Page No.1 of total 19 pages DVC No.136 of 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE IV JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
HYDERABAD
Present: Smt. Suman Grewal
IV Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad
On this Monday, the 6 nd Day of April, 2026
Domestic Violence Case No. 136 of 2017
Between:
Smt. P.V.L. Rajeshwari, W/o.Anil Kumar Paramalla Age: 46 years, Occ: Household R/o. 1-10-134/8/1Allamthota Babi
Mayuri Marg, Begumpet, Hyderabad ...Petitioner
AND
1) Anil Kumar Paramalla S/o.Paramalla Pentaiah Age: 49 years, Occ: Director of M/s.Hermes Pvt. Ltd. R/o.M/s.101-106, 119 Sagar Ratan D 265 TTC Industrial Area, Turbhe Belapur Road, Navi Mumbai
2) Paramalla Pentaiah Age: 77 years, Occ: Business R/o. H.No.5-6-28, Dwaraka Nagar Nizamabad
3) Sacha Devi, W/o. Paramalla Pentaiah Age: 72 years, Occ: Housewife R/o.H.No.5-6-28, Dwaraka Nagar
Nizamabad ...Respondents
This case came before me for a final hearing in the presence of J.Sunil kumar learned counsel for the aggrieved person and Sri. Vishal Kedia, learned counsel for the respondent after hearing , perusing the case record, and the matter having stood over for consideration to this date, this Court has delivered the following:
Date: 06-04-2026 IV JMFC, Hyderabad
Page No.2 of total 19 pages DVC No.136 of 2017
O R D E R
1. This application was filed by the aggrieved person under section 12 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005(hereinafter ‘the PWDVA’), along with the domestic incident report of the protection officer, praying this Court to direct the Respondent No.1 for the following :
(i) to return her 10 tulas gold and Rs.5 Lakhs dowry amount
(ii) to pay Rs.10,000/- per month towards her medical expenses
(iii) to pay Rs.50,000/- monthly maintenance
(iv) to pay Rs.50 Lakhs compensation.
Any other relief deemed appropriate under the Domestic Violence Act.
Respondent No.1 is the husband, Respondent no.2 is the father-in-law, respondent No.3 is the mother-in-law of the Petitioner.
2. Brief facts averred in the complaint are as follows:
The marriage of the Petitioner with Respondent No.1 was held on 22-6-2014 at
Saptika Lingeshwara Swamy Temple, Ghatkesar, Hyderabad. At that time her father and brother gave 10 tulas of gold and Rs.5 Lakhs as dowry apart from marriage expenses.
After the solemnization of marriage, they both spend their first night at Respondent
No.1’s place. Subsequent to their marriage there was a Ashada Masam. As per Hindu custom the newly married couple should not live together in a same house during
Aashada Masam, as such she went to her parents house for one month. After the Ashada
Masam month, when she requested her husband to take her to his place, he refused without any justified reason, he forced her to bring an additional dowry of 10 Lakhs and he also committed that he will come back and take her back to his place if she does so.
Date: 06-04-2026 IV JMFC, Hyderabad
Page No.3 of total 19 pages DVC No.136 of 2017
Taking into consideration the condition and reputation of her parents, she had to wait for a year but when she did not receive any reply from their side, they filed a complaint at National Women Commissions at Pune, as at that time she was staying with her parents in Pune. On the day of filing of the complaint, her husband had appeared for mediation but he was not ready to take her back. Therefore the Police Commissioner suggested them to file a case under USA. As they belong to a good family, her elders suggested that they need not file a case immediately and they have repeatedly after that begged her husband for reconciliation.
During March 2016 with the consultation of her council, she filed a petition under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for Restitution of Conjugal Rights but he has refused to take the court notice for almost In the month of November 2016. He had appeared in the court case and immediately after that the Hon'ble Family Judge sent to mediation, but because of his arrogant nature he refused to join her. Therefore the mediation has failed and the case was remanded back to the Court. She further stated that throughout the existence of marriage in September 2016, her father has been taking care of the petitioner but due to her husband and in-laws continuous mental harassment and torture, her father expired expired at Railway Hospital, Hyderabad. When he was on the way to attend the O.P. No 706 of 2016. She further stated that she does not have shelter and currently jobless, as her husband's family forcing her for providing additional
Dowry, and also harassing her mentally and physically and threatening with dire consequences by saying “He will send some Gundas and Rowdies to kill me" if it's not complied with.
