Smt.R.Danie Ruth

SC.NO.198 of 2015

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

VIKARABAD, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Present : Smt. R. Danie Ruth, Asst. Sessions Judge, Vikarabad

Sessions Case No. 198of 2015

Friday, this the 20th day of November, 2020

Between:

The State of Telangana, through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Marpally Police Station, rep. by the Addl. Public Prosecutor.… Complainant

And

A-1 : Beerla Naresh, S/o.Vittal, aged 35 years, occ:Driver, R/o.Uggelli village,Zhirabad Mandal, Medak District.

A-2 : Kummari Kavitha, W/o. Vittal, aged 28 years, occ: Housewife, R/o. Panch Lingal village,

Marpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District... Accused

This case is coming before me for final disposal on this day in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor and Sri Ch. Yadava Reddy, Counsel for Accused No.1 & 2; and having heard both sides and upon perusal of material available on record, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

The prosecution filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable u/Sections 448, 497, 307 r/w 34 of IPC.

[1]The case of prosecution in brief is that:

On 25-10-2014 at 13-00 hours one Kummari Vittal lodged a Telugu Written report, stating that on 19-05-2005 his marriage was solemnized with one Kummari

SC.NO.198 of 2015

2

Kavitha [A-2] and they lead happy marital life and blessed with two children namely Vaishnavi and Alekhya, that prior to marriage his wife had intimacy with one Beerla Naresh [A-1], that frequently the said Naresh used to visit their house.

The complainant admonished his wife Kavitha to stop the same but she did not change her attitude. Then the complainant shifted his family to his native village:

Panchalingal, Marpally Mandal, that after few days again he continued the same.

Again the complainant reprimanded his wife and his wife started quarrelling with him and after two days his wife along with said Naresh attacked him at Patloor village while he was returning from his duties but he escaped. His wife went along with Naresh. After one month i.e., on the intervening night of 24-10-2014 he was sleeping at his house along with his children and parents, his wife and Naresh came to his house and knocked the doors, that he opened the doors, then both the accused spilled kerosene on him and tried to set-ablaze, that he raised hues and cries, upon which, Naresh threw the kerosene container and flee-away on his motorcycle along with his wife[A-2].

Basing on the complaint a case in Crime No.104/2014 for the offences punishable u/Sections 448, 497, 307 r/w 34 of IPC was registered and the

Investigation officer took up investigation. During the course of investigation he examined the witnesses, recorded their statements, visited scene of offence and examined witnesses and his investigation reveals that the accused has committed the above said offences. Hence the charge sheet.

[2]The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vikarabad, took cognizance u/Sec.190

Cr.P.C for the offences punishable u/Sections 448, 497, 307 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused and upon furnishing of copies of documents u/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C to the

SC.NO.198 of 2015

3 said accused, committed the case to the Hon'ble Prl. District and Sessions Court,

Ranga Reddy District, who in turn made it over to this Court for trial and disposal.

[3]On appearance of the Accused No.1 and 2, they are charged for the offences punishable u/Sections 448, 497, 307 r/w 34 of IPC and the contents were read over to them, they denied the same and reported for trial.

[4]The prosecution has examined PW-1 to PW-6 and closed their evidence.

[5]After closure of evidence of the prosecution, the Accused are examined under sec.313 Cr.P.C and incriminating material was put to the Accused, who denied the same and reported no defence.

[6] Heard both sides.

[7]POINT:

i)Whether the accused Nos.1 and 2 tress-passed into the house of complainant with an intention to commit the offence.?

ii)Whether accused Nos.1 and 2 attempted to commit murder the complainant with a common intention?

[8]ANSWER TO THE POINTS:

To substantiate its case the prosecution cited nine witnesses. Out of them six witnesses were examined and Ex.P-1 to P-6 are marked.

[9] PW-1 is the complainant. PW-2 is the mother of complainant and eye- witness. PW-3 is the daughter of complainant and eye-witness. PW-4 is the panch for scene of offence and seizure panchanama. PW-5 is the panch for confession.

PW-6 is the Investigating officer.

[10]The evidence of PW-1 Vittal, is that his marriage with accused No.2 was performed on 19-05-2005 and they blessed with two daughters. Due to his job purpose they used to stay in Zaheerabad and on one day when he returned from his

SC.NO.198 of 2015

4 duty his daughter informed that one male person is coming to meet accused

No.2/his wife. When he asked accused No.2; she informed that, that the person is their neighbour at Huggali village. Then he advised his wife not to talk to him but his wife continued her illegal relationship with him i.e., accused No.1. After knowing the fact he shifted to his native place Panchalingal from Zaheerabad.

There they lived for one year without any disturbance. Again accused No.1 started coming to their house at Panchalingal. One day when he returned from job he noticed accused No.1 in their house. And on seeing him the accused No.1 ran away.

