Sri Shaik Razak uz Zama

1

COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SANGAREDDY.

Present: Sri Shaik Razak-Uz-Zama.,

Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.

Wednesday the 23rd day of September, 2015.

H.M.O.P.No.67 of 2013.

Between:-

P.Sudeepthi W/o. K.Veera Prasad Goud, 30 yrs, R/o. Chidruppa(v), Sangareddy Mandal. C/o. Pavan H.No.4-8-4 Shanthinagar, Near IB, main road, Sangareddy. Petitioner.

And. K.Veera Varaprasad Goud S/o. K.Balaraj Goud, 32 yrs, R/o. Flat No.306, Srilaxmisai Towers Bagh Ameeri, at Kukatpally, Hyderabad. Respondent.

This petition is coming on before me for hearing in the presence of Sri

Ch.Baswaraj, Advocate for the Petitioner, and of Sri B.Sree Ramulu,

Advocate for the respondent, upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the arguments, the court delivered the following:-

O R D E R:-

1.The petitioner/wife filed the present application against the respondent/husband Under Section 13(i)(ia) and (ib) of Hindu

Marriage Act, seeking dissolution of their marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

2.The averments in the petition interalia referred briefly are as follows:-

The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 23-11-2009 at Arya Samaj

Bhavan, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad as per Hindu Rites and Customs it is a love marriage. The marriage between the spouse was registered with Registrar of Marriages at Hyderabad on 14-12-2009. Both petitioner and respondent set-up their matrimonial home at 2

Shanthinagar, Sangareddy. They have shifted to Hyderabad for some time and later returned back to Sangareddy. Some disputes, mis- understandings and differences arose between the the petitioner and respondent. The respondent used to quarrel with the petitioner by commenting her physical appearance and criticizing her parents who belong to different casts. The petitioner and the respondent have been living separately for the past three years. The respondent made certain false allegations against the petitioner before her relatives and friends and used to insult her. The respondent used to abuse the petitioner in filthy language and threatened her with dire consequences. The petitioner having fed-up with the behaviour of the respondent, got issued a legal notice to him on 11-1-2013 seeking divorce. The respondent did not respond for the said legal notice.

There is no chance for the petitioner to lead conjugal life with the respondent. The petitioner left with no option except to approach the court for divorce since their marital bond is irretrievably broken down.

Hence, the petition.

3.On appearance, the respondent filed counter contending interalia that the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts.

The respondent did not dispute the matrimonial relationship between himself and the petitioner, but he denied the rest of the allegations made in the petition. The respondent submits that he never resided along with the petitioner at Sangareddy at any time nor he abused the petitioner before the friends and relatives. The respondent further submits that he never harassed the petitioner by commenting on her physical appearance nor abused her parents. Infact, the petitioner 3 had been to Bangalore during the year 2012 in order to secure a job with the consent of the respondent. Both of them lived happily even after getting a job by the petitioner. The petitioner created all those allegations in order to seek divorce without there being any valid reason or sufficient ground. This court has no jurisdiction to try the matrimonial dispute. The respondent therefore prays the court to dismiss the petition with costs.

4.During the course of enquiry, Pws.1 and 2 are examined and

Exs.P1 to P3 are marked on behalf of petitioner. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of respondent.

5.Heard from both sides.

6.Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioner/wife is entitled for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent held on 23-11-2009 Under Section 13(i)(ia) and (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act.

POINT:-

7.Admittedly, there is no dispute about the relationship between the parties. The petitioner herein is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 23-11-2009 at

Arya Samaj Bhavan Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad as per Hindu Rites and

Customs. The marriage between the spouse is love marriage. It is not in dispute that the petitioner joined with the respondent soon after their marriage.

8.It is asserted by the petitioner that the marriage could not be consummated due to differences and mis-understandings which arose between the spouse and the respondent started harassing the petitioner by abusing her in filthy language mainly on the basis of her 4 physical appearance and habits etc., It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent used to quarrel with the petitioner without any reason and used to insult her before the elders and relatives. The petitioner having fed-up with the behaviour of the respondent issued a legal notice on 11-1-2013 requesting him to co- operate for obtaining divorce on mutual consent since she apprehends danger to her life in the hands of the respondent and as there is no chance or scope for them to lead conjugal life.

