IN THE COURT OF THE IX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CITY CIVIL COURT:
HYDERABAD.
FRIDAY, DATED THIS THE 22 nd DAY OF MARCH, 2019
PRESENT: SRI. SYED QAYAM HUSSAIN,
IX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
OS No. 2432 of 2017
Between:-
K. Narsing Rao S/o; Late Ramchander Rao, aged about 46 years, Occu: Service, R/o: H.No.12-2-531/B, Gudimalkapur, Mehadipatnam, Hyderabad. ... Plaintif
A N D
1. Smt. Shoba Rani W/o: K.Narsing Rao, aged about 44 years, Occu: Household,
2. Kum. Tejabai D/o: smt. Shoba Rani, being minor represented by her natural Mother, Smt.Shobarani.
... Defendants
This suit coming on 22-3-2019 before me for final hearing, in the presence of Sri. S. Venkatesham, Counsel for the plaintifand of
Sri.B.Sunitha, counsel for the defendants and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this date, this court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
1.This Suit is filed by the plaintif seeking declaration that defendant no.2 is not born to defendant no.1 through him and she is not the daughter of the plaintif.
2.Brief averments in the plaint are mentioned infra:--
The plaintif got married defendant no.1 on 4-3-1999 at Jadi
( OS 2432/2017 )
Malkapur village, Zaheerabad Mandal, Medak district, Telangana State i.e., at the parents place of defendant no.1, as per the Hindu rites and customs and it was an arranged marriage. The marriage has not been consummated. The 1st defendant always showed resentment towards the plaintif and complained that she cannot live in poor locality of the plaintif i.e., slum area where the plaintif is living along with his mother.
The defendant no.1 was dreaming of lavish life but the plaintif could not aford the same due to his financial means. As such the defendant no.1 started quarreling with the plaintif. To pacify the domestic issues, the plaintif even took the 1st defendant to Tirupathi by flight which was beyond his financial capacity. In spite of all the best eforts of the plaintif, the defendant no.1 left the plaintif house after returning from
Tirupathi expressing her displeasure to lead a slum area life. Even at
Tirumala Hills the plaintif and defendant no.1 stayed separately due to religious sentiment that women should not be touched at a holy place.
Thus there was no access to the defendant no.1 by the plaintif.
The plaintif came to know that defendant no.1 gave birth to the 2nd defendant at her native place. The plaintif was shocked to know about the said news. It is highly impossible to believe that the 2nd defendant is born out of the wedlock of the plaintif and defendant no.1 herein. The marriage between the plaintif and the 1st defendant never consummated and as such there is no chance to believe the 2nd
( OS 2432/2017 )
defendant is the daughter of the plaintif.
The 1st defendant never lived with the plaintif and she left to her parent's house at Jadimalkapur without any intimation to the plaintif.
The plaintif made several requests to defendant no.1 to join his company but she refused. The plaintif was constrained to file petition for restitution of conjugal rights in O.P.No.619 of 2000 against the 1st defendant herein before the Family Court Judge, Hyderabad. After service of notice in the said OP, the 1st defendant started threatening this plaintif that she will file false criminal case against him and implicate in criminal cases and threatened to spoil the life of this plaintif. In the circumstances, the plaintif was forced to withdraw the
OP No.619 of 2000 and thereafter filed OP No.933 of 2000 on the file of
Family Court Judge, Hyderabad for the dissolution of marriage between the plaintif and the 1st defendant on the ground of cruelty. After due contest the said OP was dismissed. Meanwhile the 1st defendant filed
MC.No.6 of 2000 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Zaheerabad,
Medak district for maintenance and pursuant to the order passed in the said MC, the employer of the plaintif is deducting salary. Pending MC, the defendant no.1 also filed criminal cases under Section 498A IPC in
Crime No.36 of 2001 before the Zaheerabad police and the police filed final report saying that it is false case. However, the Hon'ble
Zaheerabad Court registered case as RC.No.731 of 2001 and
( OS 2432/2017 )
subsequently it was closed without any contest. Pending MC, this plaintif filed petition in No.1544 of 2004 for conducting DNA test on defendant no.2 and the same was dismissed. The 1st defendant also filed STC Nos.164/2002 and 54/2003 on baseless charges and the same were dismissed.
