Smt. Rubina Fatima

1 of 6 S.C.No.210 of 2022

FAIR

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT MEDAK

PRESENT : SMT.RUBINA FATIMA,

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, MEDAK

TUESDAY, THIS THE 07TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

S.C. NO.210 OF 2022

Crime No.61/2021 of P.S.Haveli Ghanpur

ComplainantThe State through of S.I.Police, P.S.Haveli Ghanpur AccusedA1. Banoth Santosh, S/o.Mothiram, Age:20 years, Occ:Agriculture. A2:Banoth Mothiram, S/o.Bikya, Age:46 years, Occ:Agriculture.

A3:Banoth Bhuliya, S/o.Bikya, Age:33 years, Occ:Agriculture.

A4:Banoth Durgya, S/o.Bikya, Age:60 years, Occ:Agriculture. A5:Banoth Srinu, S/o.Durgya, Age:20 years, Occ:Agriculture.

All belongs to Haveli Ghanpur Thanda.

Case committed by Prl.Junior Civil Jude-Cum- Judicial Magistrate First Class, Medak. Charge U/s.307, 324, 504, 506 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code. Date of framing of charge25-11-2025

Plea of AccusedPleaded not guilty Trial commenced on30-03-2026

Trail completed on30-03-2026 Finding of the CourtNot guilty

Sentence or orderIn the result, accused No.1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offences u/ss.307, 324, 504, 506 r/w.34 of IPC. and accordingly they are acquitted u/s.232 Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of the said accused No.1 to 5 shall remain in force for a further period of 6 months to bind them to be present

before the appellate Court if any appeal is preferred

from this judgment. The unmarked case property i.e., one knife and three sticks any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

2 of 6 S.C.No.210 of 2022

FAIR

Remand period in this A1: 39 days (16.04.2021 to 24.05.2021) A2: 25 days (16.04.2021 to 10.05.2021) case A3: 25 days (16.04.2021 to 10.05.2021) Prosecution conducted by Sri. P.Raj Kumar, Addl., Public Prosecutor

Accused defended by Sri.N.Nagarju, Learned counsel for Accused

This case having come before me for hearing on 30-03-2026, having heard and considered the record till date, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The accused No.1 to 5 herein are tried for the offences under Sections 307, 324, 504, 506 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as IPC).

2.The Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against accused No.1 to 5 for the offences u/ss. 307, 324, 504, 506 r/w.34 of IPC stating that on 29.03.2021 at 13.00 hours, Sri.Dharavath Sevya went to police station and lodged a telugu written complaint in which he stated that on 28.03.2021 at about 11.30 hrs while his brother namely Dharavath Mangya was attended the function and while he returning home on the way when he reached the 100 yards away from his home, meantime A1 by putting previous issues in his mind regarding land and bore attacked his brother with a sword, due to which his brother received bleeding injuries. LW2 to LW6 intervened and tried to stop A1, but A1 along with A2 to A5 abused them in filthy language and attacked them with sticks and caused injuries and threatened to kill them in any time. As such, he lodged a complaint requesting to take necessary legal action against accused No.1 to 5.

Basing on the complaint, LW13 registered a case in Cr.No.61/2021 u/ss.307, 324, 504, 506 r/w.34 of IPC and issued F.I.R.

3 of 6 S.C.No.210 of 2022

FAIR

During the course of investigation, LW13 examined and recorded the statement of LW1 and LW2. Later proceeded to Government Area Hospital and recorded the statements of LW3 to LW6. Later visited the scene of offence i.e.,

School Thanda and recorded the statement of LW7. Later in the presence of LW8 and LW9 drawn the rough sketch map and seized 03 sticks.

While the investigation was in progress on 14.06.2021 at about 1100 hours on receiving credible information LW13 along with his staff rushed to School

Thanda and apprehended A1 to A3 on interrogation they confessed the commission of offence in the presence of LW10 and LW11. Conducted confession cum seizure panchanama and seized one sharp knife( Kamma katti) and effected their arrest and sent them to judicial custody. A4 and A5 obtained anticipatory bail. LW12 who treated injured persons opined that LW3 sustained grievous injuries and LW1, 2, 4 to 6 sustained simple injuries. Thus, after completion of investigation, LW14 filed charge sheet against accused No.1 to 5 for the offences punishable u/ss.307, 324, 504, 506 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code.

