Smt R. Sreelekha

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SIRCILLA

Present:- R.Sree Lekha,

Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla.

Thursday, this the 25th day of April, 2024

H.M.O.P No. 14 of 2020

Between: Dusa Praveen S/o Anjaneyulu, Age: 25 years, r/o H.No.12-19/3, Padmanagar locality of Thangallapalli proper and Mandal, District: Rajanna Sircilla.

....Petitioner

AND

Dusa Lasya @ Meena W/o Praveen (D/o Jakkani Ankus), Age:22 years, Occ: Household, r/o H.No.12-19/3, Padmanagar locality of Thangallapalli proper and Mandal, District: Rajanna Sircilla. Presently residing at her parents’ house at H.No.2-82, Molanguru v/o Keshavapatnam Mandal, District: Karimnagar

.....Respondent

This petition is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence ofSri K. Rajesham, Advocate for Petitioner and Sri.Ch.Venugopal, Advocate for Respondent and having heard and stood over for consideration till to-day, this Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

1.This petition is filed under Sec.13 (1) (ia) of The Hindu Marriage

Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act') praying the Court to grant decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty by the respondent.

2.The averments of the petition in brief are that the marriage between the parties was performed on 04.03.2018 at Padmanagar,

Thangallapalli, they lived together happily for a period of one month at the house of petitioner, they have no issues. The petitioner submits that thereafter the respondent harassed the petitioner to provide luxurious life for which the petitioner expressed his inability, that the respondent expressed that she is not interested to lead 2 Of 16 HMOP No.14/2020 marital life with the petitioner and the petitioner is not suitable spouse to her, that the respondent refused to cohabit with the petitioner. The petitioner furthr submits that the respondent did not attend the household work properly, when the petitioner demanded the respondent to attend the household work, the respondent used to abuse the petitioner. The petitioner submits that in the month of May, 2018 he lift the chit amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and the said amount was kept in the house of the petitioner, that the respondent with an ill- intention to get rid of the petitioner from her society, left the society of the petitioner without informing him alongwith chit amount of

Rs.1,00,000/-. The petitioner submits that he several times requested the respondent to join his society but the respondent refused, that several panchayaths were held, in the said panchayaths the respondent expressed before the elders by stating that she is not interested to lead marital life with the petitioner and refused to join the society of the petitioner.

3.The petitioner submits that on 05.06.2019 the respondent filed a complaint before the Police, Sircilla against the petitioner, his parents and also his relatives, that the Police, Sircilla enquired both the petitioner and the respondent along with their respective elders and the police concerned found fault on the part of the respondent and they did not take any action against the petitioner, his parents and relatives. The petitioner submits that later the respondent filed a complaint before II Town Police, Karimnagar against the petitioner, his parents and relatives, that after due enquiry the police found fault on the part of the respondent and did not take any action. The petitioner submits that in the Month of June, 2019 the respondent managed the 3 Of 16 HMOP No.14/2020

Police, Keshavapatnam and filed a false complaint against the petitioner, his parents and relatives, that the police registered a case vide Cr.No.198 of 2019 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, that due to the said acts of the respondent, the petitioner suffered mental agony and her acts amounts to cruelty towards the petitioner. The petitioner submits that on 18.12.2019, the petitioner went to the house of the parents of the respondent and requested the respondent to join his society, but she refused for the same as she is not interested to join his society. Hence the petition for the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

4.The averments of the counter filed by the respondent in brief is that of denial. The respondent admits the relationship between the parties. The respondent submits that they lived happily for a period of one week in the joint family house of the petitioner, that after one week the respondent and petitioner went out to attend a function and immediately after returning to their house, the petitioner and his family members picked up quarrel with the respondent by ordering her not to wear dresses except sarees and also took away all the dresses of the respondent, due to which the respondent suffered mentally. The respondent submits that the petitioner and his family members instigated the petitioner in picking up quarrels with the respondent, that being instigated by his family members the petitioner started harassing the respondent on one or other reasons on petty matters, that the petitioner used to come home at late night in drunken condition and used to pick up quarrels with the respondent by alleging that he was not interested to marry the respondent, that his marriage was against his will and wish on the threatening of his 4 Of 16 HMOP No.14/2020 parents, that during the absence of the petitioner, his family members used to harass the respondent by stating that she brought less dowry from her parents, that they would have got huge amount of dowry if they would have performed the marriage of the petitioner with another woman and used to threaten the respondent to bring

additional dowry amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The respondent submits

that even though the sisters of the petitioner are married, they often used to visit the house of the petitioner and used to pick up quarrels with the respondent by demanding her to bring additional dowry amount from her parents.

