Smt. T.Leelavathi

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: NARSIPATNAM

Present: Smt T.Leelavathi,

Senior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam.

Tuesday, the 25 th day of April, 2023

O.S.No.102/2018

Between :

Ravada Mani Reddi S/o Apparao Reddy, 50 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/at Rolugunta Village, Rolugunta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

...Plaintiff.

A n d :

Ravada Appalareddi, S/o Chandrayyareddi, 53 years, Business, R/at Ravikamatham Village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

...Defendant.

This suit has come on 10-04-2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri R.B.Naidu, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri S.Venkata Rao, Advocate for Defendant and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The suit is filed for recovery of Rs.5,05,000/- with future interest and suit costs on the foot of a promissory note from the defendant.

2.The averments of the plaint are that on 20.12.2015 defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff for his necessities and to invest in business and executed demand promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at Rs.24% p.a., either to plaintiff or to his order. Thereafter inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not make payment and postponed the same on one pretext or the other. Hence, this suit.

3.Defendant made his appearance through his counsel and filed written statement denying the allegations made against him in the plaint and further submitted that he did not borrow Rs.3,00,000-00 from the plaintiff on 20.11.2015 or executed promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. He submits that Ravada Suryakumari is the wife of plaintiff and that the father of the plaintiff and the father of the defendant are brothers. Defendant’s age is 62 years but not 53 years as mentioned in the plaint and that the defendant is 2 not a businessman and he is an agriculturist and his main source of livelihood is agriculture. There are land disputes between plaintiff and defendant since long time. Previously defendant borrowed amount from the financiers at

Kothakota and at that time, they took signatures of the defendant on empty blank promissory notes. Plaintiff taking advantage of the disputes with the defendant in collusion with the financiers created the suit promissory note for unlawful gain and to harass the defendant.

The defendant submits that plaintiff’s wife Suryakumari filed

O.S.36/2012 against the defendant on the foot of a promissory note on

29.03.2009 and the defendant contested the suit by filing his written statement and the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff on 05.01.2018.

Thereafter defendant preferred appeal on the file of Honourable District

Judge’s Court, Visakhapatnam along with delay condone petition in

I.A.1089/2018 and the same is pending. While so the defendant have no talking terms with plaintiffs family since from filing of O.S.36/2012. Therefore there is no question of defendant approaching plaintiff and borrowing amount on 20.11.2015 under the suit promissory note. He submits that the plaintiff colluding with scribe and attestors of the promissory note created it to harass the defendant and the plaintiff have no capacity to lend Rs.3,00,000/- to defendant and the defendant have no necessity to borrow such huge amount.

Hence, the defendant submits that the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial :

1) Whether the suit promissory note dt.20.11.2015 for

Rs.3,00,000/- is true, valid and supported by cash

consideration upon which the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of the suit amount from the defendant with interest as prayed for ?

2) If so, to what relief ?

3

5.During the course of trial plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and marked

Ex.A.1 and also examined scribe and attestor of Ex.A.1 as P.W.2 and P.W.3 on his behalf. On the other hand defendant examined himself as DW1 and also examined his son as DW2 on his behalf.

6.Heard on both sides.

7.Issue Nos.1 :

Plaintiff to prove the suit transaction, got examined himself as PW1 by reiterating the contents of the plaint in his examination in chief and marked the suit promissory note dated 20.11.2015 for Rs.3,00,000/- said to have been executed by the defendant as Ex.A.1. P.W.1 in his cross examination stated that defendant is his cousin brother and that plaintiff’s wife filed O.S.36/2012 basing on a promissory note dt.29.03.2009 against the defendant on the file of this court and the defendant contested the same and the suit was decreed in favour of his wife on 05.01.2018. He denied that himself and the defendant have land disputes and thereby he obtained the signatures of defendant in blank promissory note while he was in a drunken state and he fabricated the same and filed false suit against the defendant. He also admitted that defendant filed appeal on the judgment and decree in O.S.36/2012 and it is numbered as A.S.46/2019 on the file of XI Addl. District Judge’s Court,

Visakhapatnam. P.W.1 denied that their family have no talking terms with the defendant family since 2012 i.e., from the date of filing of O.S.36/2012, as such defendant did not execute Ex.A.1 borrowing amount from the plaintiff.