Date: 06-04-2026 IV JMFC, Hyderabad
Page No.4 of total 19 pages DVC No.136 of 2017
Therefore prayed this court to take her complaint and punish the above said persons as per law in the interest of Justice also pleased for following reliefs:
1. Direct her husband to return to immediately an amount of Rupees Five lakhs along with 10 tolas of gold and marriage expenses.
2. Direct the her husband in above complaint to pay amount Ps 10,000/- towards medical expenses.
3) To pay the petitioner, immediate amount Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) per month, for her food, cloth and rental expenses w.e.f. date of the marriage.
4) Direct her husband to pay amount Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Only) to towards compensation and damage for the mental torture, agony and emotional distress, injuries caused by the acts of domestic violence.
Award such other relief or reliefs entitled by me and may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of the justice.
3. Brief facts of the counter are as follows:
The petitioner married Respondent No.1 on 22nd June 2014 in Hyderabad. At the time of marriage, her family allegedly gave 10 tolas of gold and ₹5 lakhs as dowry, along with marriage expenses. After the wedding, the couple spent a short time together
before the petitioner returned to her parental home for the Ashada month, following
customary practice.
The petitioner claims that after this period, her husband refused to take her back unless she brought an additional dowry of ₹10 lakhs. Despite waiting and attempts at
Date: 06-04-2026 IV JMFC, Hyderabad
Page No.5 of total 19 pages DVC No.136 of 2017 reconciliation, no response was received from the respondent. She later filed a complaint before the Women’s Commission in Pune, where mediation failed.
In 2016, she filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. However, the respondent allegedly avoided court notices and later refused reconciliation during mediation. The petitioner further alleges continuous mental harassment and dowry demands from her husband and in-laws. She also states that due to this stress, her father passed away. She claims to be unemployed, without support, and under threats from her husband.
Accordingly, she sought reliefs including return of dowry (₹5 lakhs and gold), ₹10,000 for medical expenses, ₹50,000 monthly maintenance, and ₹50 lakhs as compensation for mental cruelty and domestic violence.
In response, the respondents denied all allegations, calling them false, fabricated, and intended to harass and extort money. They argued that the petitioner never lived with the respondent after marriage and therefore does not qualify as an “aggrieved person” under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. They claimed the marriage was never consummated and that the petitioner refused to live with the respondent despite repeated requests, especially during times when his parents were ill.
The respondents further alleged that the petitioner avoided marital responsibilities, behaved abusively, and filed multiple inconsistent complaints in different forums. They also claimed she is educated, financially independent and running a saree business, thus not entitled to maintenance. Additionally, they stated that she
Date: 06-04-2026 IV JMFC, Hyderabad
Page No.6 of total 19 pages DVC No.136 of 2017 demanded large sums of money and property from the respondent and filed false cases when respondent refused her claims.
The respondents maintained that no dowry was demanded or accepted, no domestic violence occurred, and that the petition is legally untenable. They requested the court to dismiss the case with costs, alleging abuse of legal process and suppression of facts by the petitioner.
4. This case was taken cognizance against respondent no.1 and numbered as DVC No.136 of 2017 against the Respondent.
5. The Petitioner filed an affidavit in lieu of her examination-in-chief (hereinafter ‘the examination-in-chief’) reiterating most of the averments made in her complaint along with certain subsequent events and got herself examined as PW1; Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 during her evidence and Ex.R1 to R3 were marked during her cross-examination.
6. Hearing of Petitioner treated as “Heard”, Respondent submitted Hearing. Perused the record.
7.Now the points that arise for determination are:
1) Whether a domestic relationship existed between the aggrieved person and the respondent?
2) Whether the aggrieved person was subjected to domestic violence by the respondent?
3) Whether the aggrieved person is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
4) To what relief?