5.The respondent submits that at one time the petitioner and his family member bet the respondent, that she informed the same to her brother who came to the house of the petitioner to question the petitioner and his family members, on which the petitioner and his family members threatened the brother of the respondent stating that he has nothing to do with their family affairs and necked him out of their house. The respondent submits that the petitioner necked her out by snatching all her gold ornaments and left with no other way, the respondent went to her parents house and due to unbearable harassment she informed the same to her parents, on which the parents of the respondent arranged panchayath before the elders, in the said panchayath also, the petitioner and his family members demanded additional dowry amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the parents of the respondent, that the parents of the respondent gave assurance to arrange the said amount as early as possible, but due to the ill luck of the respondent, her parents could not arrange the said amount.

The respondent submits that the petitioner and his family members 5 Of 16 HMOP No.14/2020 did not allow the respondent to talk with her parents or family members even on phone also, that they used to abuse the respondent

before their relatives and neighbours in most filthy language due to

which the respondent suffered physically and mentally. The respondent submits that she got pregnancy through the petitioner, that the respondent informed the same to the petitioner and his family members, but the petitioner and his family members instead of feeling happy remain moody, that on the same night the mother-in- law of the respondent by name Dusa Lalitha with an intention to get aborted the pregnancy of the respondent gave a pill to the respondent, that the respondent swallowed it and later the respondent started bleeding, that the mother-in-law took her to the hospital and admitted her in hospital, that the respondent stayed in the hospital without any care, that due to medical issues the doctor aborted the pregnancy of the respondent, that the parents of the respondent took her to their house and after one week took her to the house of the petitioner, that the respondent stayed one week in the house of petitioner and later the petitioner and his family members necked her out of their house by beating her indiscriminately, left with no other way the respondent went to her parents house and staying their only.

6.The respondent submits that due to unbearable harassment of the petitioner and his family members the respondent filed a complaint before the Police, Keshavapatnam vide Cr.No.198/2019, the same is panding. The respondent submits that later she filed a complaint before the Women Police Station, who called the petitioner and his family members and gave counselling to the petitioner and 6 Of 16 HMOP No.14/2020 his family members but went in vain, that accordingly the petitioner with an intention to get rid off the respondent filed the present petition with false allegations. The respondent submits that she stayed at her parents house till February, 2020 and later shifted to

Rajeev Nagar, Mushtipelly village to the house of her brothr and residing there only by leading miserable life, that on 24.05.2020 the petitioner and his parents came to the house of brother of the respondent and started abusing the respondent and her brother in most filthy language by demanding her to give divorce to the petitioner, when the respondent refused to do so, the petitioner and his parents tried to beat the respondent, that the brother of the respondent intervened and rescued the respondent, that the petitioner and his parents left the house of the brother of the respondent by threatening the respondent to perform second marriage to the petitioner, that on the same day i.e., on 24.05.2020 the respondent lodged a report before the Police, Sircilla against the petitioner and his family members, but the police did not take any action. The respondent submits that still she is having love and affection towars the respondent and she is ready and willing to join the society of the petitioner, if the petitioner receives and maintains the respondent unconditinally without harassing her, but the petitioner is still harassing the respondent by making phone calls to her by demanding her to give divorce to him. The respondent submits that she never treated the petitioner with cruelty, that the petitioner and his family members harassed the respondent mentally and physically for additional dowry and got aborted her pregnancy with their harassment, as such the petition is without any cause of 7 Of 16 HMOP No.14/2020 action, the petition is liable to be dismissed with costs and prays the

Court to dismiss the petition.

7.To prove his case, the petitioner got examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 on his behalf. Ex.P1 is the wedding card,

Ex.P.2 is the marriage photos (two), Ex.P.3 is the copy of Aadhar card of petitioner. The petitioner got examined his mother by name Dusa

Lalitha as PW2. On the other hand, the respondent got examined herself as RW1, but no exhibits are marked through her. The respondent got examined her brother by name Jakkani Venkatesh as

RW2, her sister by name Udutha Archana as RW3, one Jakkani Saritha as R.W.4 and one Udutha Renuka as R.W.5 in support of her case.

8.Heard both sides and perused the record. Written arguments filed by both the parties is received.

9.Now the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the respondent subjected the petitioner

to cruelty as alleged by the petitioner?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for decree of divorce?

3. To what relief?

10.POINT NO.1: To prove his case, the petitioner got examined himself as PW1 reiterated the contents of the petition in his chief examination affidavit and got exhibited Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3. In his cross examination, he deposed that after the marriage they stayed in their house at Thangallapalli. He admitted that a police case is registered against him and his family members before the P.S.Keshavapatnam.