9.Whereas, the respondent contended that there is no iota of truth in the allegations made by the petitioner in the petition and the respondent never abused or harassed the petitioner at any time nor commented before the others about her physical appearance. The respondent further contended that the petitioner left for Banglore in order to secure a job during the year, 2012 and suddenly she got issued a notice to the respondent with false allegations.

10.Now going into the merits of the evidence placed before the court, it is seen that the petitioner herself got examined as PW1. The petitioner also got examined one K.Manjusha as PW2 and marked

Exs.P1 to P3 in support of her contention. Whereas no oral or documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of respondent. PW1 filed evidence affidavit Under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC. in lieu of chief- examination re-iterating the contents of the petition. PW1 mainly stated that the respondent and herself lived together for a short period at Shanthinagar, Sangareddy and both have shifted to

Hyderabad and resided for some time at Hyderabad and returned back to Sangareddy and their marriage was not consummated on 5 account of differences and mis-understandings arose between them.

PW1 further stated that the respondent used to harass the petitioner with regard to her physical appearance and habits etc., and he used to quarrel with her without any reason and they have been living separately for the past three years. According to PW1, she got issued a legal notice to the respondent on 11-1-2013 calling upon him to co- operate in getting divorce on mutual consent since there is no scope or any kind of chance to continue matrimonial bond and she left with no option except to approach the court seeking divorce on the grounds of desertion and cruelty. The cross-examination of PW1 was recorded as nil since there was no representation on behalf of respondent. The court granted ample opportunity and sufficient time to the respondent to proceed with the cross-examination of PW1. The respondent even did not pay the costs imposed on him. He has not taken any steps to get PW1 recalled for the purpose of cross- examination. Thus, the testimony of PW1 remains un-challenged.

11.PW2 filed evidence affidavit stating that she is closed friend of

PW1 and the respondent and the marriage between the petitioner and respondent is a love marriage which was celebrated on 23-11- 2009 secretly at Arya Samaj Bhavan, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad, both

PW1 and the respondent lived together for few days at Shanthinagar,

Sangareddy as well as at Hyderabad. PW1 further stated that some serious mis-understandings and disputes arose between PW1 and the respondent and PW1 was illtreated by the respondent without any reason and he used to abuse her in filthy language by commenting on her physical appearance and habits etc., and both of them are 6 living separately away from each other for the last few years. The respondent even did not choose to cross-examine PW2 though ample opportunity and sufficient time is granted. Consequently, the cross-examination of PW2 was recorded as nil on 13-7-2015. Thus, the testimony of PW2 also remains un-disputed.

12.Admittedly, the respondent failed to enter into witness box to speak about his contention. The respondent did not choose to give evidence on his behalf though ample opportunity and sufficient time was granted. Thus, there is no iota of evidence on behalf of respondent with regard to the contention raised by him in the counter.

The basic principle is that the pleading itself is not a proof. Every pleadings must be substantiated either by oral or documentary evidence. The respondent though took several pleas in his counter, failed to step into the witness box to speak about his contention. In the absence of any such evidence, the defence set-up by the respondent is not sustainable. When the respondent failed to cross- examine Pws.1 and 2 and failed to appear before the court to give evidence in support of his defence, it can be presumed that the various pleas raised by him in the counter are not established. It is clear from the conduct and behaviour of the respondent that he has no objection for grant of divorce as sought by the petitioner.

13.Now taking the documentary evidence on record into consideration, it is seen that Exs.P1 to P3 were marked on behalf of petitioner. Ex.P1 is certified copy of marriage card issued by

Registrar of Marriages at Hyderabad. As seen from Ex.P1 that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was held on 23-11- 7 2007 and it was registered on 14-12-2009. Infact, the marriage between the spouse is not disputed by the other parties. Ex.P2 is the provisional certificate of marriage dated; 23-11-2009 issued by Arya

Samaj Bhavan Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent was held at Arya Samaj Bhavan Sultan