Then PW-1 admonished his wife not to repeat, for that, his wife accused No.2 quarrelled with him and left to Huggali. Two days later at about 11-00 pm when he was coming from job accused No.1 and 2 suddenly attacked him with sickles, axes. But he escaped from that place but his vehicle was damaged. After one month of that incident, one night at about 11-00 pm the accused No.1 and 2 knocked the door, when he opened the door, accused No.1 poured kerosene on him and accused No.2 was also present along with him. They tried to lit-fire. He raised cries. In the meanwhile his mother, father and daughters woke-up and they also raised cries. Then accused No.1 and 2 left that place by leaving kerosene tin and match-box. On the next day he went to police station and lodged complaint.

[11]PW-2 Nagamma, is mother of PW-1 deposed that her son informed her that he noticed accused 1 and 2 in his house and some quarrel took place between them.

After that accused No.2 stayed for one month with PW-1, later left his society.

After two days PW-1 informed her that accused No.1 and 2 tried to attack him with sickle and he escaped. Two days thereafter at about 11-00 or 11-30 pm she heard some cries of her son. Immediately she came out. Accused No.1 and 2 present at the door with a kerosene tin and they poured kerosene on her son/PW-1. And she noticed accused 1 and 2, but due to shock she could not raise cries.

SC.NO.198 of 2015

5 [12]PW-3 Vaishnavi is daughter of PW-1 deposed that on 24-10-2014 in the night hours her father PW-1 heard some noise and came out of the house and within few minutes they heard hue cries of her father. Immediately, herself and her grandmother, sister and grandfather came out of the house. She ran to her father and hugged him. She noticed the accused 1 and 2 at the corner. When they tried to call neighbours the accused 1 and 2 left the place on motorcycle.

[13]PW-4 Veeranna deposed that police have seized one baniyan and lungi at the scene of offence and also prepared scene observation and drafted rough sketch in his presence and one Bhaskar Reddy was also present.

[14]PW-5 Samuel is the witness for confession deposed that accused 1 and 2 confessed before him that they are having illegal intimacy and they tried to kill

PW-1 between Panchalingal and Potloor village but PW-1 escaped. After few months they tried to kill PW-1 by pouring kerosene. As he raised cries and the village people gathered, they escaped from that place.

[15]PW-6 is the Investigating officer deposed about receiving of complaint, registering FIR, recording statements of LW-1 to LW-4, conducting scene observation and recording of confessional statements, seizure of MO-1 and MO-2 and filing of charge sheet. The police have filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable u/Sections 448, 497, 307 r/w 34 of IPC.

[16]To establish the case against the accused for the offence punishable u/Section 448 IPC the prosecution has to prove that accused 1 and 2 tress passed into the house of PW-1 to commit offence or to intimidate or to annoy the complainant.

[17]As can be seen from the evidence of PW-1 he stated that there are two incidents. The first one is 'one month prior to the second incident i.e., accused 1 and 2 tried to kill him and attacked him with sickle and axe. He has not made any complaint before the police. When the accused 1 and 2 tried to kill him why he has

SC.NO.198 of 2015

6 not made any complaint against the accused is an unanswered question. Second one is A1 and A2 tress-passed into the house and poured kerosene on him and tried to kill him.

[18]As can be seen from the evidence of PW-2; accused 1 and 2 were present at the door with kerosene tin and they poured kerosene on PW-1.

PW-3 deposed that on hearing the cries of her father she ran to her father and hugged and noticed smell of kerosene and noticed accused 1 and 2 at the corner.

PW-1 deposed that accused 1 and 2 poured kerosene on him and they tried to lit fire. When he raised cries then PW-2 his mother and PW-3 his daughter came there. Whereas PW-2 stated as if she has seen accused 1 and 2 pouring kerosene.

PW-3 stated that after hearing cries of PW-1 they came out of the house. She ran and hugged her father and noticed kerosene smell. The evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 is not corroborating. Though PW-2 stated that she noticed accused 1 and 2 pouring kerosene when PW-1 stated that on his cries she came. PW-1 and PW-3 categorically stated that after hearing the cries of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 came to the scene of offence. Hence it is clear PW-2 and PW-3 are not the eye-witnesses to the incident i.e., pouring of kerosene. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 falsifies the evidence of PW-3. More over all of them have categorically stated that accused

No.1 and 2 are outside the door. Accused No.2 pouring kerosene on PW-1 from outside the door. No one has stated that accused entered into the house. First of all to pour the kerosene the accused have to knock the door. If they knock the door certainly all the family members will wake-up. Why PW1 alone woke up on that night is not mentioned any where. When A2 left the house of PW1 why she came again to kill him is not stated any where. More over when the accused attacked him on the first occasion the complainant would have made complaint if it is a true

SC.NO.198 of 2015

7 version. There is no criminal trespass by accused 1 and 2. There is no entering into the house of PW-1 by accused 1 and 2.

