Sri S.m.rafee

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.SESSIONS JUDGE: GUNTUR.

PRESENT: SRI S.M.RAFEE, B.Sc., B.L.,

PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE.

Friday, the 10th day of June, 2016.

Crl.M.P.No.1093/2016

Between:

1. Vajrala Srinivasa Reddy, son of Sambireddy, aged 38 years, resident of Pathamallayapalem village, Prathipadu Mandal, Guntur District (A-1).

2. Vajrala Nagajyothi, wife of Srinivasareddy, aged 28 years, resident of Pathamallayapalem village, Prathipadu Mandal, Guntur District (A-2).

... Petitioners/A-1, A-2.

-And- The State: Station House Officer, Prathipadu P.S., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Guntur. (Cr.No.62/16).…Respondent/Complainant.

This petition came up on 9-6-2016 for hearing before me, in the presence of Sri V.Rajagopalachari, advocate for the petitioners, and of the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent, and upon perusing the petition and the material placed on record, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

This petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., is by the accused

No.1 and 2 against whom the Respondent police registered a crime under Sections 354, 323, 506, 427, 448 r/w 34 IPC, seeking for an order, directing the respondent police to release them on bail in the event of their arrest.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. The CD file submitted is perused.

3.The point that emerges for determination is,

Whether the petitioners/Accused No.1 and 2 are

entitle for anticipatory bail in the crime registered

against them by the respondent police?

4.POINT:

The C.D. file discloses, the FIR was registered against the petitioners on a complaint given by the victim woman, who is 2 closely related to them, where she alleged that, they are natives of old Mallayapalem village, they have joint and equal right in a tiled house and the other joint owner is Vajrala Sambireddy, father of A-1. The complainant and her family have migrated to

Bodhan of Nizamabad district, doing cultivation there. Now and then, they visit the village, and see the half share of the tiled house. While so, on 18-5-2016 at about 11-00 a.m., the complainant accompanied by her husband came to the native village old Mallayapalem and saw the entire portion of the tiled house in which they hold right has been damaged, only walls remained. They enquired with the neighbours and came to know, Vajrala Srinivasareddy (A-1), son of Vajrala Sambireddy has demolished their house and sold the old teakwood. On learning which, the complainant accompanied by her husband went to the house of Vajrala Srinivasareddy and questioned them. When she was thus questioning, the wife of

Srinivasareddy, by name, Nagajyothi (A-2) abused her in filthy language admitting, they have demolished their house, let them do what they can. A-1 and A-2 also threatened, if they further question them, they would see their end. On the other hand, when the complainant questioned their about their high-handed conduct, A-1 abusing her in filthy language, caught hold of the tuft of her hair, thrown her on the ground and beat her with hands and legs, they have not stopped, further A-1 stating that he would beat her, remove her clothes, so stating caught her saree and pulled it, thereby outraged her modesty. The neighbours on seeing the incident, interfered and sent them away.

The CD file further discloses, the police took up the investigation and recorded the statements of the eye-witnesses.

Further investigation is going on.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioners submits, the petitioners are innocent of the offences alleged, due to the 3 property dispute when the portion of the tiled house belonging to the complainant and her husband was damaged in their absence, as they are living in Nizamabad district out of suspicion, a false complaint was given against the petitioners involving them in the case, like outraging the modesty of a woman to wreck vengeance, the investigation of the crime is almost completed, the petitioners are apprehending arrest and harassment at the hands of police, they would co-operate with the investigation, therefore anticipatory bail may be granted to them.

6.The learned Public Prosecutor opposed grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners contending, the investigation of the crime is going on.

7.This court considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. Grant of an order of anticipatory bail is an extraordinary act by a court law, where the consideration or rejection of it rests upon verifying, there being prima facie proof or not, over the allegations made against the petitioners in the

FIR, and the proof collected thereof during investigation, or that there is certain proof on record and circumstances, which discloses the innocence of the persons alleged of committing the crime.

8.The CD file discloses, there cannot be any offence against

A-2, the wife of A-1 her having committed punishable under

Sec.354 IPC, even from the allegations made by the complainant where she said, she was assaulted by A-1, The statements of the witnesses so far recorded also does not disclose anything against A-2. Therefore, this court is of the view that this is a fit case to extend the relief of anticipatory bail to the 2nd petitioner/A-2.

4

9.Since the investigation is going on, when there are statements of the witnesses that A-1 had assaulted the defacto- complainant in a manner outraging her modesty, this court is of the view, this is not a fit case to extend such a relief to A-1.

