Smt.S.Kavitha

1 S.C.No.14 of 2021

THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE'S COURT, KADAPA.

Present:- Smt. S. Kavitha,

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

Wednesday this the 27th day of March, 2024.

Sessions Case No.14 of 2021.

1Name of the State: Represented by the ComplainantSub Inspector of Police, Simhadripuram Police

Station.

2Name of the AccusedDarmapuram Ramana Reddy, S/o Pulla Reddy, Age 46 years, Bidinamcharlavillage, SimhadripuramMandal,YSR Kadapa District. 3Offences chargedU/s. 307, 326 of I.P.C.

4Plea of the accused.Found not guilty.

5Finding of the judgeFound not guilty.

6Sentence or Order In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 307 and 326 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 i.e., pestle shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Office is directed to communicate a copy of the judgment to the committal court for effecting disposal of the case property. 7Accused defended bySri R.Chandra Obula Reddy, Advocate for the accused. 8Prosecution conducted Addl. Public Prosecutor. by 9Cr.No. and Name of the Cr.No.103of2020of Police StationSimhadripuram Police Station.

10Committed byP.R.C.No.20 of 2020 of Judl.

Magistrate of I Class, Pulivendula.

11Date of offence03.08.2020 12Date of report04.08.2020 13Date of remand14.09.2020 2 S.C.No.14 of 2021 14Date of release on bail21.10.2020 15Date of committal to 29.12.2020.

sessions Court

16Date of commencement29.08.2023. of trial 17Date of close of trial.25.03.2024 18Date of Judgment27.03.2024

J U D G M E N T

The State represented by the S.I. of Police,

Simhadripuram police station, laid charge sheet against accused in

Cr.No.103 of 2020 of Simhadripuram P.S. for the offences punishable under Section 307, 326 of I.P.C.

2. The allegations in the charge sheet, in brief, are as follows:-

LW.1/D.Jagadeeswar Reddy and accused are son and father

R/o Bidinamcharla village, Simhadripuram Mandal and accused left his family eight years back and lives along with another woman in

Kakadripalli village, Kolimigundla village, Kurnool district. Recently the accused came to Bidinamcharla village and try to sale house and land situated in the village. On knowing the same, LW.1/

D.Jagadeeswar Reddy interpose the accused and asked for financial support to Lws.2 & 3/ D.Lakshmi devi and D.Gowthami and altercate each other on the issue. On 03.08.2020 at 06.00 PM

LW.1/ D.Jagadeeswar Reddy came from his duty and slept on cot in his house, in meantime accused repair the house with help of

LW.4/M.Peddavenkata Swamy. Then accused seen LW.1/

D.Jagadeeswar Reddy in the house and angrily picked a wooden pestle in the house and reached LW.1/ D.Jagadeeswar Reddy and said that “NAA KODAKA, BHUMI, ILLU AMMUTUNTE

ADDUPADUTUNNAVI, NINNU CHAMPITHE ADDAM EVARU LERU” and 3 S.C.No.14 of 2021 beat LW.1/ D.Jagadeeswar Reddy on his leg, then accused try to beat on LW.1/ D.Jagadeeswar Reddy head and that he received broken injury on his left hand, then accused beat LW.1/

D.Jagadeeswar Reddy on his head and LW.1/D.Jagadeeswar Reddy received bleeding injury on left side of his head. For that injuries

LW.1/ D.Jagadeeswar Reddy fell down unconscious and accused went away from house, in meantime LW.4/M.Peddavenkata Swamy found the same and due to fear he went away from the house.