He denied that after one week of marriage, he and his parents 8 Of 16 HMOP No.14/2020 harassed the respondent. He deposed that he has not filed any document to show that he lifted the chit of Rs.1,00,000/-. He denied that he did not lift any chit of Rs.1,00,000/-. He deposed that after the marriage, panchayath were held before the elders. He denied that he executed a document before the elders stating that he will lookafter the respondent properly. He further denied that when the respondent was at his home subsequently, his mother gave a pill and got terminated her pregnancy. He denied that he also used to beat the respondent in drunken condition for additional dowry and for bike, that the respondent used to lookafter him properly and that for

additional dowry he filed the false petition. He deposed that at

present also (on the day or giving evidence) he is ready to take back the respondent into his society, if she is ready to come with him. He denied that though the respondent is willing to join his society, he filed the false petition for additioal dowry and also for performing second marriage.

11.The mother of the petitioner by name Dusa Lalitha is examined as PW2, who corroborated the pleadings of the petition in her chief examination affidavit. In her cross examination, she deposed that they have not filed any document to show that the petitioner was member of any chit and that he lifted chit of Rs.1,00,000/-. She deposed that after marriage they lived together for a period of one month. She denied that during such period the respondent performed all the household works. She further denied that during the pregnancy of respondent, She gave a tablet to the respondent and got terminated her pregnancy. She deposed that the respondent was not present in their house at that time. She denied that though the 9 Of 16 HMOP No.14/2020 respondent is ready to join the society of the petitioner, they are not accepting her. She deposed that if the respondent is ready to join the society of the petitioner, she has no objection.

12.On the other hand, to rebut the case of the petitioner and to prove her case, the respondent got examined herself as RW1 and reiterated the contents of the counter in her chief examination affidavit. In her cross examination, she denied that her in-laws and her husband did not harass her physically and never bet her, that the petitioner never bet her and never came to the house in drunken condition. She denied that when she was pregnant, her mother-in-law took her to the hospital in the village and provided treatment to her.

She denied that her statement in her chief affidavit that her mother- in-law gave one pill to her, when she swallowed it she got abortion is false. She denied that as she filed a false case against the petitioner on the ground of dowry harassment, unable to bear the same the petitioner filed the present petition for divorce.

13.The brother of the respondent by name Jakkani Venkatesh is examined as RW2, who corroborated the pleadings of the counter in his chief examination affidavit. In his cross examination, he denied that after one month of marriage the respondent started harassing the petitioner, that the respondent harassed the petitioner for purchase of luxurious items. He denied that the respondent took away Rs.1,00,000/- which was the chit amount lifted by the petitioner and kept in the Almarah and left to her parents house without informing the petitioner and his parents. He denied that the panchayath elders found fault on the respondent and advised her to 10 Of 16 HMOP No.14/2020 live amicably with the petitioner. He denied that the in-laws of the respondent looked after her properly when she was pregnant and provided proper medical treatment. He further denied that as the respondent harassed the petitioner by filing criminal cases, as such the petitioner filed the present petition.

14.The sister of the respondent by name Udutha Archana is examined as RW3, who corroborated the pleadings of the counter in her chief examination affidavit. In her cross examination, she denied that one week after marriage the respondent used to quarrel with her husband and in-laws, that the mother-in-law of the respondent looked after the respondent properly. She denied that the petitioner and his family members never demanded the respondent for additional dowry, that the respondent harassed the petitioner by saying that she does not need him. She deposed that though the respondent requested the petitioner, the petitioner did not allow her into his society. She denied that as the respondent used to quarrel always, a panchayath was also held in this regard. She deposed that as the petitioner and his family members used to harass the respondent, as such the panchayath was held. She denied that the respondent falsely gave a report to the Police, Keshavapatnam, though the petitioner and his family members never harassed the respondent.

She denied that as the respondent and her family members harassed the petitioner and his family members by filing false cases, as such the petitioner filed the present petition.

11 Of 16 HMOP No.14/2020

15.One Jakkani Saritha is examined as RW4 who corroborated the pleadings of the counter in her chief examination affidavit. In her cross examination, she denied that the respondent used to quarrel with the petitioner unnecessarily on petty matters, that the respondent also did not prepare food to the petitioner and his parents.

She denied that the petitioner never harassed the respondent and never bet her. She denied that the respondent also used to go to the work place of the petitioner and used to harass and insult him in the presence of his co-workers. She denied that as such the employer of the petitioner removed the petitioner from work. She denied that the respondent took the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the house of petitioner which amount was lifted by the petitioner in a chit and the respondent went to her parents house. She denied that when the petitioner went to the house of parents of respondent and questioned her as to why she took the amount, the respondent abused him and brother of respondent by name Venkatesh bet the petitioner. She denied that in the said panchayath the elders advised the respondent to live amicably with the petitioner, on that the respondent came to the house of petitioner. She deposed that though the respondent stated that she is ready to join the society of the petitioner, the petitioner refused to take the respondent into his society. She denied that petitioner has no habit of taking alcohol. She further denied that the respondent used to abuse the petitioner in filthy language through phone also. She denied that the respondent is not interested to live with the petitioner and harassed him in several ways, as such unable to bear the same, the petitioner filed the present petition for divorce.