10.For the reasons discussed hereinabove, the point is answered to that effect, the 2nd petitioner/A-2 is entitled to anticipatory bail, whereas the 1st petitioner/A-1 is not entitled to such bail.

11.IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed in part, ordering release of the 2nd petitioner/A-2 on bail in the event of her arrest in connection with Cr.No.62/16 of Prathipadu Police Station, on her executing a bond for Rs.10,000-00 (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum to the satisfaction of the

SHO, Prathipadu P.S.

The petition in respect of the 1st petitioner/A-1 is dismissed.

Dictated to Grade-III Steno, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 10th day of June, 2016.

PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE

GUNTUR. Copy to the S.H.O., Prathipadu P.S.

IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE: GUNTUR.

PRESENT: SRI S.M.RAFEE, B.Sc., B.L.,

DISTRICT JUDGE.

Friday, the 10th day of June, 2016

D.O.P.NO.142/2016

Between:

Nirasanametla Geeta Rani @ Gorikapudi Geetha Rani.…Petitioner.

-And-

Gorikapudi Ravi Kumar. ...Respondent.

This petition came up on 9-6-2016 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri D.Samuel John, advocate for the petitioner; the respondent stood exparte, and upon perusing the material placed on record, and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

This petition under Sec.10(1)(ix)(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869, is by one Nirasanametla Geetharani @ Gorikapudi

Geetharani, seeking a decree of divorce, dissolving her marriage held with the respondent on 30-5-2013, on the grounds of desertion and cruelty.

2.After registering the petition, notice of it was served on the respondent, where he did not choose to appear, therefore he was set exparte.

3.The petitioner was called to adduce evidence. The petitioner Nirasanametla Geetharani @ Gorikapudi Geetharani deposed as P.W.1 and exhibited Exs.A.1 to A.3 viz., Ex.A.1 is the marriage certificate issued by the Pastor, Bishop, East Guntur

Synod, Ex.A.2 is the marriage photograph and Ex.A.3 is the

Aadhar card of her.

2

4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5.On perusing the pleas of the petitioner and the evidence given by her as P.W.1 and the documents exhibited referred to above; the point that emerges for determination is,

Whether the petitioner has proved that the respondent deserted her and subjected her to cruelty, if so, is she entitle to a decree of divorce against her husband?

6.POINT:

The allegations made by the petitioner and the instances given by her against her husband are that, she is the wife of the respondent, their marriage was performed on 30-5-2013 at

Lutheran church, Krapa village, Kollur Mandal, Guntur District as per Indian Christian Marriage Act. After the marriage, she joined him to lead marital life, the marriage was consummated, both of them lived together only for a period of three months at Krapa village, later disputes arose between them, during her short period of stay at his house, she was subjected to untold misery and hardship and she suffered physical and mental harassment.

The matter was referred to the elders of Krapa village and caste elders of Cherlopalem village at the behest of her parents, as per their advice, she was asked to be with her parents for some time in the panchayat held in September, 2013, as there was no change in the behaviour of the respondent and his parents, the efforts made by her parents through elders proved futile, having no other alternative, she has been residing with her parents, thus she was subjected to cruelty and deserted by him from the 3 month of September, 2013, therefore she approached the court, seeking a decree of divorce.

This is a case where divorce was sought by the wife on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. A valid marriage is performed between the petitioner and the respondent as per the Christian rites and custom on 30-5-2013 is proved by the petitioner through her oral evidence given by her as P.W.1, and as well by exhibiting Ex.A.1 the marriage certificate shown issued by

Rev.Ratna Mohan K., Bishop/President, East Guntur Synod,

Ex.A.2 marriage photograph. Ex.A.3 is her Aadhar card.

The petitioner reiterated the above pleas she has made against her husband in her evidence, which remained uncontradicted. The respondent, who was served with the notice of this petition and made known on what grounds the petitioner is seeking divorce from him, though was served with notice, did not choose to appear before the court, thus remained exparte.

The evidence given by the petitioner discussed supra would sustain her claim for dissolution of her marriage held with the respondent and for divorce, whereby she has proved the grounds on which divorce is sought, that the respondent had deserted her from the month of September 2013, about two years and five months prior to filing of this petition on 2-2-2016, which satisfies the mandatory requirement to grant divorce under Sec.10(1)(ix) of the Divorce Act, and that she suffered with physical and mental cruelty, which she made another ground to seek divorce against the respondent.