[19]As can be seen from the complaint contents: On 24-10-2014 at about 11-00 or 12-00 pm while the parents of PW-1 and his children are sleeping, he noticed some noise at the door and opened the door and noticed accused 1 and 2. In the meanwhile accused No.1 poured kerosene on him and abused him and when tried to lit fire, PW-1 raised cries and accused 1 and 2 left that place on motorcycle by leaving the kerosene tin.

[20]As can be seen from the complaint contents accused 1 and 2 left that place on a motorcycle. Immediately he raised cries. Whereas PW-3 deposed she noticed accused 1 and 2 in the corner. The evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 is not corroborative.

As can be seen from Ex.P-2 scene observation report the police have seized one baniyan and lungi outside the house of PW-1. According to PW-1 the accused left the kerosene tin there itself and ran away on motorcycle. But the police have not seized the said kerosene tin, except the clothes of PW-1. As can be seen from the evidence of PW-4, the scene of offence is out of the house of PW-1. PW-1 stated that immediately after raising cries A1 and A2 left. Then there is no chance for PWs.2 and 3 to witness A1 and A2 pouring kerosene or standing there. Even if it is believed that the entire incident has taken place out side the house of PW1. Hence, there is no house tress pass by A1 and A2.

[21]Except the evidence of PW-1 there is no other evidence to establish that accused 1 and 2 have committed adultery. Though PW-5 stated that the accused 1 and 2 confessed before him about their illegal relationship the same is not admissible, as such the said confession is not lead to any recovery.

[22]Coming to Section 307 IPC: There are no injuries over the body of PW-1 and the silence of PW-1 at the time of alleged first offence itself is creating a doubt on

SC.NO.198 of 2015

8 the attitude of PW-1. More over PW-1 has stated that his motorcycle was damaged but he has not made any complaint or claimed any insurance to that vehicle. And

PW-1 stated that after one month of the said incident this incident was happened.

If the alleged incident is really true; he would have lodged complaint on that day itself. The silence of PW-1 is creating doubt on the first incident. The discrepancies and the evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 creating a doubt on the second incident i.e., pouring kerosene on PW-1. According to PW-1 the incident occurred on 24-10-2014.

On the next day i.e., on 25-10-2014 he went to police station and lodged complaint.

On 25-10-2014 he went to police station and lodged complaint. On 25-10-2014 in the afternoon hours the police have conducted scene observation at the scene of offence.

[23]As can be seen from the scene observation they have collected 'baniyan and lungi' of PW-1 in the court yard of Bakkaiah i.e., father of PW-1. What happened to the kerosene tin which was left by accused 1 and 2 was never mentioned.

In Ex.P-3 there is no mention about the tin in the evidence of Investigating officer.

No injuries were sustained by PW-1. In view of the discrepancies in the evidence of

PW-1 to PW-3 coupled with Ex.P-3 and evidence of PW-4, this court holds it is not safe to rely on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. Except PW-1, no witness has seen the incident. Though the prosecution examined the mediator for confessional statement of accused his evidence cannot be considered and the confessional statement has no value.

[24]In view of the above circumstances and discussion the prosecution failed to establish that the accused 1 and 2 criminally trespassed into the house of PW-1 and failed to prove the adultery; and also failed to establish that accused 1 and 2 tried to kill PW-1. Hence this court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution failed to

SC.NO.198 of 2015

9 establish the case against the accused for the offences punishable u/Sections 448, 497, 307 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly the accused 1 and 2 are entitle for acquittal.

[25]In the result, the Accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/Sections 448, 497, 307 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly Accused are acquitted u/Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C and bail bonds of Accused shall stands cancelled.

MO-1 Lungi and MO-2 Baniyan shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of November, 2020.

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE

VIKARABAD, R.R. DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:: PW.1 ::Mr. Vittal,

PW.2 ::Smt. Nagamma,

PW.3 ::Kum. K. Vaishnavi,

PW.4 ::Mr. Veeranna,

PW.5 ::Mr. A. Samuel,

PW.6 ::Mr. A. Arun Kumar.

For Defence: Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:: Ex.P-1: Complaint.

Ex.P-2: Scene observation panchanama.

Ex.P-3: Rough sketch.

Ex.P-4: Confession statement of Accused No.1.

Ex.P-5: Confession statement of Accused No.2.

Ex.P-6: FIR.

For Defence:Nil

SC.NO.198 of 2015

10

Material Objects : MO-1 : Lungi. MO-2 :Baniyan.