8.P.W.2 Allu Yerri Naidu and P.W.3 Surla Satyanarayana being scribe and attestor of Ex.A.1 deposed that the defendant borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A.1 in their presence. P.W.2 and 3 in their cross examination stood firm stating that defendant received Rs.3,00,000/- from plaintiff and executed Ex.A.1 in favour of the plaintiff.

4

9.To rebut the version of the plaintiff, defendant examined himself as

DW1. He reiterated the contents of written statement in his examination in chief and in his cross examination stated that he did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff Ex.A.1 is confronted to the witness and he identified his signature in it but stated that it was executed by him in favour of another person.

10.D.W.2 Ravada Venkata Kishore Reddy who is the son of DW1 filed his chief affidavit supporting the version of D.W.1 in all aspects and in his cross examination stated that he have not described about the land disputes between his family and the family of plaintiff and he have also not specified the name of the financier from whom plaintiff took promissory note of defendant.

11.As observed from the evidence available on record, the plaintiff by examining himself as P.W.1 and marking Ex.A.1, prima facie established that defendant borrowed Rs.3,00,000-00 from plaintiff and executed promissory note in favour of the plaintiff in the presence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. P.W.2 being the scribe and P.W.3 being the attrestor of Ex.A.1 supported the version of P.W.1 in all aspects stating that defendant borrowed Rs.3,00,000-00 from plaintiff and executed

Ex.A.1 subscribing his signature and thumb impression in Ex.A.1 in their presence. P.Ws.1 to 3 stood firm in their cross examination about the suit transaction. The defendant pleaded that he did not borrow Rs.3,00,000-00 from plaintiff or executed Ex.A.1 in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant examined himself as DW1 and asserted the same and also examined his son as D.W.2 who also deposed on the same lines as of D.W.1. It is the contention of the D.W.1 and D.W.2 that there are no talking terms between plaintiff’s family and defendant’s family due to land disputes and that plaintiff’s wife filed O.S.36/2012 against the defendant and since then 5 absolutely there are no cordial terms between the 2 families, as such there is no question of borrowing of amount by the defendant from the plaintiff and execution of Ex.A.1 in favour of plaintiff. Further it is also stated by D.W.1 and

D.W.2 that defendant executed a promissory note in favour of a financier and the plaintiff due to disputes with the defendant colluding with the financier fabricated the promissory note and filed false suit against the defendant for unlawful gain and to harass the defendant. But the defendant did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence to prove land disputes between his family and the plaintiff family and that he signed in a blank promissory note and issued it to the financier while borrowing amount. Therefore, mere pleadings without evidence does not prove case of the defendant.

12.In a suit filed for recovery of amount, the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that the defendant received amount and executed promissory note in his favour. The plaintiff by marking Ex.A.1 and examining the scribe and the attestor of Ex.A.1 as P.W.2 and P.W.3 proved the suit transaction. According to

Section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act, the presumption is in favour of the plaintiff, when he filed a Negotiable Instrument and the defendant admits his signature in it, it is presumed that consideration was passed under the instrument. But it is a rebuttable presumption, where the defendant by adducing cogent evidence prove that consideration was not passed under the

Negotiable Instrument. In the present case defendant except examining himself as DW.1 and his son as D.W.2, did not put forth any evidence to prove that he had disputes with the plaintiff and that he signed in a blank promissory note and issued it to a financier and it is taken by plaintiff, which is fabricated by the plaintiff and filed the present suit. When the defendant pleaded about the dispute and issuance of blank promissory note to a financier, he ought to have filed evidence to prove the same. Non filing of any evidence to prove his pleadings does not rebut the evidence of the plaintiff.

