Sri R. Murali

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE: KRISHNA DIVISION,

MACHILIPATNAM

PRESENT:- SRI R. MURALI,

METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

VIJAYAWADA

FAC/ SESSIONS JUDGE,

KRISHNA, MACHILIPATNAM.

Friday, this the 8th day of May, 2015

TRANSFER CRL.M.P.NO.26/2015

Between: Kunapareddy Radha Rani, W/o. Ramaiah Naidu, Hindu, 53 years, Properties, resident of D.No.16/52, Ashok Nagar, Tiruvuru, Tiruvuru Mandal, Krishna District within the limits of Tiruvuru Police station :: Petitioner.

And

1. Kanchi Rama Chandra Rao (Died)

2. Kanchi Ramesh (Died)

3. Kanchi Raghu Praveen, S/o. Rama Rao, Hindu, aged about 43 years, business, resident of D.No.19/224, Tiruvuru, Tiruvuru Mandal, Krishna District within the limits of Tiruvuru Police Station.

4. Kanchi Rama Rao, S/o. Seetharamaiah, Hindu, aged about 61 years, business & Political leader, resident of D.No.19/224, Tiruvuru, Tiruvuru Mandal, Krishna District within the limits of Tiruvuru Police station.

5. State, Sub Inspector of Police, Tiruvuru Police station, represented by Public Prosecutor, Krishna, Machilipatnam. :: Respondent.

This petition is coming on 24-4-2015 for final hearing

before me in the presence of Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, advocate for

petitioner; Sri K. Sai Mohan Rao, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and Sri M.P. Kondaiah, Public Prosecutor for respondent No.5; respondents 1 and 2 are died; and on perusal of material on record, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the petitioner under Sec. 408

Cr.P.C. praying the court to withdraw S.C.No.339/2001 from the file of

Assistant Sessions Judge, Nuzvidu and to transfer the same to any other court of the competent of Assistant Sessions Judge, within

Krishna District.

2.)The brief facts of the petition are as follows:

2 5th respondent filed charge sheet against respondents/A1 to A.3 in Crime No.10/1999 of Tiruvuru P.S., for the offences punishable under Secs. 147, 447, 323 r/w 149 IPC. Later the petitioner filed a petition to implead the 4th respondent as accused in the above number case and also frame charge under Sec. 354 IPC against A.1 to A.4 and accordingly, A.4 was impleaded as party and added Section 354 IPC as per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh,

Hyderabad in Crl.Petition No. 3507 of 2005, dated. 17-08-2005. In the above S.C.No.339/2001 was commenced trial and P.Ws. 1 to 4 were already examined. At the time of investigation, petitioner handed over

M.O.1 and also some photographs to the investigation agency, but the investigation agency colluded with the respondents and they have not filed the same before the trial court except M.O.1 saree. The photographs were not marked as exhibits, because A.4 is a political leader due to his political influence, he influenced the 5th respondent by keeping dark those exhibits. On 06-01-2015 while deposing the evidence before the Assistant Sessions Judge Court, Nuzvdiu, the

Presiding Officer not recorded the evidence what P.Ws. 1 and 2 deposed and the Presiding Officer showing some bias in favour of respondents 3 and 4. The petitioner lodged a report on 12-01-2015

before this court against the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nuzvidu and

also the A.P.P. The photographs were also filed before the Assistant

Sessions Judge, Nuzvidu along with the complaint that were also not

marked with a biased manner and colluded with the respondents. In the said S.C.No.339/2001 the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nuzvidu already examined P.Ws. 1 to 4 and suddenly break up the schedule without any proper reason and posted the matter to 27-01-2015. The deposition of P.W.1 clearly shows that there are number of corrections/errors. Therefore, it clearly shows that the Assistant 3

Sessions Judge, Nuzvidu is not acting according to the provisions of law

and violating the land and showing so much interest towards respondents 3 and 4 as they are highly influential persons both politically and financially. Hence, the Assistant Sessions Judge,

Nuzvidu is causing much prejudice to the petitioner and not properly responding in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is under the apprehension that they will not get fair justice in this case before the

Assistant Sessions Judge, Nuzvidu and thereby prayed to allow the petition.