Date: 06-04-2026 IV JMFC, Hyderabad
Page No.7 of total 19 pages DVC No.136 of 2017 8.Points No.1: For consideration of the issues noted above, it would be profitable to refer to the definitions of ‘domestic relationship’,and ’Domestic violence’ as provided in Section 2(f), and section 3 of the D.V. Act, which reads as:
2. Definitions:- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires - (f) “domestic relationship” means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as joint family;
3. Definition of domestic violence.—For the purposes of this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it
(a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse,verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or
(b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security; or
(c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b); or (d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to the aggrieved person.
Date: 06-04-2026 IV JMFC, Hyderabad
Page No.8 of total 19 pages DVC No.136 of 2017
Explanation I.—For the purposes of this section,—
(i) “physical abuse” means any act or conduct which is of such a nature as to cause bodily pain, harm, or danger to life, limb, or health or impair the health or development of the aggrieved person and includes assault, criminal intimidation and criminal force;
(ii) “sexual abuse” includes any conduct of a sexual nature that abuses, humiliates, degrades or otherwise violates the dignity of woman;
(iii) “verbal and emotional abuse” includes—
(a) insults, ridicule, humiliation, name calling and insults or ridicule specially with regard to not having a child or a male child; and
(b) repeated threats to cause physical pain to any person in whom the aggrieved person is interested;
(iv) “economic abuse” includes—
(a) deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or custom whether payable under an order of a court or otherwise or which the aggrieved person requires out of necessity including, but not limited to, house hold necessities for the aggrieved person and her children, if any, Stridhan, property, jointly or separately owned by the aggrieved person, payment of rental related to the shared house hold and maintenance;
Date: 06-04-2026 IV JMFC, Hyderabad
Page No.9 of total 19 pages DVC No.136 of 2017
(b) disposal of household effects, any alienation of assets whether movable or immovable, valuables, shares, securities, bonds and the like or other property in which the aggrieved person has an interest or is entitled to use by virtue of the domestic relationship or which may be reasonably required by the aggrieved person or her children or her stridhan or any other property jointly or separately held by the aggrieved person; and
(c) prohibition or restriction to continued access to resources or facilities which the aggrieved person is entitled to use or enjoy by virtue of the domestic relationship including access to the shared household.
Explanation II. — For the purpose of determining whether any act, omission, commission or conduct of the respondent constitutes “domestic violence” under this section, the overall facts and circumstances of the case shall be taken into consideration.
PW1 deposed that the respondents committed domestic violence on her in her examination-in-chief such as inter alia, The first issue raised by the counsel for the respondents in the cross-examination of PW1 with Ex.R2 which clearly shows an attempt to dislodge the case of PW1 on the grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Court to try the case.
8.1.1. However, PW1 in her application filed under section 12 of PWDVA; i.e. Ex.P1
Application U/S 12 of PWDVA and Ex.P2 – the DIR report filed by the protection officer – mentioned her address as 1-10-134/8/1 Allamthota
Date: 06-04-2026 IV JMFC, Hyderabad
Page No.10 of total 19 pages DVC No.136 of 2017
Babi,Mayuri marg, Begumpet,Hyderabad and to be residing at the said address at the time of filing the application. Further, in her cross-examination,
PW1 was testified that, she mentioned three different addresses in different complaints and her permanent Address mentioned in Aadhar Card is of
Kakinada. She alleged that she is residing in the rented premises in the said above Address which remain unrebutted.
8.1.2. Even otherwise, the respondents did not raise any objection regarding the lack of jurisdiction in their counter or through any other mode until cross- examination of PW1. It is settled law that, any objection as to jurisdiction shall be taken at the earliest possible opportunity. It is pertinent to note that this
Court is exclusively vested with the jurisdiction to try cases under Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter “PWDVA”) and therefore, no objection can be raised regarding its competency. As the objection concerns the territorial jurisdiction and not the inherent or subject-matter jurisdiction of the Court which goes to the root of the case and also because no objection was raised at the earliest possible opportunity, this Court holds that is deemed to have been waived.