6

13.On the other hand the plaintiff by examining himself as P.W.1 and marking Ex.A.1 and further examining the scribe and the attestor of Ex.A.1 as

P.W.2 and P.W.3 proved the suit transaction. Though the defendant cross examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 at length, nothing is elicited infavour of the defendant or against the plaintiff. Therefore, in the light of my above discussion I hold that the suit promissory note is true, valid and supported by cash consideration. Accordingly this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

14Issue No.2 :

In view of my discussion and findings on issue No.1, this court holds that the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount with future interest and suit costs from the defendant.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff Rs.5,05,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs and five thousands only) together with future interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a., till its realization on the

principal sum of Rs.3,00,000-00.

Typed to my dictation by the Senior Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 25th day of April, 2023.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARSIPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(No. of witnesses examined) For Plaintiff :For Defendant :

P.W.1 : Ravada Mani Reddi D.W.1: Ravada Appala Reddi P.W.2 : Allu Yerri NaiduD.W.2: Ravada Venkata Kishore Reddi P.W.3 : Surla Satyanarayana

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff : Ex.A.1/ Original Suit promissory note dated 20.11.2015 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A.2/ Mee Seva copy of Sale deed dt.23.02.2013

For Defendant : NIL

SCJ/NRPM.

7

1

Fair Orderin H.M.O.P.No.17/23 dated 25-04-2023 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Narsipatnam.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: NARSIPATNAM

PRESENT: Smt. T. LEELAVATHI,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NARSIPATNAM.

TUESDAY , THIS THE 25 th DAY OF APRIL, 2023

H.M.O.P.No.17/2023

Between:

1. Kasimahanthi Nikitha Priyamvada W/o Dondaka Vamsi Patnaik, D/o Kasimahanthi Venkata Vijaya Kumar, Hindu, 27 years, Housewife, R/o D.No.15­2­65, Sai Enclave, 3rd lane, Prashanthi Nagar, Bankers Colony, Narsipatnam, Anakapalli District.

2.Donkada Vamsi Patnaik, S/o Donkada Matsyaraju Patnaik, Hindu, 29 years, Working as Software Engineer, R/o Plot No.30/A, Kamakshinagar, Vijayanagaram District. 

… Petitioners

And:

NIL … Respondent

This petition has come before me for final hearing on 24­04­2023 in the presence of Sri. K.Satyanarayana, Advocate for the Petitioners and no Respondent since OP is filed for divorce on mutual consent. Upon perusing the material available on record and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:­

O R D E R

1.The petition is filed under Section 13­B of Hindu Marriage Act to dissolve the marriage of the petitioners held on 11.02.2022 on mutual consent.

2. The brief averments in the petition are that, the marriage of the petitioners was performed by the elders as per Hindu rites and caste customs on 11.02.2022 at S.

Convention, Vizianagaram. 1st petitioner joined the 2nd petitioner at Vizianagaram and they both lived happily for only 10 days and they have no children. After that some severe differences and disputes arose between the petitioners. Thereafter the 1st petitioner was left with no alternative but to leave the marital home on 25.02.2022 and since then living with her parents at Narsipatnam. Then the matter was placed before elders and they tried to pacify the disputes between the petitioners but it was not fruitful. The 1st and 2nd petitioners have no love and affection on each other and

Senior Civil Judge,

Chodavaram

2

Fair Orderin H.M.O.P.No.17/23 dated 25-04-2023 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Narsipatnam.

reluctant to live together and the marriage between them is irretrivably broken down.

Thereafter the matter was placed before the elders of both sides and they have decided that there is no chance of their reunion and agreed to go for mutual consent divorce.