The plaintif never lived with defendant no.1 and the question of committing any ofense does not arise. There is no matrimonial relation between the plaintif and 1st defendant and as such the question of giving birth to defendant no.2 by plaintif does not arise. The divorce
OP filed by the plaintif was dismissed on 15-2-2003 by the Family Court,
Hyderabad, and the CMA preferred before the Hon'ble High Court in
CMA.No.2564/2003 was also dismissed on 8-10-2015 after 13 years. The
matter was carried to Supreme Court in SLA.No.2072 of 2015 which was also dismissed.
The plaintif filed divorce OP on the ground of desertion in
OP.No.533 of 2016 on the file of Family Court, Hyderabad which was
allowed on 27-8-2016 dissolving the marriage between the plaintif and 1st defendant. Earlier the plaintif also filed OP.No.945 of 2007 for conducting DNA test on the 2nd defendant and the said OP was dismissed on 27-10-2009 on contest and the plaintif preferred CRP
No.1881/2010 before the Hon'ble High Court which was also dismissed.
Even today the paternity of 2nd defendant is not known. The plaintif is
( OS 2432/2017 )
disputing the paternity of the 2nd defendant. Under these circumstances, the plaintif is ready to undergo any test to determine the paternity medically more particularly DNA test.
The cause of action arose on 4-3-1999 when marriage held between the plaintif and defendant no.1 and cause of action arose when the 2nd defendant no.2 born. The cause of action further arose on 27-8-29016 when the marriage between the plaintif and 1st defendant was dissolved and cause of action continues till the paternity of the 2nd defendant is determined. Hence, the present suit.
3.On receipt of summons, the defendants filed written
statement admitting marriage, but denying the various averments in
each and para of the plaint specifically and put the plaintif to strict
proof of the same, contending as under:--
The plaintif filed O.P.No.933 of 2000 against defendant no.1 for divorce on the file of Family Court at Hyderabad and in that petition he clearly admitted that due to wedlock one female child named as Teja was born after living four months happily. He also admitted in MC.No.6 of 2000 that defendant no.2 is his daughter. The plaintif filed
OP.No.533 of 29016 and obtained Ex-parte divorce decree by misleading
the Court. The defendant no.1 had taken steps to set aside the exparte order as the same was obtained by cheating and playing fraud and by misleading the Court.
( OS 2432/2017 )
After marriage both plaintif and defendant no.1 lived happily at
Hyderabad. Thereafter the defendant no.1 came to know that the plaintif is addicted to bad habits like consuming liquor and illicit intimacy with other ladies. The plaintif no.1 and his mother started ill treating defendant no.1 for additional dowry and beating her and even tried to set ablaze her by pouring kerosene oil. Upon the complaint made by mother and brother of defendant no.1, the police arrested the plaintif and kept him in police lock up. The plaintif admitted his fault and gave an undertaking that he shall take proper care of defendant no.1 and then only the police let him to go and defendant no.1 also accepted to stay with the plaintif because she was pregnant at that time. The plaintif himself brought defendant no.1 for delivery and left her in her parents house, that the delivery was done with Cesarean operation at Laxmi Nursing Home, Zahirabad which was borne by the parents of defendant no.1. Even after giving information about birth of defendant no.2 the plaintif did not visit the house of the parents of defendant no.1 to see defendant no.2 and in their absence claimed medical bills from the hospital in order to claim reimbursement from his office. The plaintif was so much upset and displeasured with the birth of his daughter with physical deformation, he declared that he does not want the defendants.
The plaintif filed O.P.No.619 of 2000 on the file of Family Court,
( OS 2432/2017 )
Hyderabad for restitution of conjugal rights and after receiving the notice the defendants appeared before the Court and immediately the plaintif had withdrawn the case. Thereafter the plaintif filed
O.P.No.933 of 2000 for divorce which was dismissed on merits and the appeals filed by the plaintif were also dismissed. Then the plaintif filed OP 533 of 2016 and obtained exparte decree of divorce by misleading the Court. The plaintif filed the present suit only to harass the defendants and to avoid payment of maintenance to the defendants. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
4.Basing on the rival pleadings, the following issues are framed for settlement by my learned predecessor : - -
1.Whether the plaintif is entitled for a declaration that defendant no.2 is not the daughter of the plaintif?
