOK ADALAT BENCH

ANAKAPALLE.