4

Marriage between a man and woman is no doubt sacrosanct, but conjugal relationship sustain the bond. The denial of such conjugal happiness to the wife by the husband is nothing but cruelty, therefore she is entitled to seek divorce on the ground of cruelty also.

For the reasons discussed hereinabove, the point is answered in affirmative.

7.IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed, dissolving the marriage held between the petitioner and the respondent on 30- 5-2013 as per the Christian rites and custom, by granting divorce under Section 10(1)(ix)(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869. No costs.

Dictated to Grade-III Steno, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 10th day of June, 2016.

DISTRICT JUDGE

GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER:

P.W.1 Nirasanametla Geetharani @ Gorikapudi Geetharani.

FOR RESPONDENT: NONE.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER:

Ex.A.1 Marriage certificate issued by the Pastor, Bishop, East Guntur Synod. Ex.A.2 Marriage photograph. Ex.A.3 Aadhar card of the petitioner.

FOR RESPONDENT: NIL.

D.J.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.SESSIONS JUDGE: GUNTUR.

PRESENT: SRI S.M.RAFEE, B.Sc., B.L.,

PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE.

Friday, the 10th day of June, 2016.

Crl.M.P.No.1111/2016

Between:

1.Syed Mahaboob @ Mabu, son of Silar Saheb, aged 66 years (A-2).

2. Syed Samshad begum, wife of Mahaboob @ Mabu, aged 55 years (A-3). Both are residents of near Big Masjid, Muslimpet, Sattenapalli town, Guntur District.

...Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3.

-And-

The State: Station House Officer, Sattenapalli Town P.S. Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Guntur. (Cr.No.104/2016). …Respondent/Complainant.

This petition came up on 9-6-2016 for hearing before me, in the presence of Sri G.Sivaprasad Reddy, advocate for the petitioners, and of the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent, and upon perusing the petition and the material placed on record, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

This petition under Sections 437 and 439 Cr.P.C.

seeking bail, is by Accused Nos.2 and 3 against whom and another the Respondent police registered a crime under

Sections 306 and 498-A IPC, arrested them on 21-5-2016, and sent in judicial custody.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. The CD file submitted is perused.

3.The point that arises for consideration is, 2

Whether the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3

are entitle for bail in the crime registered against

them and another by the respondent police?

4.POINT:

The C.D. file discloses, the FIR against the petitioners came to be registered on a complaint lodged by the mother of the deceased woman where she alleged that, her daughter was given in marriage to Syed Mabu Subhani (A-1), who is a lorry driver about nine years ago. Since about five months, her daughter along with her husband and parents-in-law (A-2 and A-3) started residing in Kothapet in a rented house. Now and then, her daughter used to inform over phone that her husband A-1 hearing the words of his parents A-2 and A-3 and beating her. While so, on 24-4-2016 at about 2-00 p.m.,

A-1 informed her over phone that her daughter committed suicide by hanging. Immediately she came along with her sons and relatives and found her daughter dead in the house of her parents-in-law. When enquired, they came to know that on that day’s morning, when her daughter was found wearing niety, her father-in-law and mother-in-law (A-2 and

A-3) instigated A-1 about it, on which A-1 severally beat her and unable to bear the same, she committed suicide. Since her daughter committed suicide at the instance of her husband and parents-in-law, action shall be taken against them.

The CD file further discloses, the police after registering the crime under Sec.498-A and 306 r/w 34 IPC, took up investigation, after examining the witnesses who said to 3 have seen A-1 assaulting his wife at the instigation of his parents A-2 and A-3, the petitioners and A-1 were arrested and sent in judicial custody.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioners submits, the petitioners are innocent of the offences alleged, as the death of their daughter-in-law had occurred due to her committing suicide, the petitioners who are parents of A-1 have been falsely implicated, in fact the complaint’s daughter had committed suicide unable to bear the pain in her stomach during menstrual period, the investigation of the crime is almost completed, the petitioners are in judicial custody since 21-5-16, therefore bail may be granted to them.

6.The learned Public Prosecutor opposed grant of bail to the petitioners contending, the petitioners who are A-2 and

A-3 had instigated their son A-1, who was hearing their words and often beat his wife, on the incident day, it was at the instigation of the petitioners, their son severely assaulted the victim lady, who unable to bear the same, committed suicide, the investigation of the crime is going on. At this stage, the petitioners are not entitled for bail.

7.This court considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. The CD file discloses, the FIR was registered on 24-4-2016 on the complaint given by the victim’s mother.