After some time LW.1/D.Jagadeeswar Reddy came to conscious and called Lws.2 & 3/ D.Lakshmidevi and D.Gowthami by phone who lives in Pulivendula town. Then Lws.2 & 3/D.Lakshmidevi and

D.Gowthami came to Bidinamcharla village and Lws.5 to 7/B.Ramappagari Kesava Reddy, N.Chandramohan Reddy and

D.Nagireddy found the same that injured LW.1/ D.Jagadeeswar

Reddy shifted to Hospital in an auto by Lws.2 & 3/ D.Lakshmidevi and D.Gowthami. Later Lws.2 & 3/D.Lakshmidevi and D.Gowthami admitted LW.1/ D.Jagadeeswar Reddy in RIMS hospital, Kadapa, then LW.8/Casuality Medical Officer, GGH, Kadapa, duty casuality doctor gave treatment to LW.1/D.Jagadeeswar Reddy. Later

LW.9/Head constable, Out post PS, RIMS, Kadapa recorded statement of LW.1/ D.Jagadeeswar Reddy on 04.08.2020 and forwarded the same to LW.10/SI of police, Simhadripuram P.S.

Basing on the statement of LW.1 / D.Jagadeeswar Reddy ,

LW.10/ SI of police, Simhadripuram PS registered a case in

Simhadripuram Police station in Cr.No.103/2020 u.sec. 307 IPC and took up investigation. During the course of investigation LW.10/SI of police examined witnesses Lws.1 to 7/ D.Jagadeeswar Reddy,

D.Lakshmidevi,D.Gowthami,M.PeddavenkataSwamy, 4 S.C.No.14 of 2021

B.Ramappagari Kesava Reddy, N.Chandramohan Reddy and

D.Nagireddy and recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of scene of offence. Later on 14.09.2020 , LW.10/ SI of police arrested the accused and sent him for judicial remand and seized wooden pestle at accused house under the cover of police proceedings. On 25.9.2020

LW.8/Casuality Medical Officer, GGH, Kadapa issued wound certificate of LW.1/D.Jagadeeswar Reddy . Hence the charge sheet.

3.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pulivendula had taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 307, 326 of I.P.C. against accused. Since the offence punishable under Section307 of I.P.C. is exclusively triable by the court of

Sessions, the case is committed to the Hon'ble Principal District and

Sessions Court, Kadapa under Section.209(a) of Cr.P.C by serving

copies of documents on the accused under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

Subsequently, the Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Kadapa registered the case as S.C.No.14 of 2021 and made it over to this court for trial and disposal in accordance with law.

4.On hearing both sides, charges for the offences punishable under Section 307 and 326 of I.P.C. against accused were framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During trial, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.10 and M.O.1. The evidence of L.W.8-Casuality

Medical Officer, GGH, Kadapa and LW.9-Head constable, 1071, Out post police station, RIMS, Kadapa was given up by the learned 5 S.C.No.14 of 2021

Additional Public Prosecutor. The evidence of LW.1/D.Jagadeeswar

Reddy was closed on the memo filed by the prosecution stating that LW.1/D.Jagadeewar Reddy whereabouts not known and on the certificate of concerned VRO. The evidence of LW.4/M.Pedda

Venkata Swamy was closed on the memo filed by the prosecution stating that LW.4/M.Pedda Venkata Swamy died on 16.10.2022 and on the copy of death certificate.

6.After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating material elicited against him from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he denied the same. He reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard the learned Additional Public prosecutor and learned defence counsel and perused the material on record.

(a) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly submitted that the P.W.1 to PW.5 who are the witnesses, not supported the version of the prosecution due to compromise arrived out of the Court and P.W.6 deposed the chronological events of his investigation and he requested the Court to take appropriate decision basing on the evidence available on record.

(b) Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that absolutely there is no evidence against the accused for the alleged charges, as such he is entitled for acquittal.

8. Now the point that arises for determination is

“whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the

accused for the offences punishable U/secs 307 and

326 of I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt?

9. POINT :-

To prove the offence u/Sec.307 IPC, the prosecution has 6 S.C.No.14 of 2021 to establish that the accused in order to do away the life of

L.W.1/D.Jagadeewar Reddy, beat LW.1 with pestle and caused injuries to LW.1.

To prove the offence u/Sec.326 of IPC, the prosecution has to establish that the accused caused grievous hurt to LW.1 by deadly weapon (pestle).

10. Perused the record. Out of Ten list of witnesses, the prosecution got examined six list of witnesses. In the present case on hand, P.W.1 to PW.5 are the witnesses. PW.6 is the Investigating

Officer who investigated the case.

