Ms S. Sree Lakshmi

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PILER

Present: Ms.S.Sree Lakshmi,

Senior Civil Judge, Piler.

Tuesday, this the 16th day of April, 2019

HINDU MARRIAGE O.P. 21 of 2018

Between:

1.Sri S. Govardhan Rao, S/o. Solankivari Narasimha Rao, aged about 27 years, R/o. Kambhammittavaripalle, H/o. Agrahamram Piler Mandal, Chittoor District, A.P.

…1st Petitioner/Husband.

2. Smt. S. Anushasree, W/o. S. Govardhan Rao, D/o. S. Ramachandra Rao, aged about 24 years, R/o. D.No.3/582, SB Kandigai,MaratMadhurapuram,Santhana Venugopalapuram, Vanganur, Tiruvallur Post, Tamil Nadu.

...2nd petitioner/Wife.

And:

- NIL -.. Respondent.

This petition is coming on 06.03.2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. T. Rama Subramanyam, Advocate for the petitioners 1 and 2; and having stood over for consideration to this date, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the petitioners 1 and 2 u/sec.

13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 praying to dissolve the marriage between the petitioners 1 and 2 by way of divorce by mutual consent and for costs.

02.The brief averments of the petition in nutshell are:-

The second petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the 1st petitioner and their marriage was performed on 10.02.2016at TTD kalyanamandapam, Pallipattu Road, Balijakandriga, Chittoor District as per rites and customs prevailing in their community. The marriage was consummated, but issueless.

2

It was further averred in the petition that after their marriage, they lived happily for some period in petitioner’s village in

Kambhammittavaripalle, H/o. Agraharam, Piler Mandal and subsequently there arose misunderstandings, since the 2nd petitioner is not accustomed to the petitioner’s house and village environment. On 10th of June, 2016, the 2nd petitioner left the company of the 1st petitioner and presently she is residing with her parents only. Each of the petitioner has got their own reasons for the misunderstandings. Though number of mediations held by the elders, all their efforts were made futile.

It was further averred in the petition that the petitioners got separated and started living independently and there are number of mediations took place, but in vain and that they were leading miserable life due to sour relationship. It is better permit them to lead out contended life instead of compelling them to lead a miserable life without any constructive progress.

It was further averred in the petition that they have not been able to live together and both the petitioners mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved and consent given by the petitioners are free from force, fraud and undue influence and the consent of the petitioners are true and voluntarily. There was no other go for the petitioners, except to file a petition seeking a decree of divorce by mutual consent. Hence the petition.

03.During the course of enquiry, the petitioners 1 and 2 got examined themselves as PW-1 and PW-2 and got marked Ex.A1 i.e., wedding card.

04.Heard the petitioners side.

05.Now the points for consideration are:

3

Whether the petitioners are entitled for divorce as prayed for ?

06.POINT :

The first petitioner himself got examined as PW-1 and filed his sworn chief affidavit. Accordingly his evidence is that the second petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the 1st petitioner and their marriage was performed on 10.02.2016at TTD kalyanamandapam,

Pallipattu Road, Balijakandriga, Chittoor District as per rites and customs prevailing in their community. The marriage was consummated, but no issues.

07. PW1 further deposed that after their marriage, they lived happily for some period in petitioner’s village in

Kambhammittavaripalle, H/o. Agraharam, Piler Mandal and subsequently there arose misunderstandings, since the 2nd petitioner is not accustomed to the petitioner’s house and village environment. On 10th of June, 2016, the 2nd petitioner left the company of the 1st petitioner and presently she is residing with her parents only. Each of the petitioner has got their own reasons for the misunderstandings. Though number of mediations held by the elders, all their efforts were proved futile.

08. It was further evidence of PW1 in the petition that they were leading miserable life due to sour relationship. They have not been able to live together and they both mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved and consent given by them is free from force, fraud and undue unfluence and their consent is true and voluntary. A was arrived between them in the presence of their parents and elders. There was no other go except to take divorce by 4 them on mutual consent. There is no possibility of reunion in between them and their marriage was irretrievably broken down.

09. The 2nd petitioner herself examined as PW-2 and filed her sworn chief affidavit. Accordingly her evidence is that she reiterated what was deposed by PW1 regarding marriage and mediations and that their marriage irretrievably broken.

10. So it goes that both parties are not willing to lead marital life and they want to take divorce. The averments made by the first petitioner in her chief examination were not denied or disputed by the 2nd petitioner as well the 1st petitioner as in view of the compromise arrived in between the parties. Since both the petitioners are willing to dissolve their marriage as there are no chances for re-union. Hence it goes that it is a fit case to grant divorce as per the terms of settlement agreement.

11. In the light of above discussion of oral and documentary evidence the petitioners got proved that they are entitle for divorce.,

12. In the result, this petition is allowed by granting divorce on mutual consent by dissolving the marriage of the petitioner and respondent held on 10.02.2016. No order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 16th day of April, 2019.

Senior Civil Judge,

Piler.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined for:

Petitioners:Respondent: PW-1: S. Govardhan Rao - NIL – PW-2: Anusha Sree 5

Exhibits marked for: Petitioners:

Ex.A1: The wedding card.

Respondent:

- NIL –

Senior Civil Judge,

Piler.