3.The court took cognizance against accused No.1 to 5 for the offences punishable u/ss.307, 324, 504, 506 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code, copies of case documents were furnished to them as contemplated u/s.207 Cr.P.C. Later, the case was committed to the Hon'ble Prl.Sessions Court, Medak where it was registered as Sessions Case and the same was made over to this court for disposal according to the law.

4.On appearance of accused No.1 to 5, they were examined u/s.228 Cr.P.C.

After hearing, charges were framed for the offences u/ss.307, 324, 504, 506

4 of 6 S.C.No.210 of 2022

FAIR r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code against accused no.1 to 5, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.Prosecution listed 14 witnesses, but examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4. During examination, PW1 to PW3 did not support prosecution case, the learned Addl.PP submitted that there will be no use in examining the remaining formal witnesses and closed the prosecution evidence by giving up the remaining prosecution witnesses. As there is no incriminating material found in the prosecution evidence, the examination of accused No.1 to 5 u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with. Defense counsel reported no evidence.

6.Heard arguments of both Addl.PP and defense counsel. Perused the record.

7. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused No.1 to 5 herein

beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences 307, 324, 504, 506 r/w.34 of

Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt ?

8. Prosecution version in nutshell as follows. Keeping land disputes in mind,

A1 to A5 on 28.03.2021 at about 11.30 hrs, when LW3/Dharavath Mangya reached 100 yards from his house, A1 attacked him with a sword, due to which he received bleeding injuries. LW2 to LW6 intervened and tried to stop A1, but A1 along with A2 to A5 abused them in filthy language and attacked them with sticks and caused bleeding injuries to them and threatened to kill them in any time. As such, complainant lodged a case against accused No.1 to 5 who are liable for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 324, 504, 506 r/w.34 of IPC.

9.On perusing record, the court found prosecution examined LW1 to LW3 as

PW1 to PW3 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4.

5 of 6 S.C.No.210 of 2022

FAIR

The material witness PW1 stated that about four years back, some galata took place in his Thanda to that regard police came to their village and obtained his signature on blank papers without disclosing any reasons and he did not lodged any complaint.

PW2 deposed that about four years back, some galata took place in his

Thanda to that regard police came to to his village and obtained PW1’s signature on blank papers without disclosing any reasons and PW1 did not lodge any complaint.

PW3 deposed that about four years back, some galata took place in his

Thanda to that regard police came to his village and obtained PW1’s signature on blank papers without disclosing any reasons and PW1 did not lodge any complaint.

10.In view of hostility of material witnesses, prosecution also did not lead further evidence and accordingly learned Addl.PP did not choose to examine remaining witnesses. Thereafter, Prosecutor has given up other material witnesses. Thus, in the absence of material evidence available on record and as the prosecution failed to establish case against accused no.1 to 5 for the offences under Sections 307, 324, 504, 506 r/w.34 of IPC. Court found that ingredients for

Sections 307, 324, 504, 506 r/w.34 of IPC does not attract against A1 to A5.

11. In the result, accused No.1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offences u/ss.307, 324, 504, 506 r/w.34 of IPC. and accordingly they are acquitted u/s.232

Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of the said accused No.1 to 5 shall remain in force for a further period of 6 months to bind them to be present before

6 of 6 S.C.No.210 of 2022

FAIR the appellate Court if any appeal is preferred from this judgment. The unmarked case property i.e., one knife and three sticks any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 07 th day of April, 2026.

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

MEDAK

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW.1: D.Sevya -NIL- PW.2: B.Venkati PW.3: D.Mangya

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on complaint. - NIL- Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2 Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3

MATERIAL OBJECTS

- NIL-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

MEDAK

Fair 1 of 6 OS.No.1 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MEDAK

PRESENT: SMT. RUBINA FATIMA

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEDAK.

Dated this the Monday, 6 th day of April, 2026.

O.S.No. 01 OF 2023

Between:-

1. Smt. Gangi Reddy Yadamma, W/o.Late Sri Gangi Reddy Ravinder Reddy, Aged:44 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o. H.No.1-68/1, Nijampet, Grampanchayat Nizampet, Quthbullapur, Nizampet, Rangareddy District -500090.

2. E.Surender Reddy, S/o.Late Enugu Narayan Reddy, Aged:40 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.H.No 1-54, Siknidlapur Village, Shivampet Mandal, Medak District-502336.