11.The accusation made against the accused is that the accused with an intention to kill LW.1/D.Jagadeewar Reddy, beat

LW.1/D.Jagadeewar Reddy with pestle and LW.1/D.Jagadeewar Reddy sustained grievous injuries. Thereby, the accused has committed the offences punishable under section 307 and 326 of IPC. The defence of the accused is of total denial.

12.Coming to the evidence of P.W.1, she deposed that

LW.1/D.Jagadeewara Reddy is her son, she do not know whereabouts of LW.1/d.Jagadeewar Reddy and further deposed that accused is her husband and she do not know anything about the facts of this case and she was not examined by the police and thereby she deposed against the case of prosecution.

13.PW.2 who is the sister of LW.1/D.Jagadeeswar Reddy, deposed that accused is her father and further deposed that about two years back on one day she received phone call from unknown person and said person informed that LW.1/D.jagadeeswar Reddy was in the hospital and then herself along with PW.1 went to RIMS hospital, Kadapa and then LW.1/D.Jagadeeswar Reddy informed her that galata took place and then he received injuries in the said galata and police obtained his signature in some written paper and 7 S.C.No.14 of 2021 she further deposed that she was not examined by the police and thereby she deposed against the case of prosecution.

14.PW.3 to PW.5 who are the alleged witnesses, deposed that they do not know anything about the facts of this case and they were not examined by the police and thereby they deposed against the case of prosecution.

15.At the request of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, the

P.Ws.1 to 5 were declared as hostile, granted permission to A.P.P. for cross-examination. During their cross-examination by the learned

Addl. Public Prosecutor, they have denied the suggestion that they are deposing false evidence due to compromise with the accused and they stated before the police as in Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 respectively which are their Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statements. The above said evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 clearly shows that they did not support the version of the prosecution.

16.P.W.6, who is the investigating officer, deposed that on 04.08.20020, while he was in the police station, he received statement of LW.1/D.Jagadeswar Reddy from outpost police station,

RIMS Hospital and he registered the same as a case in

Cr.No.103/2020 U.sec.307 of IPC, then he visited RIMS Hospital,

Kadapa and examined LW.1/D.Jagadeswar Reddy, PW.1 & PW.2 and recorded their statements, he visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of scene of offence and he secured

LW.4/M.Pedda Venkata Swamy, PW.3 to PW.5 and examined them and recorded their statements. He further deposed that on 14.09.2020 he arrested the accused and seized pestle under the cover of seizure police proceedings dt:14.9.2020, he produced the accused before the court for judicial remand, on 25.9.2020 he 8 S.C.No.14 of 2021 received wound certificate of LW.1/D.Jagadeswar Reddy, after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

17.It is relevant to mention here that except the evidence of

P.W.6, none were supported the case of prosecution pertaining to the present incident. The prime witnesses i.e., relatives of injured i.e., PW.1 and PW.2 and also witnesses they are PW.3 to PW.5 were not supported the case of prosecution. P.W.6 deposed the chronological events of his investigation in this case. The solitary testimony of PW.6 without the evidence of any independent witness regarding the incident is insufficient for deciding the culpability of the accused in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt.

18.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Abbot Vs.

State of Punjab (2) (2008) 4 SCC 582 held as under:

“We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.”

19.Considering the above said evidence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the charges U/s. 307 and 326 of I.P.C., as such the accused is entitled for the acquittal for the said charges.

9 S.C.No.14 of 2021

Accordingly this point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

20.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 307 and 326 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months under

Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 i.e., pestle shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Office is directed to communicate a copy of the judgment to the committal court for effecting disposal of the case property. Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr.II directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this 27th day of March, 2024.

Sd/-Smt.S.Savitha,

Principal Asst. Sessions Judge,

Kadapa.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for prosecution:

P.W.1. D.Lakshmidevi

P.W.2. D.Gowthami

P.W.3. B.Kesava Reddy

P.W.4. N.Chandra Mohan Reddy

P.W.5 D.Nagi Reddy

P.W.6. G.Madhusudhan Reddy

Witness examined for defence: NIL

Exhibits marked for prosecution:

Ex.P.1: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.1.