2.To what relief?
5.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintif and perused the material on record and the written arguments filed by the plaintif. In order to substantiate his case, the plaintif examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exhibits A1 to A5. Defendant no.1 filed her affidavit in chief as Dw.1 but she failed to appear before the court in spite of conditional orders and hence the evidence of Dw.1 was eschewed from consideration and thereafter defendant's evidence was closed. No
( OS 2432/2017 )
steps taken to reopen defendant's side evidence nor advanced any arguments.
Issue No.1:--
Whether the plaintif is entitled for a declaration that
defendant no.2 is not the daughter of the plaintif?
6.From the pleadings in the plaint, it is seen that the plaintif got married defendant no.1 on 4-3-1999 at Jadi Malkapur village,
Zaheerabad Mandal, Medak district, Telangana State i.e., at the parents place of defendant no.1, as per the Hindu rites and customs and it was an arranged marriage. It is the case of the plaintif that the marriage has not been consummated, that the 1st defendant always showed resentment towards the plaintif and complained that she cannot live in poor locality of the plaintif i.e., slum area where the plaintif is living along with his mother, that she was dreaming of lavish life but the plaintif could not aford the same due to his financial means. It is his further case that the defendant no.1 started quarreling with the plaintif, that to pacify the domestic issues, the plaintif even took the 1st defendant to Tirupathi by flight which was beyond his financial capacity and in spite of all the best eforts of the plaintif, the defendant no.1 left the plaintif house after returning from Tirupathi expressing her displeasure to lead a slum area life. It is his further case that he was shocked to know that the defendant no.1 gave birth to the 2nd defendant at her native place, that it is highly impossible to believe
( OS 2432/2017 )
that the 2nd defendant is born out of the wedlock of the plaintif and defendant no.1 herein since the marriage between the plaintifs and the 1st defendant never consummated and there is no chance to believe the 2nd defendant is the daughter of the plaintif. In order to substantiate his pleas, the plaintif examined himself as Pw.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5.
7.PW.1 filed his affidavit in chief reiterating the entire contents of the plaint and repeating the same would only prolix the judgment. In the cross examination by the learned counsel for the defendant, he denied the suggestion that after 17 years of birth of his daughter, he filed the present suit. He admitted that he filed OP.No.619 of 2000 against defendant no.1 for restitution of conjugal rights but added that he withdrawn the same due to coercion. He denied the suggestion that defendant no.1 filed counter in the said OP agreeing to join his company and as such he has not pressed the OP. He further admitted that he filed OP.No.933 of 2000 seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and the same was dismissed on contest, that aggrieved by the same he preferred appeal and thereafter SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and both were dismissed. He further admitted that it is mentioned in the order in CMA.No.2564 of 2003 that himself and defendant no.1 were blessed with female child during wedlock. However, he contended that he never admitted that himself and defendant no.1 were blessed
( OS 2432/2017 )
with female child during wedlock. It is elicited through him that defendants filed MC No. 6 of 2000 against him seeking maintenance and paying maintenance through his salary as per the order in the said
MC. He deposed his ignorance whether he mentioned in his counter in
MC that defendant no.2 is not his daughter. As per him he informed to his Advocate and he do not know whether he mentioned the same in his counter in Mc. He further admitted that he filed Crl.M.P.No.1544 of 2004 for sending defendant no.2 and OP.No.945 of 2007 to conduct
DNA test to him and defendant no.2 and the same were dismissed. It is elicited through him that defendant no.1 is staying at Gadi Malkapur since the date of separation till now, and her wife put her signature in telugu. He denied the suggestion that he got returned the summons served by managing the postal authorities by putting her signature in
English and got Exparte order in OP.No.533 of 2016 for divorce. He admitted that he and defendant no.1 went to Tirupati but added that they went to Tirupati for happy life but defendant no.1 never participated in sex with him. It is lastly elicited through him that he has not filed any adultery case against defendant no.1, that he has not given any representation to school authorities that he is not the father of defendant no.2 and to delete his name as father of defendant no.2. He denied the suggestion that he has not mentioned in OP.No.533 of 2016 that defendant no.2 is not his daughter and he is no way concerned with her.