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE

VIKARABAD, R.R. DISTRICT

SC.NO.7 OF 2016

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

VIKARABAD, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Present : Smt. R. Danie Ruth, Asst. Sessions Judge, Vikarabad

Sessions Case No. 7 of 2016

Friday, this the 20th day of November, 2020

Between:

The State of Telangana, through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Peddemul Police Station, R.R. District, rep. by the Addl. Public Prosecutor.… Complainant

And

Mattapu Yesappa, S/o. Laxmappa, aged 52 years, occ:Agrl., R/o.Kandanelly village,

Peddemul Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. .. Accused

This case is coming before me for final disposal on this day in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor and Sri P. Sampurna

Anand, Counsel for Accused; and having heard both sides and upon perusal of material available on record, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

The prosecution filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/Section 306 of IPC.

[1]The case of the prosecution in brief is that:

On 03-09-2015 at 13-00 hours one Mattapu Mariyamma lodged complaint, stating that three years back her marriage was solemnized with one Mattapu

Yellappa and they are having some economical problems, due to which, some scuffle had been running between the spouses and her father-in-law Yesappa i.e., the accused herein, that the accused picked up a quarrel with her deceased husband. In view of Raki Pournami they [the complainant and the deceased] went to her parents

SC.NO.7 OF 2016

2

house and returned after four days, and the accused humiliated her husband. Then her husband committed suicide by consuming pesticide poison in the house and he was shifted to District Hospital, Tandur. While undergoing treatment the deceased succumbed on 02-09-2015 around 01-00 hours.

Basing on the complaint a case in Crime No.104/2015 for the offence punishable u/Section 306 of IPC was registered and the Investigation officer took up investigation. During the course of investigation he examined the witnesses, recorded their statements, visited scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama and inquest panchanama and got autopsy and examined witnesses.

His investigation reveals that the accused has committed the above said offence.

Hence the charge sheet.

[2]The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tandur, took cognizance u/Sec.190

Cr.P.C for the offence punishable u/Section 306 of IPC against the accused and upon furnishing of copies of documents u/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C to the said accused, committed the case to the Hon'ble Prl. District and Sessions Court, Ranga Reddy

District, who in turn made it over to this Court for trial and disposal.

[3]On appearance of the Accused, he is charged for the offence punishable u/Section 306 of IPC and the contents were read over to him, he denied the same and reported for trial.

[4]The prosecution has examined PW-1 to PW-11 and closed their evidence.

[5]After closure of evidence of the prosecution, the Accused is examined under sec.313 Cr.P.C and incriminating material was put to the Accused, who denied the same and reported no defence.

[6] Heard both sides.

SC.NO.7 OF 2016

3

[7]POINT: Whether the accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide?

[8]ANSWER TO THE POINTS:

To substantiate its case the prosecution cited 13 witnesses. Out of them 11 witnesses were examined and Ex.P-1 to P-13 are marked.

[9] PW-1 is the complainant and wife of the deceased. PW-2 is the father-in-law of the deceased. PW-3 to PW-6 are the neighbours of the deceased and eye- witnesses. PW-7 and PW-9 are the panchs for scene of offence panchanama. PW-8 is the panch for inquest panchanama. PW-10 is the doctor who held autopsy.

PW-11 is the Investigating officer.

[10]PW-1 Mariyamma deposed that her marriage with the deceased was performed about 7 years back and in the month of September, 2015 she along with her deceased husband went to her parents house for Rakshabandan and returned after 4 days. On that night the accused quarrelled with her deceased husband and abused him and to leave his house to die. On the same day when she was in side the house, her husband went into the bathroom and consumed pesticide and she noticed the same and informed to her mother-in-law. Immediately they shifted her husband to Government Hospital, Tandur. Where he died.

[11]PW-2 Ramulu is father of PW-1 deposed that the deceased and PW-1 came to their house for Rakshabandan and stayed for 3 days, and left to their village.

On the same day at about 09-00 pm PW-1 informed him her husband consumed poison as the accused abused her husband.

SC.NO.7 OF 2016

4

[12]PW-3 Venkatamma deposed that she do not know what happened and she was not examined by the police.

[13]PW-4 Manemma, PW-5 Sailu, PW-6 Manemma, PW-7 Anandam and PW-9

Pandari, all these witnesses turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution.

[14]PW-8 is the inquest panchanama deposed that in the year 2016 he acted as a inquest pancha over the body of deceased Yellappa/son of accused.

[15]PW-10 doctor, deposed that he received requisition from Peddemul police station to conduct the post-mortem over the body of the deceased. Accordingly he conducted post mortem and as per his opinion the cause of death is due to asphyxia due to airway obstruction due to increased secretions. And as per FSL report, organo phosphate poison was found in the stomach, intestine, kidney and liver of the deceased.

[16]PW-11 Krishna is the Investigating officer, deposed that he received complaint on 03-09-2015, registered the case, examined the witnesses, got conducted the post mortem and filed charge sheet.

[17]Except PW-1 no witness has stated against the accused and no eye-witness was there to establish the alleged quarrel between the deceased and accused.

Admittedly the deceased is son of accused and being a father; the accused admonished the deceased and it seems out of anger the deceased consumed poison.