Ex.P.2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.2.

Ex.P.3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.3.

Ex.P.4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.4.

Ex.P.5: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.5.

Ex.P.6: Statement of LW.1/D.Jagadeeswar Reddy

Ex.P.7: F.I.R. in Cr.No.103/2020 of Simhadripuram Police station.

Ex.P.8: Rough sketch of scene of offence.

Ex.P.9:Seizure police proceedings dt:14.09.2020.

Ex.P10:Wound certificate of LW.1/D.Jagadeeswar Reddy.

10 S.C.No.14 of 2021

Exhibits marked for defence: N I L.

Material Objects marked:

M.O.1: Wooden Pestle

Sd/-Smt.S.Savitha,

Prl.A.S.J/KDP. Kdp.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: KADAPA

Present: Smt. S.Kavitha

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa

Wednesday, this the 03rd day of April, 2024

H.M.O.P. No.05/2024

1. Kambham Jayendranatha Reddy, S/o Kambham Raveendranatha Reddy, Aged about 33 years, Hindu, Working as Software Engineer, Residing at D.No.4- 7-19, Sri Rama Hall Street, Pulivendula Town, Kadapa District.

2. Asam Bujji @ Lasya Sri, W/o Kambham Jayendranatha Reddy, D/o Chenchi Reddy, Aged about 24 years, Hindu, Working as Software Engineer, Residing at D.No.3/82, Muthukur village and post, Vempalli Mandal, Kadapa District. .… Petitioners

Vs.

NIL .… Respondent

This petition coming before me on 02-04-2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Ramanjaneya Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioners and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

This is the petition filed U.sec.13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act, seeking dissolution of the marriage of petitioners, solemnized on 11.08.2022, by mutual consent.

2.T he averments of the petition, in brief, are as follows:

The 1st petitioner is the husband of 2nd petitioner. Their marriage was performed on 11.08.2022 at Sri Vasavi Function Hall, 2

Pulivendula Town, in accordance with Hindu rites and customs prevailing in their community. The marriage was an arranged one. The marriage was not consummated.

After marriage the 2nd petitioner joined with 1st petitioner at

Pulivendula and lived together as wife and husband for a period of five months and thereafter there were mis-understandings took place between the petitioners. The petitioners have lost faith on each other and therefore the 2nd petitioner left the 1st petitioner and has been residing independently.

Elders and well wishers from both sides conducted mediations between the petitioners to get them reunion but in vain. From 16th January, 2023, the petitioners have been residing separately. There is no wife and husband relationship existing since then. Another mediation was held by the elders to get them reunion but the same is not successful and therefore the petitioners decided to take divorce mutually. The elders and parents from both sides have also suggested the petitioners to cut off the marriage tie by way of decree of divorce, since there are no chances of reunion and since the marriage has been completely broken down. The object of the marriage is defeated and therefore both the petitioners have mutually agreed to file the present petition seeking decree of divorce.

At the time of marriage, parents of the 2nd petitioner presented 20 thulas of gold jewelery to the 2nd petitioner. In the mediation, the elders advised the 1st petitioner to pay cost of the jewelry. The cost of Jewelry is estimated at Rs.10,92,000/-. The 2nd petitioner agreed to receive cost of the gold of Rs.10,92,000/- in lieu of gold jewelry presented to her at the time of marriage, by her parents. The 2nd petitioner agreed that she cannot claim 3 the said gold jewelry in future from the 1st petitioner since she is receiving the cost of the said gold jewelry. Hence this petition.

3. Both petitioners appeared before the court and expressed their dislike to lead conjugal life. The effort of this court for reconciliation / re- union also failed.

4. During enquiry, the petitioner No.1 is examined as PW.1 and petitioner No.2 is examined as PW.2 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 are marked.

5.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the petitioners are entitled for dissolution of their marriage solemnized on 11.08.2022, by mutual consent as prayed for?