4

The respondent police took up investigation and examined the witnesses who said to have seen A-1 assaulting his wife at the instigation of his parents A-2 and A-3. The victim had committed suicide at the house of her husband A-1. The CD file further discloses, the investigation of the crime is going on, RFSL report is awaited. Taking into consideration the nature of the offences alleged, there being eye-witnesses to the assault on the victim by her husband A-1 at the instigation of A-2 and A-3 whose investigation is going on, the possibility of their interfering in the investigation or threatening the witnesses at this stage of the investigation appears there. Therefore, this court is of the view, at this stage, the petitioners are not entitled for bail.

8.For the reasons discussed hereinabove, the point is answered in negative.

9.IN THE RESULT, the petition is dismissed.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 10th day of June, 2016.

PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE

GUNTUR.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.SESSIONS JUDGE: GUNTUR.

PRESENT: SRI S.M.RAFEE, B.Sc., B.L.,

PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE.

Friday, the 10th day of June, 2016.

Crl.M.P.No.1112/2016

Between:

Syed Mabu Subhani, son of Mahaboob @ Mabu, Muslim, aged 27 years, resident of Nagallakunta, Kothapet, Sattenaplli, Guntur District (A-1).

...Petitioner/Accused

No.1. -And-

The State: Station House Officer, Sattenapalli Town P.S. Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Guntur. (Cr.No.104/2016). …Respondent/Complainant.

This petition came up on 9-6-2016 for hearing before me, in the presence of Sri M.V.Subba Reddy, advocate for the petitioner, and of the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent, and upon perusing the petition and the material placed on record, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

This petition under Sections 437 and 439 Cr.P.C.

seeking bail, is by Accused No.1 against whom and two others the Respondent police registered a crime under

Sections 306 and 498-A IPC, arrested him on 21-5-2016, and sent in judicial custody.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. The CD file submitted is perused.

3.The point that arises for consideration is,

Whether the petitioner/Accused No.1 is entitle

for bail in the crime registered against him and two

others by the respondent police?

2

4.POINT:

The C.D. file discloses, the FIR against the petitioner and two others came to be registered on a complaint lodged by the mother of the deceased woman where she alleged that, her daughter was given in marriage to Syed Mabu

Subhani (A-1), who is a lorry driver about nine years ago.

Since about five months, her daughter along with her husband and parents-in-law (A-2 and A-3) started residing in

Kothapet in a rented house. Now and then, her daughter used to inform over phone that her husband A-1 hearing the words of his parents A-2 and A-3 and beating her. While so, on 24-4-2016 at about 2-00 p.m., A-1 informed her over phone that her daughter committed suicide by hanging.

Immediately she came along with her sons and relatives and found her daughter dead in the house of her parents-in-law.

When enquired, they came to know that on that day’s morning, when her daughter was found wearing niety, her father-in-law and mother-in-law (A-2 and A-3) instigated A-1 about it, on which A-1 severally beat her and unable to bear the same, she committed suicide. Since her daughter committed suicide at the instance of her husband and parents-in-law, action shall be taken against them.

The CD file further discloses, the police after registering the crime under Sec.498-A and 306 r/w 34 IPC, took up investigation, after examining the witnesses who said to 3 have seen A-1 assaulting his wife at the instigation of his parents A-2 and A-3, the petitioner and A-2 and A-3 were arrested and sent in judicial custody.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits, the petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged, the petitioner’s wife had committed suicide not on the reason of A-1 beating her or at the instigation of his parents A-2 and A-3, but on her own causes, particularly when she was unable to bear the stomach ache during the menstrual period, however the investigation of the crime is almost completed, the petitioner is in judicial custody since 21-5-2016, therefore bail may be granted to him.

6.The learned Public Prosecutor opposed grant of bail to the petitioner contending, A-2 and A-3 had instigated their son A-1, who was hearing their words and often beat his wife, on the incident day, it was at the instigation of A-2 and A-3, their son A-1 severely assaulted the victim lady, who unable to bear the same, committed suicide, the investigation of the crime is going on. At this stage, the petitioner is not entitled for bail.

7.This court considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. The CD file discloses, the FIR was registered on 24-4-2016 on the complaint given by the victim’s mother.

The respondent police took up investigation and examined 4 the witnesses who said to have seen A-1 assaulting his wife at the instigation of his parents A-2 and A-3. The victim had committed suicide at the house of her husband A-1. The CD file further discloses, the investigation of the crime is going on, RFSL report is awaited. Taking into consideration the nature of the offences alleged, there being eye-witnesses to the assault on the victim by her husband A-1 at the instigation of A-2 and A-3 whose investigation is going on, the possibility of his interfering in the investigation or threatening the witnesses at this stage of the investigation appears there. Therefore, this court is of the view, at this stage, the petitioner is not entitled for bail.

