1OP. 45 of 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NIZAMABAD
Present: Smt S.V.P. Surya Chandrakala, Secretary, Dist. Legal Services Authority, Nizamabad FAC Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad
Dated this the 21st day of August, 2018
O.P.No. 45 of 2018
Appannagari Sai Ram, S/o: Venkati, Age: 27 years, Occu: Private Service, R/o: H.No.151/45/10, Mahalaxminagar, Pangra (B) Village, Nizamabad Mandal and District
...Petitioner
// And //
Smt Kavya, W/o: Appannagari Sai Ram, D/o: Amballa Devidas, Age: 24 years, Occu: Housewife, R/o: Flat No.502, Shivaramaraju Nagar, Suchitra Circle, Quthubullapur Mandal, Medchal District … Respondent
This petition is coming before me today for final hearing in the presence of Sri G. Madhusudhan Goud, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri J. Krishna Mohan Rao and Sri K. Srinivas, Advocates for respondent, the Court has made the following: :: O R D E R ::
1.This petition is filed by the petitioner against the respondent u/sec 13 (ia) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking decree of divorce.
2.The brief facts of the petition are that the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent said to have performed on 15052015 at MR Gardens, Perkit Village of
Armoor Mandal of Nizamabad District, as per Hindu Rites and Customs and they said to have lead conjugal life for about 15 days at Pangra (B) Village and later they said to have shifted to Hyderabad and later the respondent said to have lived with the petitioner for about eight months and they were not blessed with any children out of their wedlock. It was further pleaded that the respondent made several attempts to separate the petitioner from his aged parents and their family members, with a view to enjoy the income of the petitioner and the respondent said to have treated the petitioner with cruelty and went to her parents house and stayed for long period. When questioned the same she said to have abused him and said to have given vague reply and she said to have started ill treating the petitioner without any valid reasons by frequently going to her parents house and also said to 2OP. 45 of 2018 have made demands to the petitioner for luxurious life. The respondent said to have insulted the petitioner by referring her status as she studied in America and by expressed her willingness to live in America. It was pleaded further that she did not attend any domestic works and she used to force the petitioner to shift the place of residence to Hyderabad and to do business for her alleged luxurious life and inspite of alleged requests of the petitioner to change her attitude but she did not change her attitude and all his efforts were fruitless and she said to have developed grudge against the petitioner and left the society of the petitioner in January, 2016 and since then she did not turn up. Later, the petitioner said to have approached the respondent and said to have requested her to join his company and she said to have lodged a report in June, 2017 which was said to have registered vide
Cr.No.414/2017 u/sec 498A IPC and in spite of several efforts in approaching the respondent by the petitioner but she did not join the company of the petitioner and ultimately the petitioner said to have approached the respondent on 01032018 but the respondent said to have neglected willfully and the efforts through elders made by the petitioner were in futile and the respondent said to have deserted him without joining him and the petitioner also issued legal notice seeking company of the respondent to join him to lead marrital life and in spite of receipt of notice the respondent did not join him. Hence the petition.
3.This petition was resisted by the respondent by filing a counter and denied the allegations made in the petition. According to the contentions of the respondent that their marriage was consumated. As per the respondent contentions the petitioner was a software engineer in Hyderabad and hence they were shifted to
Hyderabad and the respondent parents used to reside in United States of America and both of them resided in the house at Secunderabad belonged to the parents of the respondent and her inlaws said to have asked her to stay at Nizamabad and the petitioner used to suspect the character of the respondent and also the parents of the petitioner used to ill treat her. It was further contended that the petitioner used 3OP. 45 of 2018 to beat the respondent in drunken stage, by abusing in filthy language, by attributing unchastity to the respondent and the inlaws of the respondent said to have been tortured the respondent mentally and physically and also said to have warned her to go to her grand parents house in Secunderabad and the inlaws of the respondent said to have demanded the parents of the respondent to come from
United State of America, for making payment of additional dowry and to execute the gift deed in respect of a flat in which they were residing, in faovur of the petitioner within 15 days. It was pleaded further that on 18062018 at about 8.00
A.M., while the respondent was bringing some grossory from out side of the colony, the petitioner and his parents said to have stopped her at the main gate and said to have started beating her and also said to have torned her clothes and said to have abused her in filthy language on account of her alleged unwillingness to get
additional dowry and due to alleged failure to meet their alleged demands and said
to have warned her with dire consequences, hence a report was given by the respondent vide Cr.No.414/2017. It was also contended that the petitioner paid
Rs.10,00,000/ to the respondent towards her permanent alimony for her maintenance and the respondent compromised the matter as well as CC
No.493/2018 on the file of Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal on 03082018. It was also contended that the petitioner and his parents returned all the articles to the respondent which were said to have presented at the time of marriage, by the parents of the respondent and vice versa. It was contended that there was no possibility to lead marrital life with the petitioner and the petitioner had dislike towards her and both decided to live separately and individually and also contended that there was no possibility for reunion of the petitioner and the respondent. Hence sought to decree the case as prayed for.
4.This matter was referred to Mediation Center for mediation and conciliation and both the parties appeared before the mediation center and also a memorandum of agreement u/sec 89 CPC r/w Rule 336 of Mediation Rules, 2005 were filed.
4OP. 45 of 2018
5.Reported to treated as heard. Hence it is treated as heard for both sides.
When both parties attended the terms of compromise/memorandum of agreement under Section 89 CPC was explained to both the parties, they admitted terms of compromise/memorandum of agreement and when tried for conciliation they stated that there was no possibility or chances for reunion and also efforts made by the authority as Coordinator for their reunion were futile. In the capacity of
Coordinator also same was recorded by this Court. As both parties agreed and admitted the terms in the memorandum of agreement, as true and correct and also as both parties have decided by virtue of said memorandum of agreement to obtain divorce, as such there is no chance for their reunion. As no other option for their reunion, in the light of circumstances and in view of memorandum of agreement this petition can be allowed. Hence this petition is allowed.
6.In the result, this petition is allowed, and in view of the terms of compromise, i) the marriage between the petitioner and respondent took place on 15052015 is hereby dissolved by decree of divorce, ii) That the petitioner paid
Rs.10,00,000/ (Rupees ten lakhs) towards permanent alimony to the respondent and the respondent is not entitled to claim, any more maintenance allowance from the petitioner in future and the said permanent alimony is received by the respondent, iii) The petitioner returned all articles to the respondent, belonged to respondent and also the respondent returned all articles said to have presented by the petitioner, at the time of their marriage.
Dictated to Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in
open Court, on this the 21st day of August, 2018.
Senior Civil Judge,
Nizamabad
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON EITHER SIDE
Nil
Senior Civil Judge,
Nizamabad