6. Heard.

7.POINT: Petitioners as PW.1 and PW.2, have reiterated in their evidence that their marriage took place on 11.08.2022 as per Hindu rites and customs and both of them lived together for a period of five months only, thereafter the disputes arose between them due to misunderstandings and they have been living separately since 16.01.2023. Further they deposed that the 2nd petitioner received an amount of Rs.10,92,000/- from the 1st petitioner towards the costs of gold jewellery.

8.Petitioners have filed Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. Ex.P.1 is the wedding card,

Ex.P.2 is the marriage certifcate issued by the gazetted ofcer along with marriage photograph and Ex.P.3 is the Stamped receipt issued by the 2nd petitioner.

9.Ex.P1 & Ex.P2 shows that the marriage of petitioners was solemnized on 11.08.2022. Ex.P3 shows that 2nd petitioner received

Rs.10,92,000/- from the 1st petitioner towards the costs of gold jewelery.

4

10. PW.1 & PW.2 categorically deposed before the court that they mutually agreed for dissolution of their marriage and that they have been living separately since 16.01.2023 and they have no children. Further deposed that the 2nd petitioner received an amount of Rs.10,92,000/- from the first petitioner towards the costs of gold jewellery. The petitioners decided to take divorce on mutual consent. The petitioners did not wish to live together and they wanted to take divorce on mutual consent. It appears from the evidence of PW.1 & PW.2 that petitioners filed the present petition with mutual consent and out of their own accord and it is voluntary. Hence, the petitioners are entitled for divorce by mutual consent as prayed for.

Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the petitioners.

11. In the result, petition is allowed. The marriage of petitioners performed on 11.08.2022 is hereby dissolved by granting a decree of divorce by mutual consent. There shall be no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr.II directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 03 rd day of April, 2024.

Sd/-Smt.S.Kavitha,

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KADAPA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS:FOR RESPONDENT:

PW1: Kambham Jayendranatha Reddy – None –

PW2: Asam Bujji @ Lasya Sri 5

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS:

Ex.P.1: Wedding card.

Ex.P.2: Marriage certifcate issued by the gazetted ofcer along with marriage photograph.

Ex.P.3: Stamped receipt issued by the 2nd petitioner.

FOR RESPONDENT:

NIL

Sd/-Smt.S.Kavitha,

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KADAPA.

HMOP No.03 / 20237 Dt:01.08.2023

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: KADAPA

Present: Smt. S.Kavitha

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa

Wednesday, this the 03rd day of April, 2024

H.M.O.P. No.125/2023

1. Gajjala Nagendra Reddy, S/o G.Obula Reddy, aged about 30 years, Hindu, residing at D.No.1/29, Rasool Palli (V), C.K.Dinne (M), Kadapa District.

2. Gajjala Lakshmi Devi, W/o Gajjala Nagendra Reddy, D/o G.Gangi Reddy Subba Reddy, Aged 26 years, Hindu, now residing at D.No.1/172, Busireddy Palli (V), C.K.Dinne (M), Kadapa District. .… Petitioners

Vs.

NIL .… Respondent

This petition coming before me on 02-04-2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Palakonda Rayudu, Advocate for the Petitioners and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

This is the petition filed U.sec.13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act, seeking dissolution of the marriage of petitioners, solemnized on 24.05.2014, by mutual consent.

2.T he averments of the petition, in brief, are as follows:

The marriage of petitioners was performed on 24.05.2014 at the residence of petitioner No.1, Rasool Palli village, C.K.Dinne Mandal, Kadapa

District as per Hindu rites and customs in the presence of relatives, friends of both families. After the marriage, the petitioner No.2 join with petitioner 2

No.1 to lead marital life. During their wedlock they blessed a female child namely G.Gayathri who is now aged about 8 years. After blessing of female child, some serious misunderstandings arose between petitioners, as such their feelings were hurt. Accordingly they are unable to live together by adjusting each other. As petitioners unable to live together and unable to lead happy marital life, they themselves voluntarily residing separately in their parents house respectively since more then five years. Their daughter namely G.Gayathri is in the custody of petitioner No.1. The petitioner No.1 is looking after their daughter with utmost care.