8.2. Now coming to the evidence of PW1, the marriage of the Petitioner was performed with the Respondent no.1 on 22-06-2014 at Sapatika Lingeshwar
Swamy Temple ,Rangareddy District,Telangana. The Respondents alleged that marriage took place on the same date i.e. 23-06-2014, the both parties attended
Date: 06-04-2026 IV JMFC, Hyderabad
Page No.11 of total 19 pages DVC No.136 of 2017
Satyanarayan Pooja at Hyderabad and on very next day, i.e. 24.06.2014, the reception was organized, on 25-06-2014 morning, PW1 left the house with her parents because of Ashad month.The above contention of Respondent was admitted by PW1. Further, Respondent raised the contention that no domestic relationship exists between both the parties as she never resided with them apart from above mentioned days and the marriage was not consummated. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that PW1 and the respondent were related by marriage and they had lived together at Ghatkesar before his alleged desertion.
As per the definition of ‘domestic relationship’, existence of the domestic relationship between parties as of the date of filing the complaint is not necessary.
Therefore, as the domestic relationship between PW1 and the respondent existed from the date of their marriage until 25-06-2014, therefore,she falls within the definition of ‘aggrieved person’. Hence,Point no.1 answered in “Affirmative”.
Point No.2: As the name suggests, domestic violence means only those acts described under section 3 of PWDVA that were alleged to have been committed by the respondent against the aggrieved person when they lived together in the shared household. Any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent outside the shared household cannot be termed as domestic violence. To substantiate its point of view, this Court relies on the decision of the Hon’ble High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Om Parkash Syngal and Others Vs.
Aditi Garg 1wherein the following was held:
12015 SCC OnLine P&H 16072
Date: 06-04-2026 IV JMFC, Hyderabad
Page No.12 of total 19 pages DVC No.136 of 2017
16. The purpose of the Act is to give remedy to the aggrieved persons against domestic violence. Domestic violence can take place only when one is living in shared household with the respondents. The acts of abuses, emotional or economic, physical or sexual, verbal or nonverbal if committed when one is living in the same shared household constitute domestic violence. However, such acts of violence can be committed even otherwise also when one is living separate. When such acts of violence take place when one is living separate, these may be punishable under different provisions of IPC or other penal laws, but, they cannot be covered under Domestic Violence Act. One has to make a distinction between violence committed on a person living separate in a separate household and the violence committed on a person living in the shared household. Only violence committed by a person while living in the shared household can constitute domestic violence. The totality of the circumstances of the case show that the case is not covered within the meaning of the term ‘Domestic Violence’ as defined under Section 3 of the Act 2005.
8.3.Therefore, all the allegations of domestic violence by PW1 against the respondent shall be examined bearing in mind the above findings. It is pertinent to note that the respondent denied all the allegations of domestic violence. Therefore, the evidence adduced in support of the allegations of
PW1 must be cogent, lucid and shall preponderate the probabilities that respondent subjected her to domestic violence.
PW1 in her chief examination stated that her marriage was solemnized with respondent on 22-06-2014 at Spatika Lingeshwar Swamy Temple in Rangareddy
Date: 06-04-2026 IV JMFC, Hyderabad
Page No.13 of total 19 pages DVC No.136 of 2017 district, Hyderabad. After marriage both the parties with their family members came to the Respondent’s residence at Singapur Township, A Block, 3rd Floor.
Thereafter, she alleged that she stayed with Respondent in the above residence till 25-06-2014 as on 23-06-2014 the Satyanarayan pooja was conducted in the morning hours in the presence of priest and in the same evening she along with her father, elder brother, Respondent and In-laws went for shopping at various
Jewellery shops in Secunderabad. Further, she alleged that she stayed with
Respondent at night and on 24-06-2014, the reception was organized at
Abhinand Grand in night hours .Thereafter, on 25-06-2014 she left the house of
Respondent along with her parents due to Ashad month. Even after completion of Ashad month, the Respondent was not ready to take her back in the matrimonial society. Subsequently, she never joined the the company of respondent till date. During time of separation, she filed complain before NCW
New Delhi and application under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 registered as OP 706/2016. She also got registered FIR in crime no.144/2017 in
WPS,Begumpet.
On the above evidence of PW1, she was cross examined by the counsel for the
Respondent and elicited the following facts -
PW1 admitted that she has filed four different addresses in all the cases filed by her against Respondent. She was confronted with Ex.R1 i.e. legal notice issued by her counsel dated 06.05.2016, she admitted that she did not
Date: 06-04-2026 IV JMFC, Hyderabad
Page No.14 of total 19 pages DVC No.136 of 2017 mention anywhere in Ex.R1 that her marriage with respondent was consummated and she stayed with the respondent for three days as stated by her in Ex.P1 i.e. complaint before protection officer. She further admitted that generally first night of the couples is fixed after reception and reception was organized by respondent after two days of marriage. She was confronted with the statement given to police in FIR No.144 of 2017, she denied that she had given statement but the relevant part was marked as
EX.R2 in which she clearly deposed that “there was no physical intimacy between her and her husband as there was a vrath on the next day of marriage and also Amavasya”. PW1 again categorically deposed that, she did not mention in Ex.P1 that her marriage was consummated. She deposed that she was residing at Begumpet at the time of filing the DVC complaint and she does not remember the full address of Begumpet and she has not filed any documentary evidence to substantiate she was residing at Begumpet.
PW1 further admitted that in O.P .NO.706 of 2016 she mentioned her address as 1012A, Qutbiguda, Barichowdi, Hyderabad and no documentary proof was filed by her to substantiate her stay. She admitted that in one of the proceedings she has shown her residential addresses as Lingampally,
Ranga Reddy District. She categorically admitted that, she has given six different addresses in all the proceedings. The above contradictions and omissions on part of PW1 assumes much significance in light of the plea of
Date: 06-04-2026 IV JMFC, Hyderabad
Page No.15 of total 19 pages DVC No.136 of 2017 the respondent that PW1 is in habit of giving wrong addresses in the court of law and her marriage with respondent was never consummated.
Furthermore, she categorically admitted that she did not mention anywhere in
EX.R1, legal notice, about any act of domestic violence upon her or any allegation of dowry harassment. She alleged in EX.P1 that her brother has given Dowry of Rs 5,00,000/- and 10 tulas of gold at the time of marriage.
With respect to this, when questioned by counsel for Respondent she admitted that she has not filed any documentary proof that her father was in a position to give such amount. However, on perusal of her chief evidence affidavit she did not whisper about this allegation that her brother has given
Dowry of Rs 5,00,000/- and 10 tulas of gold at the time of marriage.
The above and beyond all other considerations, It is pertinent to discuss about her crucial admission, where she deposed that ,she has not mentioned in EX.P1 i.e DVC Complaint U/S 12 that her husband/Respondent has committed any kind of domestic violence on her. In addition to this,she admitted that she did not mention in EX.P1 that the parents of respondent have demanded Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) on her husband’s behalf and Respondent never demanded Rs.10,00,000(Rupees Ten Lakhs
Only)directly from her. After considering the above significant admissions made by PW1 as discussed above, this court perused the chief evidence affidavit of PW1, EX.P1 and EX.P9 and it is clearly evident that PW1 made
Date: 06-04-2026 IV JMFC, Hyderabad
Page No.16 of total 19 pages DVC No.136 of 2017 contradictory statements before the court as well she omitted the alleged material facts since inception of this case which makes her testimony suspicious, unworthy and unreliable.
However, after considering the above deposition of PW1 this court has to take into consideration, whether PW1 was subjected to Domestic violence or not during her stay with respondent for three days. As she did not deposed any act of harassment suffered by her after her marriage, moreover she stayed happily with respondent and participated in wedding ceremonies well and also went for shopping with respondent. In her entire evidence, she nowhere mentioned about a single incident of domestic violence during her stay at place of domestic relationship. A bare reading of the complaint Ex.P1 makes it abundantly clear that it does not disclose any specific instance of domestic violence against the respondent as contemplated under Section 3 of the Act of 2005, which is admitted supra in her testimony. In her chief examination, PW1 specially alleged that respondent has deserted her without any justifiable reason, with respect to this contention of the PW1 this court finds pertinent to mention that the alleged desertion cannot be constitute as an act of domestic violence though it can be a applausible plea before a competent Family Court. Therefore, reliance is placed on decision of Hon’ble
Court in Sudama Dutt Sharma & Others v. The State Of Rajasthan &
Another (High Court Of Rajasthan) Criminal Misc. (Pet.) (Crlmp) No.
Date: 06-04-2026 IV JMFC, Hyderabad
Page No.17 of total 19 pages DVC No.136 of 2017 1524 of 2011 | 08-11-2011, it is discussed that ,on the face of it, when the complaint is bereft of pre-requisites of necessary ingredients prescribed under Section 12 of the Act of 2005, further proceedings in the matter against the petitioners is nothing but a futile exercise which warrants clogging of the same perpetually to secure ends of justice. The case at hand, is the clear example to conclude that there is no iota of evidence to indicate that she has been subjected to domestic violence by the Respondent. Although the Act of 2005 is a welfare legislation, which is essentially enacted to protect the rights of a woman, that the woman has been subjected to domestic violence by her- in-laws, which is conspicuously missing in the instant case.
Before parting with the case,this court find appropriate to mention that PW1
has left no stone unturned to abuse the process of law by taking resort to every possible way to harass respondent whether it be filing multiple cases using multiple addresses or consistently changing her stand and statements made by her in earlier complaint and before this court, which is highly inappropriate and indicates her manifested imprudence exhibited in haste.
Therefore this is a mandatory duty of this court to uphold the principles of law and to protect the right of party not at fault without fail.
Hence,in view of the above discussion and by relying on Judgment of
Bombay High Court in Gurdas Sanvalo Naik and others Vs. Saanvi
Gurudas Naik and others WP no.17 of 2015 in which it was discussed that
Date: 06-04-2026 IV JMFC, Hyderabad
Page No.18 of total 19 pages DVC No.136 of 2017 “it is well settled preposition that the complainant/wife is subjected to domestic violence is a sine qua non for the Court to entertain the applications and grant of reliefs under PWDV Act. Hence, this Court holds that PW1 utterly failed to prove the allegations of domestic violence by the respondents, accordingly, Point no.2 is answered in the “negative”.
8.4. Points no.3 and 4: As the reliefs claimed by PW1 are determinant upon the proof of domestic violence by the respondents and as PW1 failed to prove the same to the satisfaction of the Court, she is not entitled to any relief under the PWDVA. As a result, points no.3 and 4 have become redundant, hence, they are answered in the “Negative”.
9.IN THE RESULT, the application is dismissed. onsequently any miscellaneous petitions if pending shall stand closed.
No order as to costs.
The office is directed to give a copy of this order free of cost, to the parties to the application, the Station House Officer PS Begumpet, and the service provider.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced
by me in the open Court, on the 06 th day of April 2026.
IV Judicial Magistrate of First Class Hyderabad
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For Petitioner For Respondents
P.W.1P.V.L RajeshwariNil
Date: 06-04-2026 IV JMFC, Hyderabad
Page No.19 of total 19 pages DVC No.136 of 2017
Documents Marked
For Petitioner
Ex.P1Complaint before the Protection Officer Ex.P2Domestic Incident Report dated 21.07.2017 Ex.P3Bills of gold jewellery and silver items (7 Nos – Ex.P3(a) to Ex.P3(g)) Ex.P4Death certificated of father of the petitioner Ex.P5Certified copy of counseling form dated 04.07.2017 concerning the counseling before ASI, WPS Begumpet and report of the counselor Ex.P6Certified copy of acknowledgment given by NCW, New Delhi to PW1 dated 26.07.2017 Ex.P72 photographs showing PW1 with respondent no.1 and his family in his house along with a certificate under section 65B (4) of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P8Certified copy of sale deed bearing no.5827 of 2025 dated 23.08.2005 Ex.P9Certified copy of report filed before the SHO, WPS, the FIR and chargesheet in Cr.No.144 of 2017 Ex.R1Legal Notice issued on behalf of Respondent by Mr.N.Balu dated 06.05.2016 Ex.R2Judgment copy of OP.No.706 of 2016 and part of FIR No.144 of 2017 Ex.R3Cross-examination of PW1 in OP.No. 706 of 2016
For Respondents
NilNil
Sd/
Sd/-
IV Judicial Magistrate of First Class Hyderabad.
// True Copy //
IV Judicial Magistrate of First Class
Hyderabad.
Date: 06-04-2026 IV JMFC, Hyderabad