No previous disputes between the accused and the deceased. No property disputes.

Except PW-1 no one has stated that the accused abused the deceased to d0ie. Mere quarrel or mere admonition of a father towards his son cannot be treated as an abetment. Though prosecution witness deposed about conducting of inquest and death of deceased due to consuming of poison, the prosecution failed to establish

SC.NO.7 OF 2016

5

that the accused abetted the deceased to consume poison or instigated him to consume poison.

In view of the above circumstances and discussion this Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution failed to establish the case against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.

In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/Section 306 of IPC, accordingly the Accused is acquitted u/Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C and bail bonds of Accused shall stands cancelled. Unmarked case property shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of November, 2020.

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE

VIKARABAD, R.R. DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution::

PW.1 ::Smt. Mariyamma,

PW.2 ::Mr. Ramulu,

PW.3 ::Smt. Gunj Venkatamma,

PW.4 ::Smt. Mannemma, W/o. Anandam,

PW.5 ::Mr.Sailu,

PW.6 ::Smt. Manemma, W/o. Yesappa,

PW.7 ::Mr. Anandam,

PW.8 ::Mr. Mohan,

PW.9 ::Mr. K. Pandari,

PW.10 ::Dr. Madhusudhan,

PW.11 ::Mr. K. Krishna.

For Defence: Nil

SC.NO.7 OF 2016

6

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:: Ex.P-1: Complaint.

Ex.P-2: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-4.

Ex.P-3: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-6.

Ex.P-4: Signature of PW-7 on Scene observation panchanama

Ex.P-5: Signature of PW-7 on rough sketch.

Ex.P-6: Inquest report

Ex.P-7: Signature of PW-9 on Scene observation panchanama

Ex.P-8: Signature of PW-9 on rough sketch.

Ex.P-9: PME report.

Ex.P-10: FIR.

Ex.P-11: Scene of offence panchanama.

Ex.P-12: Rough Sketch of the scene

Ex.P-13: FSL report.

For Defence:Nil

Material Objects : Nil.

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE

VIKARABAD, R.R. DISTRICT

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VIKARABAD, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Present: Smt. R. Danie Ruth,

Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad

O.P. No.78of 2019

Friday, this the 20th day of November, 2020

Between:

1.Atul Soni, S/o. Bajranglal Soni, aged 35 years, occ: Business, R/o. H.No.3-139/5, Narsimha Reddy Nagar, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad. Medchal, Malkajgiri District.

2.Neha Soni, W/o. Atul Soni, D/o. Narayandas Jhawar, aged 32 years, occ:Household, R/o.H.No.4-1-230, Ganghi Gunj,

Vikarabad. .. Petitioner No.1 and 2

This O.P. has come before me for final disposal on this day in the presence of M/s. Sri Kistan Sharma, Counsel for the Petitioners 1 and 2; and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court passed the order as follows:

O R D E R

[1]This petition is filed by the petitioners u/Sec.13-B of Hindu Marriage

Act, seeking to grant decree of mutual divorce by dissolving their marriage

dated 06-05-2011.

[2]The brief averments of the petition are that:

The marriage between the Petitioners 1 and 2 was solemnized on 06-05-2011 as per Hindu rites and customs and they lead happy married life for a period of six years and blessed with a female child by name Anushka

Soni on 07-08-2012. Thereafter differences arose in between the petitioners 2 and their elders intervened to settle the matter but in vain. Finally on 08-01- 2019 the petitioner No.1 left the petitioner No.2 at her parents house. Again the elders intervened and the petitioner agreed entered into an agreement and to obtain mutual divorce. The petitioner No.1 agreed to pay a sum of

Rs.25,00,000/- towards the full and final settlement to the petitioner No.2.

Out of which a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- is paid by the petitioner No.1 to

Petitioner No.2 on 03-10-2019, vide D.D.No.099184 of HDFC Bank Ltd., and the petitioner No.2 acknowledges the receipt of the same towards part payment and balance amount shall be paid on the date of grant of divorce.

Further the petitioner No.1 agreed that he will take care and custody of their daughter and the petitioner No.2 is at liberty to take her daughter whenever the school holidays/Govt. Holidays/ Sundays, etc., and to her family functions and keep in her custody, for which, the petitioner No.1 agreed. If the petitioner No.1 violates the above conditions the petitioner No.1 shall handover the child to petitioner No.2 and pay her maintenance and school expenses. Further the petitioner No.1 agrees that he shall forego the custody of minor child in favour of petitioner No.2 if the minor child faces any family and personal problem in case of petitioner No.1's second marriage and petitioner No.2 shall be entitled to claim the custody of minor child at such point of time. Further the petitioner No.1 undertakes to perform the marriage of his daughter and she is entitled to have share in the property of petitioner No.1. The petitioner No.2 undertakes that she will not file any civil or criminal case against the petitioner No.1 or his family members in future or claim any nature against each other except their daughter and she 3 relinquishes all her rights arose out of their wedlock. Hence this petition.