3. Jinnaram Avinash Reddy, S/o.Jinnaram Mohan Reddy, Aged:36 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.1-68, Nizampet, Opp Grampanchayat Nizampet, Ranga Reddy District, 500090.

4. Jinnaram Abhilash Reddy, S/o.Jinnaram Mohan Reddy, Aged:33 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.1-68, Nizampet, Opp Grampanchayat Nizampet, Ranga Reddy District, 500090.

...Plaintiffs

A N D

T. Lingarao, S/o.T.Narayan Rao, Age:52 years, Occ: Business, R/o.MIG 11-76, New Housing board Colony Nizampet. …Defendant

This suit coming before me for final hearing on 30.03.2026 in the presence of M/s.P.ShivaKumar, P.Prashanth Kumar, E.Ranjith and Ch.Madhusudan learned counsel for the plaintiffs and defendant having remained Exparte on 21.04.2025, upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made and delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by plaintiff for perpetual injunction under Section 26

Order 7 rules 1 and 2 CPC to grant perpetual Injunction restraining the defendant

Fair 2 of 6 OS.No.1 of 2023 his agents, servants and all persons claiming through him from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule land.

2.The plaintiffs are the pattedars and peaceful possessors of all that

Agricultural land admeasuring Ac.10.38 gts in Sy.No.154 extent Ac.00.20 gts, 154/1-extent of Ac.00.20 gts, 154/b-extent of Ac.02.38 gts, 155 extent Ac.02.00 gts 155/AA extent of Ac.02.20gts, 155/6 extent of Ac.02-20gts situated at

Sikindlapur Village, Shivampet Mandal, Medak District by virtue of D-Form Patta issued by the then Government of Andhra Pradesh.

Plaintiffs individual land as per patta is shown as below:

S.No.Name of PlaintiffSy.NoExtent

1.Smt.Gangi Reddy Yadamma155Ac.02.00gts

2.E.Surender Reddy154/1Ac.00.20gts 154Ac.00.20gts

3. Jinnaram Avinash Reddy154/bAc.02.38 gts 155/6Ac.02.20 gts

4.Jinnaram Abhilash Reddy155/AAAc.02.20gts

Total ExtentAc.10-38 gts

The Suit schedule property is an assigned land and the then Government of Andhra Pradesh have granted D-Form Patta in favour of this plaintiffs and the plaintiffs got their names mutated in the concerned revenue records and also issued Pattadar passbooks and title deeds accordingly. Then they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiffs have applied for electricity connection and also got electricity transformer erected in the Suit Schedule Land

Fair 3 of 6 OS.No.1 of 2023 for erecting bore well for agriculture purpose and they are paying electricity charges and all other charges to the local authorities. The plaintiffs have also obtained loans from the banks and they are paying installments regularly and they are also getting the Rythu Bandhu Scheme from the Telangana Government. The defendant herein who is stranger and no way connected to the suit schedule property have developed an evil intention to grab the suit schedule property. On 02.01.2023 and also on 06.01.2023 the defendant came to the suit schedule property and tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs abused them in unparliamentary language by manhndling the plaintiffs and tried to take possession of the suit schedule property illegally and unlawfully, but, while going they threatened that they would come back again with some more force and take possession of the suit schedule property. However, the Police

Shivampet refused to take the complaint of the plaintiffs stating that dispute is civil in nature and advised them to approach Civil Court for proper remedy. Under these circumstances the plaintiffs are left with no other alternative but to approach this Hon’ble Court with the present suit for injunction against the defendant herein.

3.Summons served and the defendant, but he did not appear before the

Court. Hence, he was set exparte.

4.Heard the arguments of counsel for plaintiffs.

5.Plaintiff got examined himself as PW1 and marked Ex.A1 to A18.

6.Now, the point for consideration is:

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction against

defendant restraining him from interfering into the peaceful possession of

the suit schedule property?

Fair 4 of 6 OS.No.1 of 2023

7.On perusal of the record, the court found plaintiff claims they are the owner and possessor of suit schedule property and got marked documents Ex.A1 to

A.18. Ex.A1:Original pattedar passbook of Smt.Gangi Reddy Yadamma.