( OS 2432/2017 )
8.Let us see the documentary evidence adduced by the plaintif.
Ex.A1 is certified copy of wedding card which disclose that the marriage of plaintif took place with defendant no.1 on 4-3-1999 at Gadi
Malkapur, Zaheerabad, Medak district.
Ex.A2 is certified copy of order in OP.No.933 of 2000 dated 15-2- 2003. The said OP is filed by the plaintif against defendant no.1 seeking divorce on cruelty. In the said order it is mentioned that in the averments in the petition it is mentioned that due to wed lock one female child named as Teja was born and that after living four months happily, change took place in the attitude of the respondent, etc. The said OP was dismissed by the Hon'ble Family Court on contest.
Ex.A3 is Certified copy of judgment in CMA.No.2564 of 2003 on the file of Hon'ble High Court of AP, filed against the order and decree in OP.No.933 of 2000 dated 15-2-2003 i.e., Ex.A2. The CMA was dismissed by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court vide judgment dated 8-10-2014. In the said Judgment also it is clearly mentioned that “it is alleged that the marriage of thepetitioner and the respondent took place on 4-3-1999 in Jadi Malkapur, Zaheerabad
Mandal, Medak district, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies and they were blessed with a female child during the wedlock. One of the instances of cruelty mentioned is that when the petitioner (plaintif herein) went to see his child her people abused him in filthy language
( OS 2432/2017 )
and beat him.” The Hon'ble High Court categorically observed that “Indisputably the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place on 4-3-1999 and they were blessed with a female child during the wedlock.
Ex.A4 is Certified Copy of orders in SLP No.7918 of 2015 dated 20- 7-2015 and SLP.No.20728 of 2015 dated 31-7-2015. Under order in SLP
No.7918 of 2015 dated 20-7-2015, the Hon'ble Supreme Court condoned the delay in filing appeal against the judgment and decree in
CMA.No.2574 of 2003 dated 8-10-2014 on the file of High Court of
Judicature, at Hyderabad, and under order in SLP.No.20728 of 2015
dated 31-7-2015, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed
against the judgment and decree in CMA.No.2574 of 2003 under Ex.A3.
Ex.A5 is Certified Copy of order and decree in O.P.No.533 of 2016
dated 27-8-2016, the Addl.Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, granted
decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of the plaintif with the defendant. The said order is exparte order.
9.As sated supra, the defendant not adduced any oral or documentary evidence though cross examined Pw.1. It is the specific case of defendant No.1 in the written statement and through the cross examination of Pw.1 that defendant no.2 is born to her through the plaintif and to avoid payment of maintenance as per the orders in
MC.No.6 of 2000 and to harass the defendants, having failed in all his
( OS 2432/2017 )
earlier attempts to establish that defendant no.2 is not his daughter, filed the present suit on false and frivolous grounds.No doubt it is settled principle of law that if any party abstained from the witness box and there is no statement on oath in support of his pleadings as set out in the written statement, an adverse inference has to be drawn against him. However, it is also settled principle of law that simply because the defendant No.1 failed to adduce any evidence in support of her version in the written statement, it does not straight away tantamount to conclude that the plaintif is entitled for the relief prayed for. The plaintif can succeed only on the strength of his own case and the weaknesses of the defendants will not help him. As seen above, the plaintif examined himself as Pw.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5.
10.A brief scan of the pleadings of both sides and oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintif disclose that there were cases filed by the parties against each other. The plaintif filed Ops seeking restitution of conjugal rights, for divorce on cruelty, and for subjecting the plaintif and defendant no.2 for DNA test. However, in all his attempts the plaintif could not succeed. It is only in OP.No.533 of 2016 the plaintif could succeed in getting decree for divorce, that too,
Ex-parte. It is the case of the defendant no.1 that by managing the postal authorities, the plaintif got returned the summons and obtained exparte decree. On the other hand, the defendants filed MC.No.6 of
( OS 2432/2017 )
2000 and the employer of the plaintif is deducting maintenance ordered by the Court in the said MC from the salary of the plaintif and paying to the defendants.