[3] On 14-10-2019 this petition was filed and the same was numbered as

O.P. Both the petitioners were present. Counselling held but failed.

As there is no chance of reunion of the Petitioners No.1 and 2, they were examined as PWs-1 and 2 and got marked Ex. P-1 to P-5 and closed their evidence.

[4] Heard the counsel for petitioners.

[5] POINT: Whether the petitioners are entitled for mutual divorce u/Sec.13 (B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?

[6] ANSWER TO THE POINT:

To grant divorce u/Sec. 13 (B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the following conditions must be fulfilled:

1. Both the husband and wife have been living separately for a period of more than one year.

2.Both of them have mutually agreed that they are unable to live together.

3.They did not live together and they had no other way except to approach this court.

[7]The material on record discloses that the Petitioners 1 and 2 are husband and wife and they lead happy marital life for six years and blessed with one female children, thereafter some disputes arose in between the parties and the petitioner No.2 was left at her parents house and on the intervention of their elders they settled the issue and mutually entered into an agreement and to live separately and peacefully in future without any claims against each other in future. Further they mutually came to an understanding and agreed to take care and custody of their child in future without any litigation. The elders of both parties tried their level best to 4 reunion the parties to lead a happy marital life but in vain. As the parties agreed before their elders and mutually entered into an agreement with regard to their child in future also after they got divorce.

The Petitioners 1 and 2 filed their affidavits reiterating the same facts as stated in the petition. They are examined as PW-1 and PW-2 and got marked Ex.P-1 to P-5.

Ex.P-1 is the marriage card of the Petitioners No.1 and 2.

Ex.P-2 is the marriage photograph of the Petitioners No.1 and 2.

Ex.P-3 is the xerox copy of Aadhaar card of Petitioner No.1

Ex.P-4 is the xerox copy of Aadhaar card of Petitioner No.2

Ex.P-5 is the xerox copy of Birth certificate of Anushka Soni.

[8] As stated above the Petitioners No.1 and 2 are living separately for the due to disputes between them and unable to lead a happy marital life and decided to dissolve their marriage and petitioner No.1 already paid part of the her permanent alimony and balance amount to the petitioner No.2 on the date of divorce and that the petitioner No.2 agreed for the same. The elders and well-wishers intervened and advised to continue their marital life but in vain. As the matter was finally settled before their elders amicably and on the advise of their well-wishers, elders and relatives the present petition is filed, there is no reason to refuse their remedy of divorce by mutual consent.

[9] After considering the version of both parties and after considering the documents this court opines that there is no other alternative except to grant divorce to put an end to this litigation. Hence the petition is allowed as prayed for and the marriage between Petitioners No.1 and 2 dt.06-05-2011 is 5 hereby dissolved.

In the result this petition is allowed. The marriage between the

Petitioners No.1 and 2 dated 06-05-2011 is hereby dissolved. No costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of November, 2020.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VIKARABAD, R.R. DIST.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Petitioners::

PW-1 :Mr. Atul Soni,

PW-2 :Smt. Neha Soni.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioners::

Ex.P-1 is the marriage card of the Petitioners No.1 and 2.

Ex.P-2 is the marriage photograph of the Petitioners No.1 and 2.

Ex.P-3 is the xerox copy of Aadhaar card of Petitioner No.1 [perused with the original and returned].

Ex.P-4 is the xerox copy of Aadhaar card of Petitioner No.2 [perused with the original and returned].

Ex.P-5 is the xerox copy of Birth certificate of Anushka Soni.

[perused with the original and returned].

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VIKARABAD, R.R. DIST.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VIKARABAD, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Present: Smt. R. Danie Ruth,

Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad

O.P. No.82of 2019

Thursday, this the 19th day November, 2020

Between:

1.Honnappa, S/o. Amateppa, aged 38 years, occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o.H.No.1/2, Devaragudda, Devadurga Taluka, Raichur District, Karnataka State

2.Smt. Chalvadi Vennela, W/o. Honnappa, D/o. Chalvadi Sharanappa, aged about 32 years, occ:Pvt. Employee, R/o.H.No.1-2-92, Malreddy Pally,

Tandur Town, Vikarabad District. .. Petitioner No.1 and 2

This O.P. has come before me for final disposal on this day in the presence of Sri K. Venkatesh, Counsel for the Petitioners No.1 and 2; and having stood over for consideration till this day this court passes the order as follows:

O R D E R

[1]This petition is filed by the petitioners u/Sec.13-B of Hindu Marriage

Act, seeking to grant decree of mutual divorce by dissolving their marriage

dated 03-06-2013.