While the petitioners were living separately, several mediations held by the elders of the both families to reunion them but in vain. As there is no possibility to reunion of both petitioners to lead happy marital life, the elders advised to take divorce with mutual consent and settled the matter between both petitioners amicably. In view of the said circumstances of settlement, both petitioners without having coercion, fear, undue influence, pressure, threat of any body and with having good conscious, willfully, voluntarily agreed that petitioner No.1 should pay an amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- towards full and final settlement of permanent alimony to the petitioner No.2 and the petitioner No.2 received the same amount for full satisfaction of permanent alimony. Both petitioners agreed to forgo the rights accrued because of their marital tie on each other. The petitioner

No.2 should not interfere the personal liberty and peace of living of their child in any manner at any point of time. The petitioner No.1 shall look after their child welfare. Hence this petition.

3

3. Both petitioners appeared before the court and expressed their dislike to lead conjugal life. The effort of this court for reconciliation / re- union also failed.

4. During enquiry, the petitioner No.1 is examined as PW.1 and petitioner No.2 is examined as PW.2 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 are marked.

5.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the petitioners are entitled for dissolution of their marriage solemnized on 24.05.2014, by mutual consent as prayed for?

6. Heard.

7.POINT: Petitioners as PW.1 and PW.2, have reiterated in their evidence that their marriage took place on 24.05.2014 as per Hindu rites and customs and both of them lived happily for some period, during their wedlock they blessed with a female child and thereafter the serious disputes arose between them due to misunderstandings and they have been living separately since four years and the 1st petitioner looking after their child and their child is in the custody of petitioner No.1. Further they deposed that the 2nd petitioner received an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the 1st petitioner towards her permanent alimony.

8.Petitioners have filed Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. Ex.P.1 is the wedding card,

Ex.P.2 is the marriage certifcate issued by the gazetted ofcer along with marriage photograph and Ex.P.3 is the marriage photographs two in number.

9.Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 shows that the marriage of petitioners was solemnized on 24.05.2014.

4

10. PW.1 & PW.2 categorically deposed before the court that they mutually agreed for dissolution of their marriage and that they have been living separately since four years. Further deposed that the 2nd petitioner received an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the first petitioner towards her permanent alimony. The petitioners decided to take divorce on mutual consent. The petitioners did not wish to live together and they wanted to take divorce on mutual consent. It appears from the evidence of PW.1 &

PW.2 that petitioners filed the present petition with mutual consent and out of their own accord and it is voluntary. Hence, the petitioners are entitled for divorce by mutual consent as prayed for. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the petitioners.

11. In the result, petition is allowed. The marriage of petitioners performed on 24.05.2014 is hereby dissolved by granting a decree of divorce by mutual consent. There shall be no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr.II directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 03 rd day of April, 2024.

Sd/-Smt. S.Kavitha,

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KADAPA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS:FOR RESPONDENT:

PW1: Gajjala Nagendra Reddy – None –

PW2: Gajjala Lakshmi Devi 5

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS:

Ex.P.1: Wedding card.

Ex.P.2: Marriage certifcate issued by the gazetted ofcer along with marriage photograph.

Ex.P.3: Marriage photographs two in number.

FOR RESPONDENT:

NIL

Sd/-Smt. S.Kavitha,

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KADAPA.

HMOP No.03 / 20237 Dt:01.08.2023

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: KADAPA

PRESENT: Smt S. KAVITHA,

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa.

Tuesday, this the 02nd day of April, 2024.

E.P.No. 73 of 2023

O.S.No.128 of 2015

Between:

Smt.Malli Chennamma, W/o Late M.Subbanna, aged about 68 years, Senior Citizen, R/at Rukavari palle (Village), H/o Palam Palli, Kadapa City, YSR Kadapa District ….Petitioner/Decree Holder And:

Narukuri Lakshmipathi, S/o N.Subbarayudu, aged about 43 years, Hindu, W/as Junior Assistant, O/o Deputy Executive Information Engineer, Informations & Public Relations, Video & Audio Engineering Department (DIPRO), O-Block, New Collectorate, New RIMS road, Kadapa City, YSR Kadapa District. ….Respondent/Judgment Debtor.