Then both the petitioners exchanged their belongings to each other, which have been presented by the parents of both the petitioners i.e., gold and silver articles on proper acknowledgment. Further an amount Rs.7,25,000/­ cash presented by the parents of 1st petitioner to the 2nd petitioner at the time of marriage shall be returned by the 2nd petitioner to the 1st petitioner at the time of final hearing of the petition and it is agreed by both petitioners. 2nd petitioner also agreed to pay an amount of

Rs.3,50,000/­ in cash to the 1st petitioner towards her permanent alimony as final settlement and it has to be paid on the date of final hearing of the petition. Both the petitioners agreed not to file any civil and criminal cases against each other and to relinquish all their rights against each other.

3.The petitioners submit that they have not filed any similar application in any other court of law and there is no collusion between them in filing this application. The petitioners submit that there is no possibility of reunion between the petitioners in present or in future. Hence, the petitioners filed the present petition for Divorce on mutual consent.

4. During the course of enquiry, both the petitioners, examined themselves as Pws 1 and 2 and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 i.e., Marriage Card as Ex.A.1, wedding Photo of the petitioners as Ex.A.2, Photocopy of Aadhar card of the petitioners 1 and 2 as

Ex.A.3 and Ex.A.4.

5.Heard on both sides.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the Petitioners are entitled for dissolution of their marriage as

prayed by them? 

POINT:

7.The petitioners by examining themselves as Pws 1 and 2 and marking Ex.A.1 to

Ex.A.4 established that their marriage was performed according to Hindu rites and caste customs on 11.02.2022 at S.Convention, Vizianagaram. 1st petitioner joined the 2nd petitioner at Vizianagaram and they both lived happily for only 10 days and they

Senior Civil Judge,

Chodavaram

3

Fair Orderin H.M.O.P.No.17/23 dated 25-04-2023 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Narsipatnam.

have no children. After that some severe differences and disputes arose between the petitioners. Thereafter the 1st petitioner was left with no alternative but to leave the marital home on 25.02.2022 and since then she is living with her parents at

Narsipatnam. Then the matter was placed before elders and they tried to pacify the disputes between the petitioners but it was not fruitful. The 1st and 2nd petitioners have no love and affection on each other and reluctant to live together and the marriage between them is irretrievably broken down. Thereafter the matter was placed before the elders of both sides and they have decided that there is no chance of their reunion and agreed to go for mutual consent divorce.

Then both the petitioners exchanged their belongings to each other, which have been presented by the parents of both the petitioners i.e., gold and silver articles on proper acknowledgment. Further an amount of Rs.7,25,000/­ cash presented by the parents of 1st petitioner to the 2nd petitioner at the time of marriage shall be returned by the 2nd petitioner to the 1st petitioner at the time of final hearing of the petition and it is agreed by both petitioners. 2nd petitioner also agreed to pay an amount of

Rs.3,50,000/­ in cash to the 1st petitioner towards her permanent alimony as final settlement and it has to be paid on the date of final hearing of the petition. Both the petitioners agreed not to file any civil and criminal cases against each other and to relinquish all their rights against each other.

8.The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marking Exs.A.1 and A2 before the Court established that their marriage was performed as per Hindu rights and caste customs.

It is very clear from their evidence, that they both hardly lived together for only 10 days and there after severe differences and disputes arose between them which could not be resolved, even after placing the matter before elders. The marriage between the petitioners is broken and they both are living separately from 25.02.2022 till date and there is no cohabitation between them. However, this Court tried to re­conciliate the disputes between the petitioners granting 6 months observation time. But the petitioners filed petitions to dispense the 6 months observation period and to advance the petition to a nearer date to enable the 1st petitioner to move to U.S.A. for her further education and that the petitioners have settled all other issues as agreed between them. Therefore, the petition is posted to an advance date dispensing 6

Senior Civil Judge,

Chodavaram

4

Fair Orderin H.M.O.P.No.17/23 dated 25-04-2023 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Narsipatnam.

months observation period and both the petitioners along with their parents and elders who appeared before the Court, stated that there is no scope of re­union between the petitioners and they are living separately for a long time. Further the 2nd petitioner paid the amount agreed between them to the 1st petitioner in the open court. Therefore, in the light of my above discussion, this Court holds that the marriage between the petitioners is broken and there is no chance of their re­union to lead happy marital life.