[2]The brief averments of the petition are that:

The marriage between the Petitioners 1 and 2 was solemnized on 03-06-2013 as per Hindu rites and customs at Sri Sharanu Amateshwara 2

Temple, Devaragadda village and they lead happy married life for one year but no issues born out of their wedlock. Thereafter differences arose in between the parties and the petitioner No.2 left the company of petitioner

No.1 and started staying at her parents and since July, 2014 the petitioner

No.2 deserted the petitioner No.1. Since then the petitioner No.2 has been staying separately from the petitioner No.1 and they were unable to lead their marital life and the same was placed before the elders of both parties who made several attempts to pacify and settle the issue amicably but the petitioners did not agree to live together, as such the elders advised the parties to live separately. As such the petitioners agreed to live separately by obtaining mutual divorce and on 21-10-2019 the petitioners have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding and exchanged their respective belongings presented at the time of marriage. As per mutual agreement either of the parties will not claim anything against each other in future. Hence this petition.

[3] On 22-10-2019 this petition was filed and the same was numbered as

O.P. Both the petitioners were present. Counselling held but failed.

As there is no chance of reunion of the Petitioners No.1 and 2, they were examined as PWs-1 and 2 and got marked Ex. P-1 to P-4 and closed their evidence.

[4] Heard the counsel for petitioners.

[5] POINT: Whether the petitioners are entitled for mutual divorce u/Sec.13 (B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?

3 [6] ANSWER TO THE POINT:

To grant divorce u/Sec. 13 (B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the following conditions must be fulfilled:

1. Both the husband and wife have been living separately for a period of more than one year.

2.Both of them have mutually agreed that they are unable to live together.

3.They did not live together and they had no other way except to approach this court.

[7]The material on record discloses that the Petitioners 1 and 2 are husband and wife and they lead happy marital life for a period of one year, thereafter some disputes arose in between the parties and in the month of

July, 2014 the petitioner No.2 left the company of petitioner No.1 and started staying separately at her parents house. The elders of both parties tried their level best to reunion the parties to lead a happy marital life but in vain.

The elders of the parties advised them to take mutual divorce. Accordingly the parties have settled the matter and entered into an agreement by exchanging their belongings and are living separately and agreed to grant mutual divorce.

The Petitioners 1 and 2 filed their affidavits reiterating the same facts as stated in the petition. They are examined as PW-1 and PW-2 and got marked Ex.P-1 to P-4.

Ex.P-1 is the marriage card of the Petitioners No.1 and 2.

Ex.P-2 is the marriage photograph of the Petitioners No.1 and 2.

Ex.P-3 is the xerox copy of Aadhaar card of Petitioner No.1

Ex.P-4 is the xerox copy of Aadhaar card of Petitioner No.2 4 [8] As stated above the Petitioners No.1 and 2 are living separately since

July, 2014 due to disputes between them and are unable to lead a happy marital life and decided to dissolve their marriage. No issues born out of their wedlock. The elders and well-wishers intervened and advised to continue their marital life but in vain. The Petitioner No.2 left the company of petitioner No.1 and living separately and both parties entered into an understanding and exchanged their respective belongings presented at the time of their marriage and also agreed to give divorce. As the elders of both parties have settled the issue in between the parties and they also exchanged their respective articles and finally settled the matter amicably before their elders and on the advise of their well-wishers, elders and relatives the present petition is filed. Hence there is no reason to refuse their remedy of divorce by mutual consent.

[9] After considering the version of both parties and after considering the documents this court opines that there is no other alternative except to grant divorce to put an end to this litigation. Hence the petition is allowed as prayed for and the marriage between Petitioners No.1 and 2 dated 03-06-2013 is hereby dissolved.

In the result this petition is allowed. The marriage between the

Petitioners No.1 and 2 dated 03-06-2013 is hereby dissolved. No costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day November, 2020.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VIKARABAD, R.R. DIST.

5

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Petitioners::

PW-1 :Mr. Honnappa,

PW-2 :Smt. Chalvadi Vennela.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioners::

Ex.P-1 is the marriage card of the Petitioners No.1 and 2.

Ex.P-2 is the marriage photograph of the Petitioners No.1 and 2.

Ex.P-3 is the xerox copy of Aadhaar card of Petitioner No.1 [perused with the original and returned].

Ex.P-4 is the xerox copy of Aadhaar card of Petitioner No.2 [perused with the original and returned].

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VIKARABAD, R.R. DIST.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VIKARABAD, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Present: Smt. R. Danie Ruth,

Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad

O.P. No.28of 2020

Friday, this the 20th day November, 2020

Between:

1.Budge Jangam Venkatesh @ Kadamanchi Venkataiah, S/o. Kadamanchi Rangaiah, age42 years, occ: Cooli, R/o. H.No.8-112, Madhura Nagar Colony, Raidurgam, Golkonda, Hyderabad.