12 Of 16 HMOP No.14/2020

16.One Udutha Renuka, who is the relative of the respondent is examined as RW5, who corroborated the pleadings of the counter in her chief examination affidavit. In her cross examination, she denied that the respondent did not perform the household works and did not prepare food in the house of petitioner, that the respondent used to abuse and harass the petitioner and his mother. She deposed that she do not know whether the petitioner used to take alcohol, that the petitioner used to quarrel unnecessarily. She denied that the respondent demanded Rs.4,00,000/- for withdrawal of the criminal case filed by her. She denied that the petitioner and his family members looked after the respondent properly and that the respondent herself harassed the petitioner and his family members.

She denied that the respondent also went to the work place of petitioner and abused him in front of his co-workers. She denied that as the respondent harassed the petitioner and his family members by filing false case, as such he filed the present petition.

17.Thus according to the petitioner the respondent took the chit amount of Rs.1,00,000/- which was lifted by him and left his society without informing him, that though he requested her to join his society, she refused, that the respondent also lodged false complaint against him, his family members and his relatives, thus the acts of the respondent caused mental agony to the petitioner which amounts to cruelty.

18.On the other hand, according to the respondent the petitioner harassed her, inspite of the same she is ready to join his society, that 13 Of 16 HMOP No.14/2020 she never treated the petitioner with cruelty and that the petitioner and his family members only harassed the respondent.

19.The main contention of the petitioner is that the respondent took the chit amount of Rs.1,00,000/- which was lifted by him and left his society. However P.W.1 deposed in his cross-examination that he did not file any document to show that he lifted the chit of

Rs.1,00,000/-. Even P.W.2 deposed that they have not filed any document to show that the petitioner was member of any chit and that he lifted chit of Rs.1,00,000/-. Thus, the petitioner did not file any document nor he examined any independent witness to prove that he was member of a Chit and that he lifted Rs.1,00,000/-.

Morever, no suggestion is given to R.W.1 that she took the chit amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and left the society of the petitioner.

20.A suggesion is given to R.W.4 and R.W.5 that the respondent used to go to the work place of the petitioner and used to harass, insult and abuse him in front of his co-workers, which is denied by them. However as seen from the record, there is no pleading in the petition that the respondent abused and insulted the petitioner in front of his co-workers and no suggestion is given to RW1 in this regard.

21.The other contention of the petitioner is that the respondent filed false criminal cases against him. A suggestion is given to R.W.1 that as she filed false case against the petitioner, unable to bear the same the petitioner filed the present petition, which is denied by her.

Even R.W.2, R.W.3, R.W.5 denied a suggestion that as the respondent harassed the petitioner by filing criminal cases, as such the petitioner 14 Of 16 HMOP No.14/2020 filed the present petition. But expressing her grievance to a public authority cannot be said as causing mental agony, unless the allegations are proved as false. If the respondent withdrew from the society of the petitioner voluntarily, he could have issued a legal notice asking her to join his society. But the petitioner did not do so and filed the present petition for divorce alleging that the respondent harassed him. Mere attributations or allegations are not sufficient to prove the ground of cruelty as pleaded by the petitioner.

22.While the petitioner is intending to break the marital tie, the respondent is against it. The petitioner alleged that his efforts for reconciliation went in vain. The petitioner as P.W.1 contended that several panchayaths were held before the elders to settle the disputes between him and the respondent and that the respondent expressed before the elders stating that she is not interested to lead marital life with him and refused to join his society. But the petitioner has not examined any of the panchayath elders on his behalf to prove his contentions.

23.Morever P.W.1 deposed in his cross-examination that at present (at the time of giving evidence) also he is ready to take back the respondent into his society, if she is ready to come with him. Even

P.W.2 deposed in her cross-examination that if the respondent is ready to join the society of the petitioner, she has no objection.

24.From the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that there is no proper or sufficient evidence to prove the case of the petitioner and that the petitioner did not discharge the initial burden on him and as such the relief prayed by him cannot be granted easily.

15 Of 16 HMOP No.14/2020

In view of the above discussion, this Court opines that the circumstances of the petition are not fit enough to grant the relief of divorce. Therefore, taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, this Court holds that the petitioner failed to prove that the respondent subjected him to cruelty as alleged by him. The point is answered accordingly and against the petitioner.