Moreover the petitioners have also agreed with terms between them as mentioned in their petition and obliged the same. In these circumstances, this Court holds that the petitioners are entitled for dissolution of their marriage on mutual consent as prayed by them.

In the result, the petition is allowed and the marriage held between the petitioners 1 and 2 on 11.02.2022 at S.Convention, Vizianagaram, is hereby dissolved by decree of divorce.

Typed to my dictation by Senior Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 25 th day of April, 2023.

Senior Civil Judge,

Narsipatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Number of witnesses examined for Petitioners

Pw­1: Kasimahanthi Nikitha Priyamvada Pw­2: Dondada Vamsi Patnaik

Number of witnesses examined for Respondent

None (Mutual consent) Number of exhibits marked for Petitioners

Ex.A.1: Wedding card Ex.A.2: Marriage Photo Ex.A.3: Photocopy of Aadhar card of the 1st petitioner Ex.A.4. Photocopy of Aadhar card of the 2nd petitioner

Number of exhibits marked for Respondent Nil (Mutual consent)

Senior Civil Judge,

Narsipatnam.

Senior Civil Judge,

Chodavaram

5

Fair Orderin H.M.O.P.No.17/23 dated 25-04-2023 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Narsipatnam.

Senior Civil Judge,

Chodavaram

1

Fair Order

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: NARSIPATNAM

Present: Smt. T. Leelavathi,

Senior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam.

FRIDAY, THIS THE 24 th DAY OF APRIL, 2023

H.M.O.P.No.42/2022

Between:

1. Samala Ganesh, S/o Suribabu, Age 30 years, Hindu, Private works and resident of Komaravolu Village, Rolugunta Mandal, Narsipatnam, Aadhar Card No.5583 7709 3969, Mobile No.7013995640.

2. Samala Sravani, W/o Ganesh, D/o (late) Vanapalli Peddiraju, Hindu, Age 24 years, Presently resident of 9­1­52/1, Ganesh Nagar, New Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, Aadhar No.5167 0153 4321, Mobile No.9398557447.

… Petitioners

This petition has come before me for final hearing on 18.04.2023, in the presence of Smt. B. Yasodhara Vedamani and Sri K. V. Ramana, Advocates for the Petitioners and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:­

O R D E R

1.The petition is filed under Section 13­B of Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage held between the petitioners 1 and 2 on 13.08.2020.

2.The brief averments in the petition are that: The marriage of the petitioners was performed as per Hindu Rites and Caste customs on 13.08.2020 at the residence of the 1st petitioner at Komaravolu Village, Rolugunta Mandal,

Narsipatnam as per Hindu, rites and customs. Immediately after solemnization of marriage, the same was consummated and out of wedlock, they have no issues. 

The 2nd petitioner is hard­of­hearing (deaf and dumb) since her childhood and however the marriage was solemnized between the petitioners. But from the inception, the marriage between them became insupportable because of discord or complicit personalities of the petitioners which destroyed the legitimate ends of 2 Fair Order marriage relationship and there is no hope of reconciliation and both of them are living separately since 15.01.2021. The matter was placed before family members and village elders and many mediations were made for their re­union but no use.

Even after that the petitioners could not lead their marital life happily. Therefore, the 2nd petitioner went to her parents house and living there and there is no possibility of happy marital life between them. Further inspite of their best efforts, they could not reconcile their differences.

Thus they came to a conclusion to go for mutual consent divorce in the presence of elders and family members with the following terms and conditions:

1) The both parties agreed to get dissolve their marriage dt.13.08.2020 by way of decree of divorce and to live separately hereinafter;

2)It was agreed mutually that the 1st petitioner shall pay an amount of

Rs.5,00,000/­ towards permanent alimony to the 2nd petitioner. Upon receiving the said amount, the 2nd petitioner shall not make any claim against the 1st petitioner either for movable or immovable properties whether self­acquired or ancestral of the 1st petitioner in future.