3.)The respondents 3 and 4 filed counter denying all the averments made in the petition and contending interalia that the so called collusion with the investigating agency is absolutely false and nothing prevents the petitioner to file those photographs and she has to file the same along with negatives as otherwise they cannot be marked. The petitioner and her husband are chronic litigants and they used to file litigations continuously for years together without giving an end to any litigation. Hence, she has filed this present petition for transfer alleging not only the investigating agency, the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor and also the Assistant Sessions Judge,

Nuzvidu without an iota of truth and hence, the transfer application has been filed without any bonafides and it is filed with a malafide intention of dragging on the proceedings for years together. The petitioner is not correct in saying so, as the Presiding officer must have corrected the corrections/errors which might have been crept in type writing. Even the affidavits and petitions filed before the court by the petitioner also contains several corrections, interpolations and striking of the matter etc., for which nothing can be attributed. The allegations against the presiding officer are vague and bald allegations. The

Hon’ble High Court was pleased to pass an order dated. 12-07-2006 in

4

Crl.Petition No. 4525/2005 issuing a direction that the trial of the case must be completed within 4 months from today i.e., 12-07-2006. The

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, New Delhi was pleased to pass an

order on 30-03-2009 by giving a direction that the trial court would make an effort to complete the trial within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of this order. The said period has been expired long ago and it amounts to contempt committed by the petitioner in flouting the orders of the same in one pretext or the other and ultimately resorted in filing this petition, which should have been dismissed at its threshold and thereby prayed to dismiss the petition.

4.)The 5th respondent filed counter contending that at the time of investigation P.W.1 did not hand over the photographs to this respondent. If really, there are photographs P.W.1 may also file in her evidence through A.P.P. If really, P.W.1 hand over the photographs they might have been shown in the list of MOs and absolutely, there are no tenable grounds to allow the petition and thereby prayed to dismiss the petition.

5.)Heard both sides. Counsel appearing for the petitioner filed written arguments. The points raised in the written arguments will be dealt in the course of the order.

6.)The point for consideration is:- “Whether there are grounds to withdraw S.C.No. 339/2001 from the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Nuzvidu and to transfer the same to any other court of the competent

Assistant Sessions Judge, within Krishna District as prayed for?” 7.)POINT:

The main contention of the petitioner that the Presiding

Officer was acting in a biased manner and it is her apprehension that 5 fair justice may not be done to her. The apprehension of the petitioner are on two grounds that her evidence was not recorded including that of her husband who was examined as P.W.2 according to their deposition. For the said reason, the petitioner entertained apprehension that she may not get justice. The second aspect is she had filed certain photographs in Sessions Court, Nuzvidu along with complaint copy and that they were not marked. Further, after examining P.Ws. 1 to 4 schedule was suddenly broken and further it was alleged that there were number of corrections in the depositions.

These are the grounds on which the petitioner entertained suspicion that the presiding officer was acting in a biased manner and justice may not be done to her and prayed for transfer.

8.)On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 strongly denied the allegations made in the petition against the Presiding Officer. Learned counsel strongly contended that there was no truth in the allegations that the Presiding

Officer did not allow the petitioner to mark photographs. It is contended that the photographs are not filed along with negatives.

Therefore, the photographs cannot be marked. Learned counsel strongly denied the other allegations made against the Presiding

Officer in the petition. It is contended that the petitioner can mark the photographs along with negatives and no one can prevent her for filing the same and for marking the same. Learned counsel would contend that the present application is filed only to prolong the trial. Hon’ble

High Court directed the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nuzvidu in

Crl.P.No.4525/2005, dated. 12-07-2006 to complete the trial of the case within four months. Hon’ble Apex Court also gave directions dated. 30-03-2009 to dispose of the case within four months. Thus, there was direction to dispose of the matter but the petitioner 6 prolonged the matter one pretext or other and finally filed this petition for transfer.

9.)The petitioner directly sent one petition to the District

Court. Remarks of the Presiding Officer were called for. Presiding

Officer sent her remarks. I have perused the remarks of the Presiding

Officer. This is a very oldest case in the year 2001, for one reason or other the case could not be disposed of even after several years of filing charge sheet. In this case, it is not in dispute P.Ws. 1 to 4 were examined. Interestingly the petitioner was already examined as P.w.1 besides her P.W.2 was also examined who is her husband. The

Sessions case was coming up for further evidence.

10.)The contention of the petitioner, she filed certain photographs along with the complaint and that they were not marked.

The case is being conducted by the Additional Public Prosecutor. If the photographs with corresponding negatives were available it is always open to the petitioner to mark them. She was examined in chief as per the record on 10-05-2004 and she was further chief-examined on 22- 12-2014 as per the deposition filed by the petitioner. She was cross- examined at length on 06-01-2015. There is absolutely no material to come to conclusion that the Presiding Officer did not allow her to mark photographs.

11.)She alleged that the investigation officer did not file photographs in the court. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 if photographs were really given to the investigation officer during investigation they would have been filed along with the charge sheet. Thus, the learned counsel contended that there was absolutely no truth in the allegation made by the petitioner that there was collusion. In this connection, it is necessary to state that the petitioner sent one complaint petition to the District Court marking 7 as copy to the Hon’ble High Court. She made similar type of allegations in the said complaint/petition. Remarks of the Presiding officer were called for. I have gone through the remarks submitted by the Presiding Officer. Learned Presiding Officer stated in her remarks

Crl.M.P.No.21/2015 was filed by the prosecution for receiving

photographs and to mark the same. The said petition is pending.

Therefore, the prosecution already filed a petition to receive the photographs and it is pending.

12.)Learned Judge has stated in her remarks that the evidence of P.W.1 the petitioner herein and her husband P.W.2 were recorded.

The contents of the deposition were explained to the petitioner and her husband and that after they admitted the contents are true and correct, then only they signed in the depositions. She also stated in her remarks that daughter of P.W.1 was also a practicing advocate and she was assisting her mother P.W.1 herein. So, in the circumstances stated by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvidu, it is very difficult to believe the contention of the petitioner that the learned Senior Civil

Judge, Nuzvidu did not properly recorded her evidence etc., The court

is not concerned about the status of any of the accused and it has no effect on the trial of the case. It is very clear from the counter filed by the respondents/A.3 and A.4 that there was no direction from the

Hon’ble High Court to dispose of the case within 4 months. It is also

stated that similar petition was also given by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

13.)Undisputed fact, the evidence of the petitioner and her husband was already recorded besides them P.Ws. 3 and 4 were examined. When her evidence was already completed and at this stage she has filed this application for transfer making certain allegations against the Presiding Officer. This is a case of the year 2001. The trial to be completed expeditiously and there were 8 directions by the Hon’ble High Court and also Hon’ble Apex court as was stated in the counter. The application filed by the prosecution for marking of photographs will be decided on merits on judicial side.

14.)Learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2015) ACR 178

SUPREME COURT in the case of Kanakalta Vs. State of (NCT) of

Delhi and others. In para No. 7 of the Judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:

“In considering the transfer application, it is to be kept in mind that whether litigant could reasonably apprehend a bias attributable to a presiding Judge. Transfer of a case from one court to another has serious effects on the Judge from whom the case is sought to be transferred. Mere presumptions or possible assumptions are not sufficient for transfer of a case. Only on good ground and sufficient grounds a transfer can be ordered. In my considered view, the appellant has not made out any good and sufficient ground for transfer.” 15.)Similarly in this case also the petitioner has failed to make out a good and sufficient ground for transfer of the case. More so, already she was examined and also her husband who was doctor was examined and the case was coming up for further evidence and this is a very old case and hence, there are absolutely no grounds to transfer the case.