POINT NO.2

25.In view of the finding of this Court on Point No.1, this Court holds that the petitioner failed to prove that he is entitled for decree of divorce. The point is answered accordingly.

POINT NO.3.

26.In view of the findings of this Court in Point No.1 and 2, this

Court holds that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief of decree of divorce and the petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

27.IN THE RESULT, the petition is dismissed, without costs.

Partly typed to my dictation and Partly dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by her and corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 25th day of April,

2024.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

SIRCILLA

16 Of 16 HMOP No.14/2020

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner: For Respondent:

PW1: Dusa Praveen RW1: Dusa Lasya @ Meena PW2: Dusa Lalitha, RW2: Jakkani Venkatesh, RW3: Udutha Archana, RW4: Jakkani Saritha, RW5: Udutha Renuka,

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioner: For Respondent:

Ex.P1: Weddingcard - None - Ex.P2: Marriage photo (two) Ex.P3: Copy of Aadhar card of petitioner

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

SIRCILLA

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SIRCILLA

 Present:­ R.Sree Lekha,

Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla.

Thursday, this the 25th day of April, 2024

 H.M.O.P No. 150 of 2023

Between: Janapala Naveen Kumar, S/o Narsaiah, Age: 39years,Occ: Agriculture r/o Avunoor v/o Musthabad Mandal.

.....Petitioner

A N D Janapala @ Oraganti Shailaja, W/o Naveen Kumar, Age: 29 years, OCC: Contact Teacher, r/o 10­2­11, Sainagar locality of Sircilla proper and mandal, District: Rajanna Sircilla.

...Respondent

This petition is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B.Ravinder Rao, Advocate for Petitioner and Respondent set exparte and having heard and stood over for consideration till to­day, this Court delivered the following:­

O R D E R

1.This petition is filed under Sec.13(1) (ia) of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act') praying the Court to grant decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty by the respondent.

2.The averments of the petition in brief are that the marriage between the parties was performed on 20.06.2014 at Sircilla, their marriage was consummated, they lived together happily for a period of one year, they are blessed with one child. The petitioner further submits that subsequently the respondent harassed him on several occasions for various reasons like the respondent developed disliking towards him, The respondent used to pickup quarrels with the parents of the petitioner unnecessarily and demanded to live separately from his parents and used 2 Of 5 HMOP No.150/2023 filthy language against the parents of the petitioner, that the respondent even not attended the household work, used to leave the society of the petitioner without informing him, that the respondent left the society of the petitioner on 02­03­2017 along with her gold ornaments and filed

DVC No. 34 of 2019 on the file of JMFC at Sircilla, that reconciliation talks were held, and on the advice of the caste elders she joined the society of the petitioner and lived amicably for a period of 2 years at

Vemulawada and at that time the respondent demanded some financial security for her own on which the petitioner purchased a open plot no.5 in Sy.No. 391 at Vemulawada in the name of the respondent, that the respondent also paid half of the amount at that time, thereafter again she started her old attitude towards the petitioner and she did not even cook food for the petitioner. The petitioner submits that finally in the month of

September, 2022 the respondent on her own accord left the society of the petitioner along with her gold ornaments, certificates, land papers, personal articles and clothes without informing the petitioner and finally in the month of November, 2023 the petitioner approached the respondent at her school at Marripelly and requested her to join his society, but she refused bluntly. Therefore, the petitioner prays the Court to grant decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. Hence the petition.

3. The respondent is set exparte.

4. To prove his case, the petitioner got examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 on his behalf. Ex.P1 is the wedding card. Ex.P2 is the photo, Ex.P.3 is the copy of aadhar card of petitioner. The petitioner got examined one Ch.Srinivas as PW2 in support of his case.

5. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and perused the material on record. 

3 Of 5 HMOP No.150/2023

6.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of decree of

divorce by dissolving his marriage with the respondent

performed  on 20.06.2014 at Sircilla as prayed for?