3) The 1st petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.1,50,000/­ in cash and

Rs.1,50,000/­ by way of Demand Draft No.787980 to the 2nd petitioner on this day ie., 13.10.2022 and the 2nd petitioner received the amount of Rs.3,00,000/­.

4) It was mutually agreed that the balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/­ towards permanent alimony shall be paid to the 2nd petitioner on the final date of hearing of this petition,

5) The 2nd petitioner agreed to withdraw her cases in Cr.No.500/2022 filed under Section 498­A of IPC that was pending before the VIII Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka.

3 Fair Order

6) Both the petitioners agreed to lead their life independently and are at liberty to remarry and shall not interfere with either party’s life and will not file any cases against each other in future.

3.Both the petitioners submitted that there is no chance of their re­union and marriage between them is broken down and prays to dissolve their marriage.

4.During the course of enquiry petitioners got examined themselves as PW1 and PW2 and marked Ex.A.1 to Ex. A.4.

5.Heard the counsel for petitioners. 

6.The point for consideration is:

Whether the petitioners are entitled for dissolution of their marriage 

as prayed for ?

POINT:

7.The petitioners examined themselves as PW­1 and PW­2 and reiterated the contents of the petition in their examination in chief and marked the wedding card as Ex.A.1, Marriage photos 3 in number as Ex.A.2, the Xerox copy of Aadhar card of the petitioner No.1 and 2 as Ex.A.3 and Ex.A.4.

8.As observed from the evidence available on record before the court it is clear from Ex.A.1 and A.2 that the marriage of the petitioners was performed according to Hindu rites and caste customs. Thereafter 2nd petitioner joined the 1st petitioner at his house and they both lead marital life for some period and they have no issues, but they were not happy due to differences of opinions and mentalities, which could not be resolved. Further the matter was placed before elders and several mediations were taken place but there is no possibility for them to lead happy marital life. Thus they have decided to go for mutual consent divorce. Further the petitioners settled the matter before elders, it was agreed mutually that the 1st petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/­ towards permanent alimony to the 2nd petitioner. Upon receiving the said amount, the 2nd 4 Fair Order petitioner shall not make any claim against the 1st petitioner either for movable or immovable properties whether self­acquired or ancestral. The 1st petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.1,50,000/­ in cash and Rs.1,50,000/­ by way of Demand

Draft No.787980 dt 13.10.2022 and balance sum of Rs.2,00,000/­ towards permanent alimony paid to the 2nd petitioner on the final date of hearing of this petition. The 2nd petitioner agreed to withdraw the case in Cr.No.500/2022 filed under Section 498­A of IPC that was pending before the VIII Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka. Both the petitioners agreed to lead their life independently and are at liberty to remarry and shall not interfere with either party’s life and will not file any cases against each other in future. Therefore, my discussion supra clearly reveals that the petitioners are living separately since 15.01.2021 and the marriage between them is broken down and there is no chance of their re­union. Hence, the petitioners are entitled for dissolution of their marriage as prayed for.

In the result, the petition is allowed and the marriage held between petitioners 1 and 2 on 13.08.2020 at the residence of 1st petitioner at Komaravolu

Village, Rolugunta Mandal, Narsipatnam is hereby dissolved by decree of divorce. 

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 24 th day of April, 2023.

Senior Civil Judge

Narsipatnam 5 Fair Order

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Number of witnesses examined for Petitioners

For Petitioners :

Pw­1: Samala Ganesh PW2: Samala Sravani

Number of exhibits marked for Petitioners 

Ex.A.1: Wedding Card. Ex.A.2: Wedding photos 3 in number. Ex.A.3: Xerox copy of Aadhar Card of 1st Petitioner. Ex.A.4: Xerox copy of Aadhar Card of 2nd Petitioner.