16.)In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, MSJ Court, VJA,

transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 08th day of May, 2015. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. FAC/Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

To 9 The Assistant Sessions Judge, Nuzvidu

1

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, KRISHNA, MACHILIPATNAM.

PRESENT: Sri R. Murali,

II Additional District Judge,

Vijayawada.

FAC/District Judge, Krishna,

Machilipatnam.

Friday, this the 01 st day of May, 2015.

TRANSFER O.P.NO.150/2014

Between:

Nalluri Parvathi Rao, S/o. N. Kumara Swamy, Hindu, aged about 63 years, R/o. C/o. Pedapadu Subba Rao, Kummarla Bazar, Kanuru Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District. :: Petitioner

And

Valluru Srinivasa Rao, S/o. late Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 44 years, Diesel Mechanic, D.No.1-144, Kanuru Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District. :: Respondent This petition is coming on 10-4-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Ch.V.Phani Kesava Rao, Advocate for petitioner and Sri S. Santhi Prasad, Advocate for respondent and after perusing the affidavit, petition and other connected material on record this matter having stood over till this day for consideration and this court made the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed under Sec.24 C.P.C., praying the court to withdraw the suit in O.S.No.879/2013 from the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Vijayawada and to transfer the same to this court for disposal along with

LGOP.GL.No.987/2014.

2.)The brief facts of the petition are as follows:-

The petitioner is the absolute owner of the property admeasuring

Ac.0.04 cents in D.No.164/2 situated at Kanuru village and Panchayat,

Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District. The petitioner acquired the said property by virtue of registered sale deed bearing document No.336/1977 dated. 08-03- 1977 from Valluru China Koteswara Rao and his three sons and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. Out of the said property, the respondent has recently grabbed an extent of 48 sq.yards of vacant site illegally and high handedly without the knowledge and consent of the petitioner and got filed a suit in O.S.NO.879/2013 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Vijayawada against the petitioner for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with his alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property claiming title over the same under an alleged gift deed bearing

Doc.No.3613/2002 dated. 22-10-2002 said to have been executed by his paternal aunt, Vellore Sesharatnam alias Varalakshmi and got obtained an exparte order of interim injunction in I.A.No.1229/2013 behind the back of the 2 petitioner. The petitioner filed written statement in the said suit and the petitioner also got filed LGOP. GL.No.987/2014 on the file of this court under Sec.8 of the

A.P.Act 12 of 1982 r/w. Rule 4 of the Rules framed thereunder vice

G.O.Ms.No.957, dated. 05-07-1982 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.396/1988, dated.

30-05-1988 for declaration that the petitioner is the owner of the grabbed property and to pass an order for removal of the respondents from the grabbed property and deliver vacant possession of the same to him and for other reliefs and this court taking the same on file vide G.L.No.987/2014 directed the

Tahsildar, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District to inspect the grabbed property and to file a report under Rule 5 (b) of the Rules and posted the same to 18-06-2014. It is averred in the petition that the learned Principal Junior Civil

Judge, Vijayawada framed issues and on behalf of the plaintiff, chief affidavits of

P.Ws.1 and 2 were filed. The documents were also marked and the matter was posted for cross-examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 to 01-05-2014. Thought he has taken a specific plea in his written statement to the effect that the respondent is a land grabber and reserving his right to file LGOP before this court, no issue to that effect has been framed by the court below and as such a petition is being filed for framing an additional issue. In view of the contentions of the petitioner that the respondent is a land grabber and as such he is not entitled to seek permanent injunction against the real owner in O.S.No.879/2013. Therefore, to avoid conflict of verdict it is therefore, necessary to withdraw the suit in

O.S.No.879/2013 from the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada and

transfer the same to this court for disposal along with LGOP. GL.No.987/2014 and thereby prayed to allow the petition.