7. Point: To prove his case, the petitioner got examined himself as PW1 got marked Ex.P1 to P3. The testimony of PW1 goes to show that his marriage was performed with the respondent on 20.06.2014 at Sircilla, their marriage was consummated, they lived together happily for a period of one year, they are blessed with one child. It is the further case of the petitioner that subsequently the respondent harassed him on several occasions for various reasons like the respondent developed disliking towards him, the respondent used to pickup quarrels with the parents of the petitioner unnecessarily and demanded to live separately from his parents and used filthy language against the parents of the petitioner, that the respondent even not attended the household work, used to leave the society of the petitioner without informing him, that the respondent left the society of the petitioner on 02­03­2017 along with her gold ornaments, and filed DVC No. 34 of 2019 on the file of JMFC at Sircilla, that reconciliation talks were held and on the advice of the caste elders she joined the society of the petitioner and lived amicably for a period of 2 years at Vemulawada and at that time the respondent demanded some financial security for her own on which the petitioner purchased a open plot no.5 in Sy.No. 391 at Vemulawada in the name of the respondent, that the respondent also paid half of the amount at that time, thereafter again she started her old attitude towards the petitioner and she did not even cook food for the petitioner. It is the further case of the peatitioner that finally in the month of September, 2022 the respondent on her own accord left the society of the petitioner along with her gold 4 Of 5 HMOP No.150/2023 ornaments, certificates, land papers, personal articles and clothes without informing the petitioner and finally in the month of November, 2023 the petitioner approached the respondent at her school at Marripelly and requested her to join his society but she refused bluntly. 

8. The pleadings of the petitioner and the testimony of PW.1 goes to show that the petitioner filed the petition for decree of divorce. The testimony of PW1 remained unchallenged as the respondent remained exparte. In the circumstances, it can be held that the petitioner is entitled for the decree of divorce as prayed for. The point is answered accordingly in favour of the petitioner.

9. IN THE RESULT,the petition is allowed without costs granting decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of the petitioner performed with the respondent on 20.06.2014 at Sircilla.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 25 th day of April, 2024.

 SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

SIRCILLA

 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner: For Respondent:

PW1: Jillella Ramu ­ None ­ PW2: Ch. Srinivas

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioner: For Respondent:

Ex.P1: Wedding card. ­ Nil ­ Ex.P2: photo Ex.P3: Copy of aadhar card of petitioner.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

SIRCILLA

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SIRCILLA

Present:- R.Sree Lekha,

Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla.

Wednesday, this the 24th day of April, 2024

H.M.O.P No. 67 of 2023

Between: Pogula Kavya Sri @ Vaddepelli Jyothi W/o. Dayanand, Age: 34 years, Occ: Household, r/o H.No. 6-79/2, Thangallapally village and Mandal of Rajanna Sircilla District.

.....Petitioner

A N D

Pogula Dayanand, s/o Srihari, Age: 38 years, Occ: Weaving Work, r/o H.No. 1-3-65/1/A, J.P.Nagar, Sircilla town and Mandal of Rajanna Sircilla District.

...Respondent

This petition is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Kodam Suresh, Advocate for Petitioner and Respondent set exparte and having heard and stood over for consideration till to-day, this Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

1. This petition is filed under Sec.13(1) (ia) and (ib) of The Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act') praying the Court to grant decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion by the respondent.

2. The averments of the petition in brief are that the marriage between the parties was performed on 10-12-2014 at Markandeya

Temple at Thangallapally Village, they lived happily for a period of one year, they have no issues. The petitioner submits that subsequently the respondent harassed her mentally and physically 2 Of 4 HMOP No.67/2023 on several occasions for various reasons like the respodent used to drink liquor/toddy regularly, comes to house and abuse the petitioner in filthy language and abused her parents also by demanding additional dowry amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, used to beat the petitioner on her body with stick or any other article, as such the petitioner received bleeding injuries, that the respondent never initiated the petitioner for cohabitation, as such they have no issues till date, that though reconciliation talks were held but in vain. The petitioner further submits that on 07-06-2017 the respondent necked out the petitioner from his house, that on 15-04-2023, she along with her parents and caste elders approached and requested the respondent to allow her into his society, but the respondent bluntly refused to do so. The petitioner further submits that recently she came to know that the respondent got married another woman and living with her under single roof as husband and wife during the subsistence of the legal marriage with the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner prays the court to grant decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. Hence the petition

3. The respondent is set exparte.

4. To prove her case, the petitioner got examined herself as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 on her behalf. Ex.P1 is the marriage card. Ex.P2 is the marriage photos(2), Ex.P.3 is the copy of Aadhar card of petitioner. The petitioner got examined her father

V. Balaraju as PW2 in support of her case.

5. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and perused the material on record.

3 Of 4 HMOP No.67/2023

6. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of decree

of divorce by dissolving her marriage with the Respondent

performed on 10-12-2014 at Markandeya Temple at

Thangallapally Village, as prayed for?