SCJ/NRPM.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: NARSIPATNAM

Present: Smt. T. Leelavathi,

Senior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam.

MONDAY, THIS THE 24 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

H.M.O.P.No.14/2023

Between:

Duvvada Anita Bhavani, W/o Durga Prasad, 23 years, Hindu, Housewife, R/o Gunupudi Village, Nathavaram Mandal, Anakapalli (Visakhapatnam) District. … Petitioner

AND :

Duvvada Durga Prasad, S/o Nageswara Rao, 31 years, Hindu, Carpenter, R/o Chammachinta Village, Nathavaram Mandal, Anakapalli (Visakhapatnm) District. … Respondent

This petition has come before me for final hearing on 18.04.2023 in the presence of Sri S.V.V.Prasad, Advocate for the Petitioner. The respondent called absent and set exparte, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:­

O R D E R

1.The petition is filed under Section 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage held between the petitioner and respondent on 01.12.2019.

2.The brief averments in the petition are that:

the marriage of the petitioner was performed with respondent on 01.12.2019 at the petitioner’s house Gunupudi Village as per Hindu rites and caste customs by the parents and elders of both sides. After marriage petitioner joined respondent and they both lived happily for some time but they were not blessed with children. While so, respondent do carpenter work used to come home late nights in drunken state and abused the petitioner in filthy language and beat her indiscriminately without fault. Petitioner tolerated all the harassment made by the respondent with a fond hope that the respondent will change his attitude and look after her with love and affection. But the respondent did not change his attitude towards the petitioner and further harassed her by suspecting her fidelity, as such due to unbearable harassment, the petitioner left to her parents house and residing there. The dispute was raised before elders by name Ramoju Satyanarayana, Vemala

Suribabu, Lakkoju Sanyasirao and Marthurthi Siva and they chastised the respondent to mend his behavior and take the petitioner to his conjugal society. But the respondent did not heed the words of the elders or took the petitioner to his conjugal fold. Petitioner submits that she is living at the mercy of her parents and that the respondent harassed her mentally and physically and deserted her, hence she is constrained to file the present petition for divorce.

3.The notices are duly served on the respondent but he failed to appear before the court and was set exparte.

 4.The petitioner to prove her case got examined herself as PW1 and marked Ex.A.1 to Ex. A.3 on her behalf.

5.Heard the counsel for petitioner.

6.The point for consideration is:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for dissolution of her marriage with

respondent on the grounds of desertion and cruelty?

POINT:

7.The petitioner to prove her case got examined herself as PW­1 and she reiterated the contents of the petition in her examination in chief and marked the Wedding Card as

Ex.A.1, Marriage photos 3 in number as Ex.A.2 and the xerox copy of Aadhar card of the petitioner as Ex.A.3.

8.As observed from the evidence available on record before the court it is clear from

Ex.A.1 and A.2 that the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was performed according to Hindu rites and caste customs. Thereafter petitioner joined the respondent and their marriage was consummated but they have no children. While so, respondent being a carpenter used to come home late nights in drunken state and abused the petitioner in filthy language and beat her indiscriminately without fault of her. Petitioner tolerated all the harassment made by the respondent with a fond hope that the respondent will change his attitude and look after her with love and affection. But the respondent did not change his attitude towards the petitioner and further harassed her by suspecting her fidelity, as such due to unbearable harassment, the petitioner left to her parents house and residing there. The dispute was raised before elders by name Ramoju

Satyanarayana, Vemala Suribabu, Lakkoju Sanyasirao and Marthurthi Siva and they chastised the respondent to mend his behavior and take the petitioner to his conjugal society. But the respondent did not heed the words of the elders or took the petitioner to his conjugal fold. This version of the petitioner proved that she was harassed mentally and physically by the respondent and was deserted by him. The evidence of petitioner as

P.W.1 remained unchallenged and un­rebutted and there is nothing before this court to disbelieve the version of the petitioner.

9.Therefore, my discussion supra reveals that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is broken and there is no possibility for their re­union and that the petitioner was subjected to cruelty and deserted by the respondent. Therefore, in the light of my above discussion I hold that the petitioner is entitled for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent as prayed for.

 In the result, the petition is allowed and the marriage held between petitioner and the respondent on 01.12.2019 at the petitioner’s house at Gunupudi Village is hereby dissolved by decree of divorce. 

Both parties do bear their own costs. 

Typed to my dictation by the Senior Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 24 th day of April, 2023.

Senior Civil Judge

Narsipatnam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Number of witnesses examined for Petitioner

For Petitioner :

Pw­1: Duvvada Anita Bhavani

Number of witnesses examined for Respondent None.

Number of exhibits marked for Petitioner Ex.A.1: Wedding Card. Ex.A.2: Wedding photos 3 in number Xerox copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner Ex.A.3: Xerox copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner SCJ/NRPM

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: NARSIPATNAM

Present: Smt.T.Leelavathi 

Senior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam 

Monday, this the 24 th day of April, 2023

H.M.O.P. No.13/2022

Between:

Ganisetti Ganesh, S/o Late Apparao, Hindu, Age 42 years, R/o Tadapala Village, Tutipala Post, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, Aadhar No.6835 1443 5408.

…Petitioner

And 

Ganisetti (Desamsetti) Krishnaveni, W/o Ganesh, Hindu, Age 30 years, Household duties and working in school at Ukkunagaram, R/o Quarter No.327/E, Sector ­11, Ukkunagaram, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District, Aadhar No.5413 4184 8675.

…Respondent

This petition has come up before me on 24­4­2023, in the presence of Sri K. Appalanaidu, Advocate for the petitioner. Sri M. Prabhakar, Advocate for the Respondent, and the same having been stood over for consideration till this date, this court delivers the following;

O R D E R

1)This is a petition filed praying the court to dissolve the marriage dated 20.04.2008 held between the petitioner and respondent and costs of the petition.

2)Both parties present. Joint memo filed stating that both parties are living together happily. Memo recorded. Accordingly the petition is dismissed as the parties are living together happily.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 24 th day of April, 2023.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NARSIPATNAM

2

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Number of witnesses examined for Petitioners

None

Number of witnesses examined for Respondent

None

Number of exhibits marked for Petitioners

- NIL -

Number of exhibits marked for Respondent

- Nil -

Senior Civil Judge,

Narsipatnam.

3

Date of presentation: 23­04­2022 Date of filing: 23.04.2022

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: NARSIPATNAM

Present: Smt.T.Leelavathi 

Senior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam. 

Monday, this the 24 th day of April, 2023

H.M.O.P. No.13/2022

Between:

Ganisetti Ganesh, S/o Late Apparao, Hindu, Age 42 years, R/o Tadapala Village, Tutipala Post, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, Aadhar No.6835 1443 5408.

…Petitioner

And 

Ganisetti (Desamsetti) Krishnaveni, W/o Ganesh, Hindu, Age 30 years, Household duties and working in school at Ukkunagaram, R/o Quarter No.327/E, Sector ­11, Ukkunagaram, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District, Aadhar No.5413 4184 8675.

…Respondent

This is a petition filed praying the court to dissolve the marriage dated 20.04.2008 held between the petitioner and respondent and costs of the petition.

A fixed C.F of Rs.10/­ is affixed on the petition under Art.I (vii) of Sch.II of A.P.C.F and S.V.Act.

This petition has come up before me on 24­4­2023, in the presence of Sri K. Appalanaidu, Advocate for the petitioner. Sri M. Prabhakar, Advocate for the Respondent, and the same having been stood over for consideration till this date, this court doth order and 

D E C R E E

1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as the parties are living together happily; and 

2) that there be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 24th day of April, 2023.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NARSIPATNAM

4

Memorandum of costs

No cost memo is filed on either side.

S.C.J./NRPM.

5