8.For the reasons discussed hereinabove, the point is answered in negative.

9.IN THE RESULT, the petition is dismissed.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 10th day of June, 2016.

PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE

GUNTUR.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE: GUNTUR.

PRESENT: SRI S.M.RAFEE, B.Sc., B.L.,

PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE.

Friday, the 10th day of June, 2016

D.O.P.NO.1147/2015

Between:

1. Kattupalli Rajesh.

2. Kattupalli Ramya Priya @ Bandi Ramya Priya.…Petitioners.

-And-

NIL....Respondent.

This petition came up on 9-6-2016 for appearance of the petitioners before me, in the presence of Sri V.Rajagopalachari, advocate for the petitioners; the petitioners present, and upon perusing the material placed on record, and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

This mutual divorce application under Section 10-A of the

Divorce Act, 1869, is by Kattupalli Rajesh and Kattupalli

Ramyapriya @ Bandi Ramyapriya, seeking to dissolve their marriage held on 11-2-2011, as per the Christian rites and custom, on their mutual consent.

2.On registering the petition on 8-12-2015, the petitioners were directed to appear before the court on 8-6-2016 on completion of mandatory period of six months as prescribed under Sec.10-A of the Divorce Act, accordingly they appeared, and adduced evidence to substantiate the grounds on which they are seeking a decree of divorce. They both deposed as

P.W.1 and P.W.2. Through the evidence of P.W.1, Ex.A.1 2 marriage certificate, Ex.A.2 marriage photograph, Ex.A.3 copy of wedding card and Ex.A.4 Aadhar card of him were marked, through the evidence of P.W.2, Aadhar card of her was marked.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners was heard.

Perused the record of the case. The point that emerges for determination is,

Whether the petitioners are entitle to a decree of divorce on mutual consent by dissolving their marriage held on 11-2- 2011?

4.POINT:

The reasons and circumstances stated in the petition by the petitioners which led to their seeking a decree of divorce on mutual consent are; the petitioners are lawfully wedded couple, their marriage having been celebrated on 11-2-2011 at St. North

Parish church, Bekcers compound, Guntur as per Christian rites and customs, but the marriage was not consummated, as the couple found, there is irreconcilable incompatibly in their respective temperaments, they could not adjust with each other.

Soon after the marriage, they have been residing separately since 12-2-2011, there is no possibility of their living together and lead marital life, therefore both of them have decided to obtain divorce through a court of law on mutual consent.

The common pleas of the petitioners and the evidence given by them on oath would disclose; their marriage was performed on 11-2-2011 at St. North Parish church, Guntur as per the Christian rites and custom. Ex.A.1 3 marriage certificate shown issued by the Pastor, and Ex.A.2 the marriage photograph and Ex.A.3 copy of the wedding invitation card proves it as a fact.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits, both the petitioners have been living separately since four years prior to filing of the petition, therefore divorce on mutual consent by dissolving their marriage may be granted.

Since both the petitioners stated on oath that it has become impossible for them to live together, and their marital relationship became irretrievable, and the averments of the petition and the evidence of the petitioners as P.Ws.1 and 2 discloses, they have been living apart since 12-2-2011 onwards, since four years prior to filing of this petition on 9-3-2015, which satisfies the mandatory requirement under Sec.10-

A(1) of the Divorce Act, it is held, the petitioners are entitled to seek divorce on mutual consent.

For the reasons discussed hereinabove, the point is answered in affirmative.

5.IN THE RESULT,the petition is allowed, dissolving the marriage held between the petitioners 1 and 2 on 11-2-2011 as per the Christian rites and customs on mutual consent, thereby granting divorce under Section 10-A of the Divorce Act, 1869. No costs.

Dictated to Grade-III Steno, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 10th day of June, 2016.

PRL.DISTRICT JUDGE

GUNTUR.

4

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS:

P.W.1Kattupalli Rajesh. P.W.2B.Ramyapriya.

FOR RESPONDENT: NONE.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS:

Ex.A.1Marriage certificate. Ex.A.2Marriage photograph. Ex.A.3Copy of the wedding card. Ex.A.4Aadhar card of the 1st petitioner. Ex.A.5Aadhar card of the 2nd petitioner.

FOR RESPONDENT: NIL.

P.D.J.