7.Point: The testimony of PW1 goes to show that her marriage was performed with the respondent on 10-12-2014 at Markandeya

Temple at Thangallapally Village, they lived happily for a period of one year, they have no issues. It is the further case of the petitioner that subsequently the respondent harassed her mentally and physically on several occasions for various reasons like the respodent used to drink liquor/toddy regularly, comes to house and abuse the petitioner in filthy language and abused her parents also by demanding additional dowry amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, used to beat the petitioner on her body with stick or any other article, as such the petitioner received bleeding injuries, that the respondent never initiated the petitioner for cohabitation, as such they have no issues till date, that though reconciliation talks were held but in vain. It is the further case of the petitioner that on 07-06-2017 the respondent necked away the petitioner from his house, that on 15-04-2023, she along with her parents and caste elders approached and requested the respondent to allow her into his society, but the respondent bluntly refused to do so. It is the further case of the petitioner that recently she came to know that the respondent got married another woman and living with her under single roof as husband and wife during the subsistence of the legal marriage with the petitioner.

4 Of 4 HMOP No.67/2023 8.The pleadings of the petitioner and the testimony of PW.1 goes to show that the petitioner filed the petition for decree of divorce.

The testimony of PW1 remained unchallenged as the respondent remained exparte. In the circumstances, it can be held that the petitioner is entitled for the decree of divorce as prayed for. The point is answered in favour of the petitioner.

9. IN THE RESULT,the petition is allowed without costs granting decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of the petitioner performed with the respondent on 10-12-2014 at Markandeya

Temple at Thangallapally Village.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24 th day of April, 2024.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

SIRCILLA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner: For Respondent:

PW1: Katabathini Kavya @ Naveena PW2: V. Balaraju - None -

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioner: For Respondent:

Ex.P1: Wedding Card. - None - Ex.P2: Marriage Photos(2). Ex.P3: Copy of Aadhar card of petitioner

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

SIRCILLA

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SIRCILLA

Present:­ R.Sree Lekha,

Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla.

 Wednesday, this the 24th day of April, 2024

H.M.O.P No.5 of 2023

Between:

Kommu Srinivas, S/o Rajaiah, Age: 33 years, r/o H.No. 10­26, Gudem village of Musthabad Mandal of Rajanna Sircilla Dist.

.....Petitioner No.1

A N D Kommu @ Gouti Mounika, w/o Srinivas, D/o Bixshapathi, Age: 27 years, Occ: Tailoring, r/o H.No.10­26, Gudem village of Musthabad Mandal of Rajanna Sircilla Dist., presently residing at her parent’s house at Narayanaraopet village and Mandal of Siddipet Dist.

.....Petitioner No.2

This petition is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri CH. Mahesh Goud, Advocate for petitioner No.1 and Sri. G. Anjaiah, Advocate for petitioner No.2 and having heard and stood over for consideration till to­day, this Court delivered the following:­

O R D E R

1. This petition is filed under Sec.13­B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act') for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioners by mutual consent.

2. The averments of the petition in brief are that the marriage between the parties was performed on 14­02­2020 at Narayanapet Village,

Siddipet District, they lived happily for a period of one month, their marriage is consummated. The petitioners submit that subsequently disputes arose in between them, as such they are residing seperately 2 of 5 H.M.O.P No.5 of 2023 since last couple of years, that though reconciliation talks were held, but in vain, as a result, the petitioners decided to take divorce through

Court on mutual consent. The petitioners submit that as per the terms of compromise, they have agreed to return their respective articles including gold and silver ornaments, which were presented by their respective parents at the time of their marriage. The petitioners submit that they agreed that the petitioner no.2 is not having any future claim over the petitioner no.1, that she would not claim anything from the petitioner no.1 in future, that she would not file any civil or criminal cases against the petitioner no.1 in future, that she would withdraw the cases against the petitioner no.1, if any, pending before any court of law. Initially, the petition was registered under Section 13 (1) (ia) of

Hindu Marriage Act against the respondent and subsequently, it was amended to Section 13­B by way of amendment petition. Hence the petition.

3. This case was registered on 20­01­2023 and the mandatory period of six months is completed.

4. This Court tried to reconcile both the parties, but in vain.

5. To prove the case of the petitioners, Petitioner No.1 got examined himself as PW1 and Exs.P1 to P3 are marked. Ex.P1 is the wedding card, Ex.P2 is the Marriage Photo, Ex.P3 is the copy of Aadhar card of petitioner No.1. The petitioner No.2 got examined herself as PW2 but no exhibits are marked on her behalf.

3 of 5 H.M.O.P No.5 of 2023

6.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Perused the record.

7.Now the point for consideration is:­

Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of decree of

divorce by mutual consent by dissolving their marriage performed

on 14­02­2020 at Narayanapet Village, Siddipet District, as

prayed for?

8. POINT : The sum and substance of the evidence of PW1­Kommu

Srinivas, PW2­Kommu @ Gouti Mounika, is that their marriage was performed on 14­02­2020 at Narayanapet Village, Siddipet District, they lived happily for a period of one month, their marriage is consummated.