3.)The respondent filed counter denying the allegations made in the petition and contending inter-alia that only to drag on the proceedings in the suit, the present petition is filed by the petitioner with all false facts and pleadings. If really the petitioner is interested to prove his title basing on the documentary evidence, the proper course is to file a suit for declaration of title and for the permanent injunction against the respondent and not by filing LGOP before this court. Without deciding the title and ownership and clear possession of the property, this court cannot decide under Sec.8 of Act 12 of 1982 r/w. Rule 4 of the rules framed therein, as to who is the real owner having valid title and possession of the property in dispute, since this court is not having the original jurisdiction to decide the same, basing on the value of the disputed property. The question who is the real person holding the clear title and having true and uninterrupted ownership and possession over the disputed property is the Principal Junior Civil

Judge, Vijayawada basing on the value of the suit. The original suit and LGOP

are two different proceedings having different perspectives and objectives and the first one is not dependent on the second proceedings, but the second 3 proceedings cannot be decided when the first one is pending for consideration, since in the said proceedings all the questions of title and possession would be decided and only then the permanent injunction can be granted and thereby prayed to dismiss the petition.

4.)Heard both sides.

5.)The point for consideration is:- “Whether there are grounds to withdraw the suit in

O.S.No.879/2013 from the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Vijayawada and to transfer the same to this court for disposal along with LGOP.GL.No.987/2014 as prayed for?” 6.)POINT:

The contention of the petitioner he filed LGOP.GL.No.987/2014 and that this court ordered Tahsildar, Penamaluru to enquire into the matter and submit the report. The contention of the petitioner that the respondent grabbed an extent of 48 sq.yards of site illegally and highhandedly for which he filed

LGOP on the file of this court which is yet to be numbered and report from

Tahsildar, Penamaluru is awaited.

7.)The contention of the learned counsel the respondent on the other hand he filed suit in O.S.No.879/2013 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Vijayawada for perpetual injunction against the petitioner in respect of the very same property covered by LGOP.GL.No. 987/2014. So, the contention of the learned counsel O.S.No.879/2013 be withdrawn from the file of Principal Junior

Civil Judge, Vijayawada and transferred to the file of this court for trial along with

LGOP to avoid conflict of decisions.

8.)The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent proceedings under LGOP.GL.No.987/2014 and suit in O.S.No.879/2013 are different and they are covered by the separate proceedings. The object of the proceedings is also different. It is contended that the petitioner has to establish title and further to prove that the respondent is the land grabber. Thus, the learned counsel contended that there is absolutely no ground to withdraw the suit and transfer the same to the file of this court. It is contended that the suit is part heard.

9.)Undisputed fact the trial in O.S.No.879/2013 already commenced.

LGOP filed by the petitioner is yet to be numbered. The contention of the petitioner that the respondent is a land grabber. However, he filed suit in

O.S.No.879/2013 against the petitioner for perpetual injunction. The petitioner

himself admits the possession of the respondent over the property contending that he is a land grabber. The petitioner filed LGOP against the respondent for recovery of possession by evicting the respondent. Incidentally, the court will look into title pleaded by the respondent who is the plaintiff in O.S.NO.879/2013. The 4 petitioner has filed this petition even before numbering of LGOP on the file of this court, whereas trial already commenced in O.S.No.879/2013. Proceedings are different. There is no interconnection between O.S.No.879/2013 and

LGOP.GL.No.987/2014. The petitioner allowed the suit to go on. At this stage, the petitioner cannot file this petition for transfer. The proceedings in LGOP is different to the proceedings in O.S.No.879/2013. Even if the petitioner succeeds in LGOP, the respondent can protect his possession by way of injunction till he is duly evicted by process of law for which the petitioner filed LGOP.GL.987/2014.

The question the respondent is a land grabber or not is a matter to be decided in

District Court in LGOP.GL.No.987/2014 if it is numbered. So, absolutely there is no need to withdraw the suit in O.S.No.879/2013 from the file of Principal Junior

Civil Judge, Vijayawada to the District Court to try along with

LGOP.GL.No.987/2014. Further, the petition is filed at a premature stage even

before numbering LGOP.