Ex.A2:Original pattedar passbook of J.Avinash Reddy. Ex.A3:Original pattedar passbook of J.Abhilash Reddy. Ex.A4:Original 1-B certificate dated:09.10.2015 (04 Nos). Ex.A5:Original 1-B Certificate dated:26.11.2015 (03 Nos).

Ex.A6:Certified copy of pahanies for the year 2010-11. Ex A7:Certified copy of pahanies for the year 2015-16. Ex.A8:Certified copy of pahanies for the year 2017-18. Ex.A9:Original bank passbook of Smt.Gangi Reddy Yadamma,

Ex.A10:Original bank passbook of J.Avinash Reddy, Ex.A11:Original bank passbook of J.Abhilash Reddy, Ex.A12:Original Aadhar card of Smt.Gangi Reddy

Yadamma, Ex.A13:Original Aadhar card E.Surendar Reddy, Ex.A14:Original

Aadhar card J.Avinash Reddy, Ex.A15:Original Aadhar card J.Abhilash Reddy,

Ex.A16:Photographs (12 Nos). Ex.A17: Original electricity bill of J.Avinash Reddy,

Ex.A18: Original electricity bill of J.Abhilash Reddy.

The court further found plaintiff filed Ex.A1 to A4 and Ex.A6 to Ex.A8 which are link documents which shows the suit schedule property was transferred in the name of plaintiffs and also proves the ownership of the suit schedule property transferred to the plaintiffs and the Ex.A4, A5, A17 and A18 shows the present ownership and possession of plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.

Therefore, as per Ex.A1 to Ex.A18 and the contention of plaintiffs which kept un-rebutted by the defendant shows the prima facie case is proved successfully in favour of plaintiffs and balance of convenience is also in favour of plaintiff through Ex.A17 and A18. If injunction is not granted, it will result into

Fair 5 of 6 OS.No.1 of 2023 irreparable loss and injury to the plaintiff. Therefore, as all the ingredients are in favour of the plaintiff, the court found proper to decree the suit in favour of plaintiff.

8.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs by granting perpetual injunction in favour of plaintiffs against defendant and his henchmen, workmen, servants etc., from interfering into the lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6 th day of April, 2026.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MEDAK

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

PW1: Gangi Reddy Yadamma- Nil -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex. A1: Original pattedar passbook of Smt. Gangi Reddy Yadamma.

Ex. A2: Original pattedar passbook of J.Avinash Reddy.

Ex. A3: Original pattedar passbook of J.Abhilash Reddy.

Ex. A4: Original 1-B certificate dated:09.10.2015 (04 Nos)

Ex. A5: Original 1-B Certificate dated:26.11.2015 (04 Nos)

Ex. A6: Certified copy of pahanies for the year 2010-11.

Ex. A7: Certified copy of pahanies for the year 2015-16.

Ex. A8: Certified copy of pahanies for the year 2017-18.

Ex. A9: Original bank passbook of Smt.Gangi Reddy Yadamma,

Ex. A10: Original bank passbook of J.Avinash Reddy,

Ex. A11: Original bank passbook of J.Abhilash Reddy,

Ex. A12: Original Aadhar card of Smt.Gangi Reddy Yadamma,

Fair 6 of 6 OS.No.1 of 2023

Ex. A13: Original Aadhar card E.Surendar Reddy

Ex.A14: Original Aadhar card J.Avinash Reddy.

Ex.A15: Original Aadhar card J.Abhilash Reddy,

Ex.A16: Photographs (12 Nos)

Ex.A17: Original electricity bill of J.Avinash Reddy,

Ex.A18: Original electricity bill of J.Abhilash Reddy,

FOR DEFENDANT

- Nil -

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MEDAK

1 of DRAFT

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MEDAK

PRESENT: SMT. RUBINA FATIMA

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEDAK.

Dated; this the Thursday, 09 th day of April, 2026.

H.M.O.P.No.11 OF 2025

Between:

Smt.Akinaboina Shireesha, W/o.A.Srinivas, D/o.Ramulu, Aged about:30 years, Occ:Housewife, R/o.H.No.8-56/22/C, Ramayampet Town and Mandal, Medak District,

Telangana State. ...Petitioner.

A N D

Akinaboina Srinivas, S/o.A.Venkataiah Aged about:33 years, Occ:Pvt.Employee, R/o.H.No.1-91, Bhadurpally, Bowrampet, Rangareddy District, T.G.500043.

...Respondent.