2.Smt. Budge Jangam Modem Sujatha, W/o. Venkatesh, age 35 years, occ: RTC conductor, R/o. Kondapur village, Peddemul Mandal,

Vikarabad District. .. Petitioner No.1 and 2

This O.P. has come before me for final disposal on this day in the presence of Sri K. Gopal, Counsel for the Petitioners No.1 and 2; and having stood over for consideration till this day this court passes the order as follows:

O R D E R

[1]This petition is filed by the petitioners u/Sec.13-B of Hindu Marriage

Act, seeking to grant decree of mutual divorce by dissolving their marriage

dated 09-06-2003.

[2]The brief averments of the petition are that:

The marriage between the Petitioners 1 and 2 was solemnized on 09-06-2003 as per Hindu rites and customs at Kondapur village and they lead happy married life and blessed with two children namely Niharika and

Arjun, now aged about 15 and 13 years. Thereafter differences arose in between the parties and the petitioner No.2 left the company of petitioner

No.1 and filed MC and CC against the petitioner No.1 and both cases are compromised before Lok Adalat and as per award the petitioner No.1 paid

Rs.3,00,000/- towards permanent alimony to petitioner No.2 and her children

before the authority. Since then the petitioners are living separately. The

elders of both petitioners intervened but the petitioners did not agree to live together. On 19-11-2019 the elders of both parties advised the petitioners to take mutual divorce. As such the petitioners filed the present petition for mutual divorce. As per settlement both parties agreed that the children will remain under the custody of petitioner No.2 till their attaining majority and the petitioner No.1 has got liberty to visit them at any time. After passing of decree either party shall not raise any dispute or claims in any manner at any point of time. Hence this petition.

[3] On 26-02-2020 this petition was filed and the same was numbered as

O.P. Both the petitioners were present. Counselling held but failed.

As there is no chance of reunion of the Petitioners No.1 and 2, they were examined as PWs-1 and 2 and got marked Ex. P-1 to P-4 and closed their evidence.

[4] Heard the counsel for petitioners.

[5] POINT: Whether the petitioners are entitled for mutual divorce u/Sec.13 (B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?

[6] ANSWER TO THE POINT:

To grant divorce u/Sec. 13 (B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the following conditions must be fulfilled:

1. Both the husband and wife have been living separately for a period of more than one year.

2.Both of them have mutually agreed that they are unable to live together.

3.They did not live together and they had no other way except to approach this court.

[7]The material on record discloses that the Petitioners 1 and 2 are husband and wife and they lead happy marital life and blessed with two children, thereafter some disputes arose in between the parties and they are living separately. The elders of both parties tried their level best to reunion the parties to lead a happy marital life but in vain. The elders of the parties advised them to take mutual divorce. Finally on the advise of their elders the parties have have settled the matter and entered into an agreement and started living separately and agreed for grant of mutual divorce.

The Petitioners 1 and 2 filed their affidavits reiterating the same facts as stated in the petition. They are examined as PW-1 and PW-2 and got marked Ex.P-1 to P-4.

Ex.P-1 is the C.C of Award copy of Lok Adalath dt. 30-03-2016.

Ex.P-2 is the xerox copy of Aadhaar card of Petitioner No.1

Ex.P-3 is the xerox copy of Aadhaar card of Petitioner No.2

Ex.P-4 are the xerox copies of Aadhaar cards of two children of Petitioners 1 and 2 [8] As stated above the Petitioners No.1 and 2 are living separately due to disputes between them and are unable to lead a happy marital life and decided to dissolve their marriage. As the elders of both parties have settled the issue in between the parties and finally settled the matter amicably

before their elders and on the advise of their well-wishers, elders and

relatives the present petition is filed. Hence there is no reason to refuse their remedy of divorce by mutual consent.

[9] After considering the version of both parties and on perusal of documents this court opines that there is no other alternative except to grant divorce to put an end to this litigation. Hence the petition is allowed as prayed for and the marriage between Petitioners No.1 and 2 dated 09-06-2003 is hereby dissolved.

In the result this petition is allowed. The marriage between the

Petitioners No.1 and 2 dated 09-06-2003 is hereby dissolved. No costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day November, 2020.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VIKARABAD, R.R. DIST.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Petitioners::

PW-1 :Mr. B.J. Venkatesh @ K. Venkataiah,

PW-2 :Smt. B.J.M. Sujatha.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioners::

Ex.P-1 is the C.C of Award copy of Lok Adalath dt. 30-03-2016.

Ex.P-2 is the xerox copy of Aadhaar card of Petitioner No.1 [perused with the original and returned].

Ex.P-3 is the xerox copy of Aadhaar card of Petitioner No.2 [perused with the original and returned].

Ex.P-4 are the xerox copies of Aadhaar cards of two children of Petitioners 1 and 2 [perused with the original and returned].

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VIKARABAD, R.R. DIST.