This petition coming before me on 01-04-2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Sudhakar Babjee, Advocate for petitioner/Decree Holder; and of Sri L.Rama Sanjeeva Reddy, Advocate for the respondent /Judgment

Debtor; and upon hearing the arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

The decree holder filed this Execution Petition Under Order 21 Rules 22 and 48 of Civil Procedure Code praying this court to order execution notice and thereafter attach the salary of Judgment Debtor for realization of EP amount.

2

2. The brief averments of affidavit filed in support of

Execution Petition are as follows…

The Decree Holder obtained decree against the Judgment

Debtor on 09.11.2015. The Judgment Debtor is having capacity to pay the decreetal amount, he is working as Junior Assistant in the office of Deputy

Executive Information Engineer, Information and Public relations, New

Collectorate, Kadapa and he is getting monthly salary of Rs.70,000/-. The

Decree Holder demanded the Judgment Debtor to pay the decreetal amount, but the Judgment Debtor neglected to pay the same. Hence this execution petition.

3. The judgment debtor filed counter denying the allegations of petition and the brief averments of it are as follows…

The salary of Judgment debtor is attached in E.P.101/2017 and also in R.C.No.1609/SA/NSFDC/2018 and total Rs.15,546/- is got attached by virtue of said two attachments. There are deductions of Rs.4,440/- from the salary of J.Dr and there is no salary of Judgment Debtor is liable for attachment in this EP and hence EP is liable to be dismissed.

4. Now the points for consideration are ..

1. Whether further proceedings in Execution Petition can be ordered?

2. To what relief?

5.No oral or documentary evidence is adduced by either of the parties to the petition.

6. Arguments of both parties are heard.

3

7. POINT No. 1:

Whether further proceedings in Execution Petition can be ordered ?

The contention of Decree holder is that after passing of decree, the Judgment Debtor did not pay any amount to decree holder though the

Judgment debtor is government employee and getting salary and the contention of the Judgment Debtor is that an amount of Rs.15,546/- has been attaching from the salary of Judgment Debtor and there is no amount liable for attachment from the salary of Judgment Debtor in this EP and hence this execution petition is liable to be dismissed.

8. Decree holder filed this Execution Petition after two years of passing of decree and Judgment Debtor did not take any objection for filing of the

Execution Petition by the Decree holder in his counter and he mainly determined that an amount of Rs.15,546/- has been attaching from his salary and there is no amount liable for attachment from his salary in this execution petition. Moreover, the Execution Petition has not reached the enquiry stage and enquiry will be conducted after rule 22 stage and after issuance of rule 48 notice. Hence, Judgment Debtor can take his defence with regard to his contention in the main enquiry but not at this stage.

Judgment Debtor in his counter contends that an amount of Rs.15,546/- has been attaching from his salary and there is no amount liable for attachment from his salary in this execution petition. With regard to his contention, Judgment Debtor can take such defense in main enquiry and can prove it.

4

9.At this stage, without any enquiry, no finding can be given with regard to contention of judgment debtor. As there is no objection from

Judgment Debtor for filing of Execution Petition after two years of decree with delay and the enquiry relating to attachment of salary of Judgment debtor and other aspects cannot be conducted at this stage and it is to be conducted after rule 22 stage.

10.Hence, this court holds that there are no grounds to stop further proceedings in the Execution Petition and Judgment Debtor is at liberty to project his case in the main enquiry. Accordingly point no.1 is answered in favour of Decree holder and as against the Judgment Debtor.

11.POINT No. 2:

To what relief?

In the result, Execution Petition is allowed at rule 22 stage. Issue rule 48 notice to Judgment Debtor and call for salary particulars of Judgment

Debtor on payment of process.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr.II directly on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 02 nd day of April, 2024.