This case came before me for final hearing on 01.04.2026 in the presence of M/s.A.Ravindar and T.Venkatesh learned counsels for the petitioner and respondent having remained set exparte and upon hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following;

O R D E R

1.This petition is filed under Section 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the petitioner against respondent seeking to pass a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between petitioner and respondent solemnized on 22.12.2016 at Erram Vittal Bhavan, Function Hall, Ramayampet Town and Mandal,

Medak District.

2.The brief averments of the petition are that:

The marriage between the petitioner and respondent solemnized on 22.12.2016 at Erram Vittal Bhavan, Function Hall, Ramayampet Town and Mandal

Medak District as per the Hindu customs which is an arrange marriage. At the time 2 of DRAFT of marriage the petitioner’s parents presented Rs.3,00,000/- cash, 10 tulas of gold, one Glamour vehicle, Adapaduchu katnam Rs.50,000/- and other house articles with of Rs.1,00,000/- and other Rs.1,00,000/- for marriage expenditure. After the marriage both the petitioner and the respondent lived happily for a period of one month only, thereafter the respondent harassed the petitioner mentally and physically during their wedlock they were blessed with two female children namely

Kum.Chithria aged about 7 years and Kum.Chinnari aged about 1 ½ year. The respondent used to come to house in late nights in drunken condition.

The respondent meet with a road accident by R.T.C. bus and his leg was fractured and the doctors advised to remove his leg, then the petitioner’s father spend Rs.50,000/- for arranging artificial leg. Respondent got compensation of

Rs.5,00,000/- from R.T.C. corporation, but he never spend amount for petitioner or to develop house, even after accident he never changed his attitude and continuously drinking. He sold out gold ornaments and household articles, which were presented by the petitioner’s parents. Several times respondent beat the petitioner, due to which she sustained injuries.

Petitioner’s father conducted a panchayath in Ramayamept and also in respondent’s house, all the elders also advised the respondent to change his attitude, but respondent did not hear the request of panchayath elders. Respondent demanded petitioner’s father to send amount, otherwise to kill petitioner and children and also blackmailed to committee suicide and jumped in river and the neighbors saved the respondent, at that time the petitioner’s parents adjusted some amount to respondent.

The petitioner’s parents taken one rented house in Toopran Village and

Mandal, near to house of petitioner’s elder sister and requested respondent to 3 of DRAFT change his attitude and provided groceries, but the respondent stayed only one day, without information and he left the house and switched off his mobile. On 10.04.2022 the petitioner’s parents took her and her children along with them since then they are residing at Ramayampet village along with her parents.

Hence, this petition.

3.In support of her contentions, the petitioner examined herself as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A4 on her behalf.

4.The respondent remained exparte. Perused the record.

5.Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for dissolution of marriage as per

Section 13(1)(ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with respondent by a decree

of divorce?

6.To prove their marriage, petitioner examined herself as PW1. As per the contentions mentioned in the chief affidavit of PW1 their relationship as wife and husband is admitted the same is not rebutted. Respondent having remained exparte and failed to file counter and contest the case against the petitioner by engaging an advocate. Hence, in the absence of rebutting the contentions of petition, court found the allegations made in petition is deemed to be admitted and proved by the petitioner. There is no chance of Reunion between the parties. Hence basing on the above said record and reasons the court found there is no ambiguity to grant divorce on the ground of cruelty in favour of petitioner. Further found there is no chances of non-reunion of parties. Hence, court found the essentials under Section 13 (1) (ia) (ib) is successfully proved by the petitioner.

4 of DRAFT

7.Therefore basing on Ex.A1 and A2 and the contentions mentioned in the petition as well as in chief affidavit of PW1, found proper to allow the petition.

8.In the result, petition is allowed and the marriage of petitioner performed on 22.12.2016 by the respondent is hereby dissolved by decree of divorce under

Section 13 (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act. No costs.

9.In the result, petition is allowed. No costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 09 th day of April, 2026.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MEDAK

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER FOR RESPONDENT

PW1: A.Shireesha - NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER FOR RESPONDENT

Ex.A1: Original wedding card. - NIL - Ex.A2: Marriage photograph. Ex.A3: Original aadhar card of petitioner. Ex.A4: Original aadhar card of respondent.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MEDAK

1 of 4FAIR

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MEDAK

PRESENT: SMT. RUBINA FATIMA

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEDAK.