10.)In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, II ADJ Court, Vijayawada

transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 01st day of May, 2015.

Sd/- R. Murali

II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada FAC/District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

To

1. The District Court, Krishna Machilipatnam

2. The Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

//t.c.f.b.o//

Chief Administrative Officer, District Court, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

1

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, KRISHNA, MACHILIPATNAM

Present:- Sri R. Murali,

II-Addl. District Judge, Vijayawada,

FAC/DISTRICT JUDGE, KRISHNA, MACHILIPATNAM.

Friday, this the 01st day of May, 2015.

SPECIAL MARRIAGE O.P.NO. 442/2014

Between: Madipalli Prasanna Kumari, W/o. Kiran Kumar, aged about 26yers, D/o. Uppu Ramulu, House wife, R/o. Nehru Nagar, Nandigama, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District. :: Petitioner.

And

Madipalli Kiran Kumar, S/o. Lakshmi Narayana, aged about 29 yers, private employee, R/o. Nehru Nagar, Nandigama, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District. :: Respondent.

This petition is coming on 17-04-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K. Venu Gopala Rao, Advocate for petitioner and respondent remained ex-parte, after perusing the affidavit, petition and other connected material on record this matter having stood over for consideration till this day for consideration and this court made the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed under Sec.27 (b) & (d) of the Special Marriage

Act, seeing decree of divorce on the grounds of desertion and cruelty.

2.)The brief facts of the petition are as follows:-

The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. Their marriage took place on 20-04-2007 at the Registrar Office, Bhadrachalam under

Special Marriage, 1954 and the marriage was duly registered. Their marriage was duly consummated. During the wedlock, the petitioner gave birth to a female child by name Dhruvitha. After the consummation of the marriage, the petitioner joined the respondent and both of them lead their marital life at Nehru Nagar,

Nandigama. After the marriage, the petitioner came to know that the respondent is having all sorts of bad habits like drinking, gambling and debauchery and the respondent has been harassing her to bring the additional dowry as the respondent married the petitioner without taking any amount and if the respondent married another girl he would get huge dowry. The respondent at the instigation of his other family members used to harass and demand the petitioner to bring additional dowry. When the petitioner refused to bring the 2

additional dowry, the respondent and his other family members, necked her out

from the family house inhumanly along with the daughter on 23-07-2012. As no other alternative, the petitioner reached her parents house and informed the entire episode to her parents. The efforts made by the parents of the petitioner through elders proved futile and the respondent bluntly refused to take back the petitioner and her daughter and the respondent and his family members openly proclaimed that the respondent is not interested to lead family life with the petitioner and if the respondent marries another girl he will get huge dowry. The petitioner having failed in all her attempts and having no other alternative except to approach the temple of justice seeking the remedy of dissolution of the marriage by way of decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

3.)Despite service of notice, the respondent did not attend the court.

Therefore, he was set exparte. Thus, this petition is not resisted by the respondent.

4.)The petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and she has filed her evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A.1 and A.2 documents in proof of her case.

5.)Now, the points for determination are:- 1.)Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty and whether he has deserted him and whether the petitioner is entitled to decree of divorce? 2.)To what relief? 6.)POINT NO.1:

Petitioner is wife of the respondent. Petitioner was examined as

P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 and A.2 marked. Respondent remained exparte. Petitioner stated that their marriage took place on 20-04-2007 at the Registrar Office,

Bhadrachalam under Special Marriage, 1954 and the marriage was duly registered. Their marriage was also consummated. During their wedlock, the petitioner gave birth to a female child by name Dhruvitha. Ex.A.1 is the marriage certificate. Ex.A.2 is the photograph. The evidence of the petitioner goes unchallenged regarding her marriage with the respondent. Exs.A.1 and A.2 proved that petitioner married the respondent and he is her husband.