Sd/-Smt. S.Kavitha,

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Kadapa.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of:

Decree Holder: Judgment Debtor:

-NIL - - NIL -

Exhibits marked on behalf of:

Decree Holder: -NIL -

Judgment Debtor: -NIL -

Sd/-Smt. S.Kavitha,

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Kadapa.

5 6 7

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: PRODDATUR

Present:- Smt S. Kavitha,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur.

Monday, this the 20th day of August, 2018

O.S.NO. 235 of 2018

A.Vijayadurga Devi, W/o Madhusudhana Reddy, Hindu, Housewife, aged about 42 years, R/o 5-690, Devangapeta street, Proddatur.

….. Plaintif

Vs

K.Sarath Babu, S/o Jacob, aged about 38 years, working as an employee as Lab Technician Grade-II, Primary Health Centre, Kalluru village, Proddaturmandal, Kadapa district.

…... Defendant

This suit is coming on 17-8-2018 or final hearing before me in the presence of Sri R.M.Prasad, Advocate for the plaintif; and defendant remained exparte; and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintif for recovery of suit promissory note debt of

Rs.46,800/- being the principal of Rs.30,000/- due under promissory note dated 20-2-2016 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. and for subsequent interest and costs.

02.The averments in the Plaint, in brief, are as follows:

On 20-2-2016 Defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/- by executing a promissory note in favour of the Plaintif agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintif to defendant to repay the debt due under suit pronote, the defendant was postponing the same on some pretext or the other. The plaintif got issued legal notice dated 27-1- 2018 demanding the defendant to discharge the pronote debt and the defendant received the said notice and did not give any amount or did not give reply.

Hence, the suit.

03.Defendant remained exparte.

2

04.The Plaintif got himself examined as PW1 and Exhibits A1 to A3 are marked on behalf of the Plaintif.

05.Heard the counsel for Plaintif.

06.Now the Points for consideration are:

1). Whether the Plaintif is entitled for suit claim as prayed for ?

2). To what relief ?

07. POINT NO.1:

1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for ?

The contention of the Plaintif is that on 20-2-2016, the Defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/- by executing a promissory note in favour of the

Plaintif agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintif to defendant to repay the debt due under suit pronote, the defendant was postponing the same on some pretext or the other.

The plaintif got issued legal notice dated 27-1-2018 to the defendant calling upon him to discharge the debt due under suit pronote and the defendant received the said notice and did not give any amount or did not give reply.

08.To prove the contention of the Plaintif, the Plaintif got examined as

PW1 and Ex.A.1 to A.3 are marked. As per Ex.A.1, it is clear that the Defendant executed Ex.A.1 promissory note in favour of the plaintif for Rs.30,000/- on 20-2- 2016 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. As per Ex.A.2, it is clear that the plaintif through his counsel got issued legal notice dated 27-1-2018 to the defendant calling upon him to discharge the debt due under Ex.A.1 suit pronote within 7 days from the date of receipt of Ex.A.2 legal notice. Ex.A.3 is the

Postal acknowledgement. In support of his contention, the Plaintif relied on

Ex.A.1 to A.3, the Plaintif is able to prove his contention with the support of

Ex.A.1 to A.3. Hence, the evidence of PW1 and Ex.A1 to A.3 clearly prove the claim of the Plaintif as against the Defendant, who remained exparte un- contesting the suit, the Plaintif’s claim against the Defendant is remained 3 unchallenged and proved and the Plaintif is entitled for the decree against the

Defendant. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in favour of the Plaintif.

09. POINT NO.2:

2. To what relief?

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for Rs.46,800/- with subsequent interest at 6% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.30,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 20th day of August, 2018.

Sd/- S.Kavitha.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Proddatur.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for Plaintif: PW.1: A.Vijayadurga devi

For defendant: - None -

Exhibits marked for Plaintif: Ex.A1: Promissory note dt. 20-2-2016 for Rs.30,000/-. Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice, dated 27-1-2018. Ex. A3: Postal acknowledgement.

For Defendant: - Nil - Id/- S.K. P.J.C.J. Proddatur.