Dated; this the Monday, 06 th day of April, 2026.

H.M.O.P.No.9 OF 2024

Between:

Venkannagari Kannarao, S/o.P.Ranga Rao, Age:33 years, Occ:Labour, R/o.H.No.1-12-25/c/2, Gandhinagar Colony,

Medak Town, Medak District. ...Petitioner.

A N D

Venkannagari Srilatha @ Sahithi, W/o.Venkannagari Kannarao, (D/o.Tailor Kishan), Age:22 years, Occ:Tailor, R/o.Singeetham Village, Mandal Raikode,

Dist.Sangareddy-502257. ...Respondent.

This case came before me for final hearing on 31.03.2026 in the presence of M/s. G.Jeevan Rao, K.David Paul, B.Chiranjeevi and T.Sudhakar learned counsels

for petitioner and T.Anusha and Y,Mahender Reddy learned counsel for respondent

and upon hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following;

O R D E R

1.This petition is filed under Section 13 (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the petitioner against respondent seeking to pass a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between petitioner and respondent solemnized on 27-12-2020.

2.The brief averments of the petition are that:

The marriage between the petitioner and respondent solemnized on 27.12.2020 at Kalyana Vedhika Singeetham village, Raikode mandal and

Sangareddy district as per the Hindu customs. After the marriage the respondent joined the company of the petitioner at Gandhinagar Colony, Meadk Town and lived happily together for a period of one year, during their wedlock there are no issues.

2 of 4FAIR

Later the respondent started harassing the petitioner and his family members by using filthy language and she never respected the petitioner and his family members.

The petitioner use to slept without food number of times.

The petitioner further submits that the respondent never co-operated with the petitioner in matrimonial relationship and intercourse and she never performed her duties as a wife. The respondent always used to go to her parent’s house without any information and permission of the petitioner and his family members, to that regard several panchayaths took place in presence of elders and in the said panchayat the respondent clearly stated that she doesn’t have any love and affection towards the petitioner and his family members and she expressed that she want to live separately from the petitioner and doesn’t want to lead martial life with the petitioner. The petitioner filed conjugal rights petition before this court vide

H.M.O.P.No.105 of 2022, but the respondent did not responded for the petition and

the same was not pressed.

On 23.04.2023 P.S.Raikode gave counseling to the petitioner and respondent but, in the said counseling the petitioner accepted to lead the happy marital life, but the respondent did not accepted it. The petitioner and respondent are living separately since 16.05.2022. Since then there is no matrimonial relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner is suffering a lot of mental and physical agony without company of the petitioner. Hence, this petition.

3.In support of his contentions, the petitioner examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 and P2 on his behalf. (Ex.P1 original wedding card and Ex.P2 original marriage phots (2 in Nos).

3 of 4FAIR

4.On behalf of the respondent represented but, failed to file counter, hence the right of filing counter is forfeited. Perused the record.

5.Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for dissolution of marriage as per

Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, with respondent by a decree of

divorce?

6.To prove their marriage, petitioner examined himself as PW1. As per the contentions mentioned in the chief affidavit of PW1 their relationship as wife and husband is admitted the same is not rebutted. Summons was served on respondent and she appeared before the court, but failed to file counter and contest the case against the petitioner by engaging an advocate. Hence, in the absence of rebutting the contentions of petition, court found the allegations made in petition is deemed to be admitted and proved by the petitioner. During cross examination the counsel appeared before the court and submitted that cross examination of PW1 to be treated as NIL which shows the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu

Marriage Act is admitted by the respondent and also shows that there is no chance of Reunion between the parties. Hence basing on the above said record and reasons the court found there is no ambiguity to grant divorce on the ground of cruelty in favour of petitioner. Further found there is no chances of non-reunion of parties and advocate for respondent represented and submits the respondent is not interested in proceeding with marriage. Hence, court found the essentials under Section 13(i)(a) is successfully proved by the petitioner.

4 of 4FAIR

7.Therefore basing on Ex.P1, P2 and the contentions mentioned in the petition as well as in chief affidavit of PW1, found proper to allow the petition.

8.In the result, petition is allowed and the marriage of petitioner performed on 27.12.2020 by the respondent is hereby dissolved by decree of divorce under

Section 13 (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act. No costs.