Bazar, Hyderabad on 23-11-2009 as per Ex.P2 on account of free will and consent as per Hindu Rites and Customs. Ex.P3 is office copy of legal notice dated: 11-1-2013 issued by the petitioner to the respondent calling upon him to co-operate her in obtaining divorce under mutual consent. The petitioner got mentioned in Ex.P3 that her marriage with the respondent is love marriage and some serious disputes and mis-understandings arose between them and the respondent used to harass and illtreat the petitioner without any reason. It is also mentioned in Ex.P3 that both petitioner and respondent have been living separately away from each other for the past three years. The respondent though received Ex.P3 neither gave any reply for the same nor approached the court U/S.13-B of Hindu

Marriage Act as sought by the petitioner. More so, the respondent neither issued any notice nor filed O.P. U/S.9 of Hindu Marriage Act, for restitution of conjugal rights. Thus, the allegations made by the respondent in the counter can be treated as an after thought since he has not issued any reply for Ex.P2. The testimony of Pws.1 and 2 found to be consistent with the contents of Exs.P1 to P3.

14.In a petition for divorce by the wife on the ground of desertion and cruelty, it is necessary for her to show that the respondent/husband left her conjugal society without any reasonable 8 cause and against her wishes. It is also necessary to find-out the intention of the respondent to bring co-habitation permanently to an end. The respondent though disputed the claim made by the petitioner in his counter, failed to adduce any evidence in support of his contention. The respondent even did not choose to cross-examine

Pws.1 and 2. Thus, it is clear that the grounds urged in the petition by the petitioner/wife are deemed to have been established. The material on record clearly indicate that there is no objection from the respondent for the reliefs sought by the petitioner with regard to decree of divorce. It is also clear that the respondent has not disputed the essential factors for grant of divorce such as factum of separation and intention to bring co-habitation permanently to an end.

15.Therefore, in the given circumstances of the case, analyzing the facts set-out above and tested the same on the touch stone of principles laid down in the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled for a decree of dissolution of marriage with the respondent U/S.13(i) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act.

Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of petitioner.

15.In the result, the petition is allowed by granting a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent held on 23-11-2009 at Arya Samaj Bhavan, Sultan Bazar,

Hyderabad U/S.13(i)(ia)(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. No order as to costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23rd day of September, 2015.

Senior Civil Judge,

Sangareddy.

9

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PETITIONER. RESPONDENT.

PW1 P.Suddeepthi.

PW2 K.Manjusha.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER.

Ex.P1 Certificate of marriage dated; 14-12-2009.

Ex.P2 Provisional Certificate of marriage dated; 23-11-2009.

Ex.P3 Office copy of legal notice dated: 11-1-2013.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.

Nil.

Senior Civil Judge,

Sangareddy.

10

1

COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SANGAREDDY.

Present: Sri Shaik Razak-Uz-Zama.,

Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.

Wednesday the 23rd day of September, 2015.

H.M. .P.No. 6 of 2015. Between:-

Smt. Begumpet @ Putta Shravani W/o. Ramesh, 20 yrs, R/o. Vinayak Nagar, Neredmet, Malkajgiri Mandal, Rangareddy Dist. Petitioner No.1.

And. Putta Ramesh Kumar Goud S/o. Putta Yellaiah, 34 yrs, R/o. Vinayak Nagar Neredmet, Malkajgiri Mandal Rangareddy Dist.

Petitioner No.2.

This petition is coming on before me for hearing in the presence of Sri

Kasireddy Srinivasulu, Advocate for the Petitioner No.1, and of Sri

G.Sanjay Gadehe, Advocate for the petitioner No.2, upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the arguments, the court delivered the following:-

O R D E R:-

1.The petition is filed Under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking decree of divorce on mutual consent.

2.The averments in the petition in brief are as follows:-

The petitioners 1 and 2 are legally wedded wife and husband and their marriage was solemnized on 18-3-2012 at Beeramguda,

Ramchandrapuram Medak Dist. as per Hindu Rites and Customs.

The first petitioner joined with second petitioner soon after their marriage and they set-up a matrimonial home at Ramchandrapuram.

Both of them have lived together just for one week. The second petitioner left the conjugal society of the first petitioner on account of some differences arose between them. Mediation held through elders was proved to be futile. There are no issues to the petitioners out of their wed-lock. However, the petitioners have decided to take divorce 2 on mutual consent since there is no possibility for them to lead conjugal life. There is no collusion between the petitioners. Hence, the petition.