11.This question is whether defendant no.2 is not the ofshoot of the wedlock between the plaintif and defendant. Admittedly, the plaintif initially filed O.P.No. 619 of 2000 for restitution of conjugal rights and later withdrawn the same after the defendant No.1 appeared in the said OP. This court is not concerned with the reason for withdrawing the said OP. The said OP was filed after the birth of defendant No.2. If really the defendant no.2 is not born through him and she is not her daughter, he could not have filed the OP for restitution of conjugal rights.
12.After withdrawing the above OP No.619 of 2000, the plaintif filed
OP.No.933 of 2000 on the file of Family Court, Hyderabad, under Section
13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. The said OP was dismissed vide order dated 15-2-2003 which is marked as Ex.A3. In Ex.A3, the Hon'ble Family Court Judge, Hyderabad, categorically mentioned that the plaintif mentioned in the petition that due to wedlock, one female child named as Teja was born and that after living four months happily, change took place in the attitude of the respondent, i.e., defendant no.1 herein. It is the case of the plaintif in cross examination that he never mentioned in his petition that due to
( OS 2432/2017 )
wedlock one female child named as Teja was born. However, the plaintif has not filed a copy of the petition in OP.No.933 of 2000 to establish his plea that he never mentioned the same in the petition. If really the plaintif not mentioned in the petition that due to wedlock one female child named as Teja was born, he ought to have filed review petition in the said OP, which he has not done. Against the dismissal of
OP.No.933 of 2000, the plaintif filed CMA.No.2564 of 2003 before the
Hon'ble High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. A
Division Bench of our Hon'ble High Court vide judgment and decree in
Ex.A3 dismissed the CMA confirming the order of the Hon'ble Family
Court under Ex.A2. Our Hon'ble High Court at page 8 of Ex.A3 clearly observed as under:
“.....In fact the petitioner filed OP.No.619 of 2000 under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of
Conjugal Rights and got dismissed. If really the acts attributed to the respondent anterior to filing petition under Section 9 of the Act are true and created reasonable apprehension, he would not have invited the respondent to join him to lead marital life. Filing petition under Section 9 of the
Act and getting dismissal, itself is a positive proof that the acts attributed to the respondent did not create any reasonable apprehension that it is harmful or endangerous to live with the respondent....”
( OS 2432/2017 )
13.As stated supra, the plaintif filed OP under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights after birth of defendant no.2. If really defendant no.2 was involved in adultery and defendant no.2 is not his daughter, he could not have filed OP for restitution of conjugal right or at least filed OP.933 of 2000 filed for divorce on the ground of cruelty and adultery. It appears there is no whisper about the alleged illegitimacy of defendant no.2 either in the petition in OP.No.933 of 2000 or grounds of appeal in CMA.No.2564/2003. On the other hand the Hon'ble High Court categorically observed in the judgment under
Ex.A3 that “Indisputably the marriage between the petitioner and the
respondent took place on 4-3-1999 and they were blessed with a
female child during the wedlock”. The appeal filed against the judgment and decree of our Hon'ble High Court in CMA.No.2564/2003
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also dismissed under Ex.A4 and
thus the judgment and decree in Exs.A2 and A3 became final.
14.Further, it is not out of place to mention here that the plaintif filed OP.No.933 of 2000 under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 claiming divorce on the ground of cruelty said to have been meted by him in the hands of defendant no.1. The relevant portion of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act is extracted hereunder for ready reference:-- “13. Divorce- (1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of the Act, may, on a
( OS 2432/2017 )
petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party-
(i) has, after the solemnization of the marriage had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse; or (ia) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty; or...........”
Thus, the first and foremost sub clause (i) of sub section (1) of Section 13 clearly postulates that the husband can file a petition for decree of divorce on the ground that his wife had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than him. The plaintif has not filed OP under sub-clause (i) and filed only under sub clause (ia) of sub section (1) of
Section 13 of the Act, which would clearly go to show that the defendant no.1 had no sexual intercourse with any other person other than the plaintif and accepted the paternity of defendant no.2. If really defendant no.2 was not his daughter, the plaintif could have filed
OP.No.933 of 2000 under Section 13(1)(i) and 13(1)(ia) of the Act and
not only under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act only.