9.In the result, petition is allowed. No costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 06 th day of April, 2026.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MEDAK

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER FOR RESPONDENT

PW1: V.Kannarao - NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER FOR RESPONDENT

Ex.P1: Original Marriage Wedding card - NIL - Ex.P2: Original Marriage photographs (2 Nos).

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MEDAK

1 of 4Fair

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MEDAK

PRESENT: SMT. RUBINA FATIMA

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEDAK.

Dated; this the Friday, 10 th day of April, 2026.

H.M.O.P.No.71 OF 2024

Between:

Babugonda Manisha @ Chinnapanyala Manisha. W/o.Chinnapanyala Sangameshwar, D/o.Babugonda Malgonda , Age:20 years, R/o.H.No.3-36, Marpally Village of Regode Mandal, Medak District, Presently residing at her parent’s house at H.No.7-54, Gosaipally of Sirgapur Mandal, Sangareddy District.

...Petitioner No.1.

A N D

Chinnapanyala Sangameshwar, S/o.Narsimulu, Aged about:24 years, R/o.H.No.3-36, Marpally Village of Regode Mandal, Medak District.

...Petitioner No.2.

This case came before me for final hearing on 09.04.2026 in the presence of M/s. V.Raji Reddy and G.Srinivas learned counsels for petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and upon hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following;

O R D E R

1.This petition is filed under Section 13 (B) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 seeking to pass a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between petitioner No.1 and 2 solemnized on 29-04-2024.

2.The brief averments of the petition are that:

The petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 belongs to Hindu community and their marriage was an arranged marriage which was solemnized on 29-04-2024 at

Marpally Village, Regode Mandal, Medak District i.e., Petitioner No.2’s house. After their marriage they lived together happily about only 03 days. During their wedlock 2 of 4Fair they blessed with no issues. Thereafter some misunderstandings and disputes arose in between petitioners, as such the petitioners themselves intentionally left each other from Matrimonial life and they are living separately from 03.05.2024.

Thereafter so many panchayaths were held before village elders, but there is no possibility to reunion each other. On 23.05.2025 the petitioners along with their parents, village and caste elders held a panchayath, in which the petitioners voluntarily refused to join the association of each other and both the petitioners agreed to take mutual divorce. Since the marriage between the petitioners irretrievably broken down as such they are decided to dissolve the marriage legally through a decree of divorce on mutual consent and reduced terms and conditions written in presence of elders.

The petitioner No.1 and 2 have exchanged their all articles, gold silver, utensils, etc., which were placed at the time of marriage, there is no pending of any other exchange items in between them.

The petitioner No.1 and 2 at liberty to perform second marriage with their choice, the petitioner No.1 has agreed that she will not demand further maintenance and shall not file any criminal or civil cases against petitioner No.2 and also petitioner

No.1 not file any cases against petitioner No.2 in future.

3.The petitioner No.1 filed chief affidavit reiterating the facts of the petition and got examined herself as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. Petitioner No.2 got examined himself as PW2.

4.Heard arguments and perused the record.

5.Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the petitioner No.1 and 2 are entitled for dissolution of marriage

by a decree of divorce by mutual consent as per Section 13(B) of Hindu

Marriage Act?

3 of 4Fair

6.On going through the averments in the petition and chief affidavit court found both the parties have proved their marriage through Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. Further in chief affidavit of PW1 and PW2 they clearly submits that they both have mutually agreed for filing mutual divorce and the same was effected in writing before the village elders which is marked as Ex.A3 i.e., (Mutual consent divorce deed). When both the parties agreed for separating each other from the marriage and which is proved through Ex.A3 and there is no possibility of reunion between the parties.

7.Therefore, basing on Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 and the contentions mentioned in the petition as well as in the chief affidavit of PW1 and PW2, court found proper that the petitioners had successfully proved that there is no chance of reunion between them.

Hence, found proper to allow the petition.

8.In the result, petition is allowed. The marriage of petitioners performed on 29.04.2024 is hereby dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent. No costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10 th day of April, 2026.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MEDAK

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER FOR RESPONDENT

PW1:Babugonda Manisha @ Chinnapanyala Manisha- NIL- PW2:Ch.Sangameshwar.

4 of 4Fair

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER FOR RESPONDENT

Ex.P1: Marriage photograph.- NIL - Ex.P2: Marriage wedding cad. Ex.P3: Mutual consent divorce deed.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MEDAK