It is the further case of the petitioners that subsequently disputes arose in between them, as such they are residing seperately since last couple of years, that though reconciliation talks were held, but in vain, as a result, the petitioners decided to take divorce through Court on mutual consent. It is the further case of the petitioners that as per the terms of compromise, they have agreed to return their respective articles including gold and silver ornaments, which were presented by their respective parents at the time of their marriage. It is further case of the petitioners that they agreed that the petitioner no.2 is not having any future claim over the petitioner no.1, that she would not claim anything from the petitioner no.1 that in future, that she would not file any civil or criminal cases against the petitioner no.1 in future, that she would withdraw the cases against the petitioner no.1, if any, pending

before any court of law.

4 of 5 H.M.O.P No.5 of 2023

9. Under these circumstances, I hold that it is a fit case to grant decree of divorce by mutual consent by dissolving their marriage as prayed for. The point is answered accordingly.

10.In the result, the petition is allowed without costs, granting decree of divorce by mutual consent, dissolving the marriage of the petitioners performed 14­02­2020 at Narayanapet Village, Siddipet District

Typed to my dictation directly on computer by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24 th day of April, 2024.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

SIRCILLA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioners 1 and 2:­

PW1: Kommu Srinivas PW2: Kommu @ Gouti Mounika

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P1 is the Wedding card Ex.P2 is the Marriage Photo Ex.P3 is the copy of Aadhar card of petitioner No.1

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

SIRCILLA

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SIRCILLA

PRESENT:- Smt.R.Sreelekha,

Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla

Friday,the 25th day of April, 2024

O.S.No. 109 of 2019

Between:-

1. Thipparthi Radha, w/oSathyanarayana, Age:45 yrs Occ:house hold

2. Thipparthi Rahul, s/o Sathyanarayana,Age:21 yrs,Occ: student

3. Thipparthi Amulya, d/o Sathyanarayana,Age:19 yrs, Occ: Student

All are r/o H.No. 1-6-33, Gambhiraopeta proper and mandal of Rajanna Sircilla District.

...Plaintiffs.

And

1. Thipparthi Anasurya, w/o late Shaankaraiah, Age: 72 yrs, Occ: House hold, r/o H.No. 2-3-48, Ashok Nagar locality of Sircilla Town and Mandal of Rajanna Sircilla District.

2. Ginnela Vajramma @ Vanaja, w/o Devadas, Age: 55 yrs, Occ: House hold, r/o H.No.9-4-240/1, Sapthagiri Colony, Karimnagar Town and District.

3. Ginnela latha @ Pushpalatha, w/o Srrinivas, Age: 49 yrs, Occ: House hold, r/o H.No. 2-1-60/B, Ashok Nagar locality of Sircilla Town and Mandal of Rajanna Sircilla District.

4. Thipparthi Srinivas, s/o Late Shankaraiah, Age: 45 yrs, Occ: Business( Goldsmith), r/o H.No. 2-3-48, Ashok Nagar locality of Sircilla Town and Mandal of Rajanna Sircilla District.

5. Galipelly Shantha, w/o Mallikarjun, Age: 42 yrs, Occ: House hold, r/o H.NO. 6-5-6, Ram Nagar locality of Karimnagar Town and District.

6. Mandepelli Aruna, s/o Srinivas, Age: 52 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, r/o H.No. 2-3-48, Ashok Nagar locality of Sircilla Town and Mandal of Rajanna Sircilla District.

2

7. Chennamadhavuni Narsimha Raju, s/o Venkata Raju, Age: 47 yrs, Occ: Business, r/o H.No. 7-2-234, Mankammathota locality of Karimnagar Town and District.

8. Vishwanathula Sathamma, w/o Thirumalaiah, Age: 74 yrs, Occ Household, r/o H.No. 7-2-663, Mankammathota locality of Karimnagar Town and District.

..Defendants

Suit for partition and separate possession

This suit coming before me in the presence of Sri.A. Ramakanthrao, Advocate for Plaintiff, Sri.S. Ravinder, Advocate for D.2, D.3, D.5, Defendants 1, 6, D.8 are Exparte, Sri.G.Bhuvaneshwer, Advocate for D.4, the suit is dismissed against D.7 and having been heard and stoodover for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:-

ORDER

Counsel for plaintiff present. Plaintiff 1 to 3 present.

Sri.B.Vishnu, Advocate representing the counsel for D.2,3,4,5 present. I.A. 91/2024 filed by the counsel for plaintiff is allowed. In view of the same, the suit is dismissed as not pressed.

Pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 25th day of April,

2024..

Senior Civil Judge,

Siricilla