15.Further, as per the plaintif he also filed OP.No.945 of 2007 before the Family Court, Hyderabad, for conducting DNA test on the 2nd defendant and the same was dismissed on 27-10-2009 on contest and
CRP No.1881/2010 filed against the order in OP.No.945 of 2007 was
also dismissed. The plaintif filed review petition in Review
( OS 2432/2017 )
CRPMP.No.6558 of 2014 in CRP.No.1881 of 2010 which was also dismissed. Further the defendants filed MC.No.6 of 2000 and as per the orders in MC the plaintif is paying maintenance to defendants herein. As per the plaintif he filed MP.No.1544 of 2004 in the MC for conducting DNA test on defendant no.2 and the said MP was dismissed.
The plaintif has not challenged the order in CRP No.1881 of 2010. The plaintif/Pw.1 deposed his ignorance whether he has mentioned in his counter in MC that defendant no.2 is not his daughter. As per him, he informed to his Advocate. Copy of the counter filed in MC is not filed by the plaintif. However, the defendants filed certified copy of the counter affidavit filed by the plaintif in MC No.6 of 2000 along with written statement. A perusal of the said counter disclose that there is no whisper as regards the parenthood of defendant no.2. In MC the defendant no.1 has specifically averred in para 2 that the respondent (plaintif herein) brought the first petitioner (defendant No.1) herein for delivery and left her in her parents house, the delivery was done by
Cesarean operation at Laxmi Nursing Home Zahirabad which costed
Rs.8500/- to her parents. In the counter affidavit filed by the plaintif in the MC he denied the same and added that he has taken care of the health of 1st petitioner (defendant No.1 herein) and he spent about
Rs.20,000/- towards medical bills and hospital purpose. Further the plaintif has not given any representation to the school authorities of defendant no.2 that he is not the father of defendant no.2 and to delete
( OS 2432/2017 )
his name from the school record as father of defendant no.2. No adultery or cheating case is filed against defendant no.1. No doubt this court directed defendant no.1 to produce date of birth certificate of defendant no.2 but she has not produced the same. However, the plaintif has to prove his case on his own and not to depend on the weaknesses of the defendants. The plaintif ought to have obtained birth certificate from the school of defendant no.2 or obtained under
RTI and produced the same before the court.
16.Further, above all, the entire plaint and affidavit in chief of the plaintif/Pw.1 is silent as to for how many days the plaintif and defendant no.1 lived together after marriage, as to when they went to
Tirupathi and when they returned from Tirupathi and when defendant no.1 left his company. The entire pleadings are silent as to when he came to know about the birth of 2nd defendant. Except the date of marriage, there are no other dates mentioned in the plaint especially the date of birth of the 2nd defendant. For the first time in the affidavit filed in IA.No.1071 of 2018, the plaintif mentioned the date of birth of defendant No.2 and also in the written arguments as 23-7-2000 without any authenticated proof. The plaintif has not disputed the paternity of defendant no.2 at any point of time during the maintenance case proceedings or other proceedings. The plaintif has not adduced any acceptable piece of evidence to show that there was no access during
( OS 2432/2017 )
the period when defendant no.2 was conceived and delivered. Exs.A2 and A3 categorically disclose that defendant no.2 born out of wedlock.
17.For the foregoing reasons, I am of the firm opinion that the plaintif failed to establish with cogent and convincting evidence that defendant no.2 is not his daughter. Hence, this issue is answered against the plaintif.
Issue No.2:- To what relief?
18.In view of my finding on Issue No.1, the suit of the plaintif is liable to be dismissed.
IN THE RESULT, the suit of the plaintif is dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the, 22 nd day of March,
2019.
IX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined:
For plaintif For defendants: PW1 : K. Narsing Rao None.
Documents marked for plaintif:
Ex.A1 is certified copy of Wedding card dated 4-3-1999
Ex.A2 is certified copy of order in O.P.No.933 of 2000 dated 15-2-2003
( OS 2432/2017 )
Ex.A3 is certified copy of order in C.M.A. No.2564 of 2004 dt. 8-10-2014
Ex.A4 is certified copy of order in SLP.No.20728/2015 dated 31-7-2015
Ex.A5 is certified copy of judgment and decree in O.P.No.533 of 2016
dated 27-8-2016
Documents marked for defendants: Nil.
IX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT HYDERABAD.