3 7.)It is also in evidence of the petitioner, after consummation of the marriage she joined the respondent at Nehru Nagar, Nadigama to lead their family life. Her allegation against the respondent that he is having all sorts of bad vices like drinking, gambling and debauchery etc., and the respondent and his family members used to harass her and demand her to bring additional dowry from her parents and they finally necked her from matrimonial house along with her daughter on 23-07-2012. Further, the efforts made by her parents through elders proved futile and the respondent bluntly refused to take back her and her daughter. So, it is her contention that respondent caused her mental agony and subjected her to cruelty by making illegal demand of dowry. Sec. 27 (d) of

Special Marriage Act provides that ”the respondent has since the solemnization of the marriage treated the petitioner with cruelty, then the petitioner is entitled for divorce.” Further, she also alleged that respondent deserted her continuously for more than two years before filing this petition. It is also a ground for grant of divorce under Sec.27 (b) of the Act. So, there are grounds to grant divorce to the petitioner who is the wife of the respondent. Hence, the point is answered accordingly.

8.)POINT NO.2:

In the result, the petition is allowed with costs, passing decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent with effect from the date of this decree.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, II ADJ Court, Vijayawada,

transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 01st day of May, 2015.

II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. FAC/District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

4

Appendix of Evidence

(Witnesses examined for)

Petitioners: Respondent: P.W.1 Madipalli Prasanna Kumari ...None...

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONER

Ex.A1 20-04-2007 Marriage certificate issued by Marriage Officer,

Badrachalam..

Ex.A2 --- Marriage photo.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENT

…NIL

II ADJ, VJA.

FAC/DJ, MTM.

5

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, KRISHNA, MACHILIPATNAM

Present:- Sri R. Murali,

II-Addl. District Judge, Vijayawada,

FAC/DISTRICT JUDGE, KRISHNA, MACHILIPATNAM.

Friday, this the 01STday of May, 2015.

SPECIAL MARRIAGE O.P.NO. 442/2014

Between: Madipalli Prasanna Kumari, W/o. Kiran Kumar, aged about 26yers, D/o. Uppu Ramulu, House wife, R/o. Nehru Nagar, Nandigama, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District. :: Petitioner.

And

Madipalli Kiran Kumar, S/o. Lakshmi Narayana, aged about 29 yers, private employee, R/o. Nehru Nagar, Nandigama, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District. :: Respondent.

This petition is filed under Sec.27 (b) & (d) of the Special Marriage Act, seeking decree of divorce on the grounds of desertion and cruelty.

This petition is presented on :22-12-2014.

This petition is coming before me in the presence of Sri K.Venu Gopalal Rao, Advocate for petitioner and respondent remained ex-parte, and after perusing the material on record this court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE:

i.) that the petition be and the same is hereby allowed; ii.) that the marriage between petitioner and respondent which was held on 20-04-2007 is hereby dissolved by decree of divorce; iii.) that the respondent do pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.NIL towards costs of the petition and do bear his own costs of Rs.NIL as no bill of costs filed on behalf of either side.

Given under my hand and seal of the court this the 01st day of May, 2015.

II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, FAC/ District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

Memo of costs

NIL.

II ADJ, VJA,

FAC/ DJ, MTM

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KRISHNA

MACHILIPATNAM.

Present:PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KRISHNA, MACHILIPATNAM.

Friday this the 1 st day of May, 2015.

E.P. 17/2008.

Between:

Mohammad Mahabbob Sharief …… Petitioner

AND

Polagani Raja Mohana Rao …....Respondent

ORDER

Full satisfaction is recorded. E.P is terminated.

Pronounced by me on this the 1st day of May, 2015.

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KRISHNA, MACHILIPATNAM.

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KRISHNA

MACHILIPATNAM.

Present:PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KRISHNA, MACHILIPATNAM.

Friday this the 1 st day of May, 2015.

E.P. 17/2008.

Between:

Mohammad Mahabbob Sharief …… Petitioner

AND

Polagani Raja Mohana Rao …....Respondent

ORDER

Full satisfaction is recorded. E.P is terminated.

Pronounced by me on this the 1st day of May, 2015.

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KRISHNA, MACHILIPATNAM.