3.The divorce O.P. was registered as H.M.O.P.6/2015 on 28-1- 2015 and it was posted after expiry of statutory period of six months i.e. 28-7-2015.

4.On 8-9-2015 both petitioners were called present and they were identified by their counsel. Verified the particulars of the petitioners and found correct. Re-conciliation held between the petitioners jointly and separately. Both petitioners have stated that there is no possibility for them to join together and there is no scope for them to lead matrimonial life. They expressed their inability to continue their conjugal life and intend to take divorce on mutual consent. The petitioners have been impressed by the court not to insist for divorce and to join together in order to lead conjugal life, but the petitioners have re-iterated their stand that they intend to take divorce on mutual consent and does not want to continue their matrimonial bond. All the efforts made by the court for re-union of the petitioners were not successful and proved to be futile. Thus, the re-conciliation is not successful and failed.

5.The petitioners have filed their chief-affidavits(proof affidavits) re-iterating the contents of the petition stating that their marriage is irretrievably broken down and it is not possible for them to live together, therefore pray the court to dissolve their marriage and grant decree of divorce on mutual consent U/S.13-B of Hindu Marriage Act.

It was asserted from the petitioners that the consent given by either of 3 them is not occasioned by force, threat or influence. Thus, I am satisfied that the consent given by the petitioners is voluntary and without any compulsion or coercion. The statutory period of six months has been completed from the date of filing of O.P. 6/2015.

6.Heard the counsel for the petitioners.

7.In view of the contents of the petition, proof affidavits and having heard the counsels on record, I feel it is just and proper to allow the application, in the interest of justice.

8.In the result, the petition is allowed by granting a decree of divorce on mutual consent, accordingly the marriage between the petitioners 1 and 2 held on 18-3-2012 at Beeramguda,

Ramchandrapuram stands dissolved by a decree of divorce U/S.13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. No order as to costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23rd day of September, 2015.

Senior Civil Judge,

Sangareddy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PETITIONER. RESPONDENT.

PW1 Smt. Begumpet @ Putta Sravani.Nil.

PW2 Putta Ramesh Kumar Goud

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER.

Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.

Nil.

Senior Civil Judge,

Sangareddy.

4 5

TSSN020000742009

IN THE COURT OF

Senior Civil Judge SANGAREDDY

OS/54/2009

D. Prema Bai Address: H.No. 3-2-26 Nethaji Nagar Sangareddy town, Medak District. 2: B. Satyanarayana Beside District court building Sangareddy town Medak District. 3: Mahamood

Business beside District court building Sangareddy town

Medak District. 4: Moosa Khan District court behind Sangareddy town Medak Distgrict VERSUS Commissioner Address: Muncipality Sangareddy of Medak District. 2:Commissioner Muncipality Sangareddy of Medak District ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : M. Goverdhan Advocate for : J. Ram Reddy appearing for Commissioner: Advocate J. Ram Reddy appearing for 2 respectively.

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 22-09-2015 )

ORDER

Plaintiff called absent. Costs not paid. No representation is made though kept aside till 5.00 P.M. Plaintiff continuously absent despite of several conditional orders. Ample opportunity and sufficient time is granted. No reason is assigned for the absence of plaintiff. I did not see any ground to adjourn the matter further. It appears that the plaintiff has no interest to prosecute the suit. In the result, the suit is dismissed for default without costs.

Date : 22-09-2015 Senior Civil Judge , Sangareddy

TSSN020001762015

IN THE COURT OF

Senior Civil Judge AT ,Sangareddy

EP/38/2015

India bulls Houseing finance Limited. Address: M.6263 First floor connaought Place New Delhi.

VERSUS Patanam Manikyam Address: Fasalwadi Sangareddy Medak ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : S. Adhithya Advocate for : appearing for Patanam Manikyam: Advocate appearing for respectively.

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 22-09-2015 )

ORDER

DHR called absent costs not paid No rep is made dsthough kept aside proces is not paid through sufficient time and ample opporltunaty is granted. DHR is continuasly absent. \ In the result the EP is dismissed for default.

Date : 22-09-2015 Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy