Smt T.Rajyalakshmi

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DHARMAVARAM

Present:- Smt T.Rajya Lakshmi,

Senior Civil Judge, Dharmavaram

Thursday, the 25th day of April, 2019

E.P.53/2017 in O.S.No. 80/2016

Between:

A. Maruthi, S/o Lakshminarayana, Hindu, aged about 33 years,

Business, Resident of D.No.27/571, Durga Nagar, Dharmavaram town and Mandal, Ananthapuramu District.

... Petitioner/D.Hr.

And

A. Nagaraju, S/o Anjaneyulu, aged about 39 years, Hindu,

Business, residing at D.No.18/717-1, Bramhin Street,

Dharmavaram town and Mandal, Ananthapuramu District.

... Respondent/ J.Dr.

This petition is coming on 22-4-2019 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri A.Krishna Mohan and Sri K.Bhaskar, Advocates for the petitioner/D.Hr and of Sri D.L.N.Murthy, Advocate for the respondent/J.Dr., and the matter having stood over for consideration, this Court made the following:-

ORDER

1. The D.Hr/Plaintiff filed suit on 2-9-2016 against the

J.Dr/Defendant for recovery of Rs.3,44,000/- with future interest and costs on the strength of promissory notes and obtained decree on 13.7.2017.

2. Now the D.Hr filed Execution Petition seeking arrest of J.Dr on the ground that the decree is unsatisfied by J.Dr inspite of having sufficient means.

It is submitted in the petition affidavit that the J.Dr is living by business and running Venkata Sai Photo studio, at Gandhi Nagar,

Dharmavaram and he is getting Rs.30,000/- per month and he is also doing real estate business and through his business he is getting Rs.5,00,000/- per annum. J.Dr is having sufficient means to pay E.P amount but he is evading to pay the decree amount. Inspite of oral demands made by the petitioner, J.Dr has not paid anything towards decree amount. Hence, D.Hr 2 constrained to file E.P seeking arrest of J.Dr and send him to civil prison for realization of E.P amount.

3. Counter is filed on behalf of J.Dr denying the petition affidavit averments that J.Dr is living by business and running Venkata Sai Photo

Studio at Gandhi nagar, Dharmavaram and getting Rs.30,000/-per month and he is doing real estate business and getting Rs.5,00,000/- per annum as false and it is submitted that the owner of Venkata Sai Studio, Gandhi nagar, Dharmavaram is A.Ramana and said A.Ramana is running said

Venkata Sai Studio and he issued bills as owner of the said studio. It is further submitted that J.Dr is having large family and there is no income to eke out his livelihood. J.Dr has no income at present to pay the E.P debt.

J.Dr is suffering from serious ailments and he cannot be sent to civil prison.

The petition as framed is not maintainable. J.Dr has no movable and immovable property in his name and he is not doing any business and he has no means to pay the E.P amount. There are no sufficient grounds to allow the petition. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.

4. During enquiry, on behalf of D.Hr, P.W.1 and P.W.2 are examined and no documents are marked. On behalf of J.Dr, R.W.1 and

R.W.2 are examined and Exs.R.1 to R.3 are marked.

5. Heard.

6. The learned counsel for D.Hr submitted that J.Dr is owner of

Venkata Sai Photo Studio situated at Gandhi Nagar, Dharmavaram and has been running it and getting sufficient income from the said studio and only to evade E.P amount, J.Dr took false defence that one A.Ramana is owner of

Venkata Sai photo studio and he is running the said studio. Infact

A.Ramana is brother-in-law of J.Dr and J.Dr got issued Exs.R.2 and R.3 receipts by A.Ramana and filed those receipts and got examined the said

A.Ramana as if the said A.Ramana is owner of Venkata Sai Studio. He further submitted that J.Dr admitted that he is a photographer and attending marriages for photographing the marriage and the same itself 3 suggests the J.Dr is owner of Venkata Sai Photo Studio and running it and photographing the marriages and said admitted evidence itself prove that he has source of income and has means and he further submitted that inspite of having sufficient income, he intentionally evading to pay the E.P. amount inspite of oral demands made by D.Hr and thereby neglected to pay decree amount and therefore, prayed to issue arrest warrants against J.Dr and send him to civil prison for realization of E.P amount.

7. The learned counsel for J.Dr submitted that according to D.Hr.

J.Dr is doing chit business and running Venkata Sai Studio. But D.Hr himself admitted that J.Dr is not doing real estate business. So his version that J.Dr is doing real estate business is incorrect and with regard to running Venkata Sai Studio by J.Dr, J.Dr by adducing his evidence and evidence of A.Ramana proved that Venkata Sai Studio is belonging to

A.Ramana and he issued Exs.R.2 and R.3 receipts as a proprietor or owner of said studio. So J.Dr is not running photo studio and he is no way connected with the said studio. So D.Hr failed to prove his version and thereby the means of J.Dr. He further submitted that P.W.2 did not identify the J.Dr and Ex.R.1 photo identified by P.W.2 as of J.Dr is not photograph of

J.Dr and same is proved by the evidence of R.W.2 A.Ramana and so P.W.2’s evidence cannot be taken into consideration. The total burden is on the

D.Hr to prove the means of J.Dr and negligence on the part of J.Dr for non payment of decree amount and when D.Hr failed to prove these two, no order of arrest can be passed against J.Dr. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the E.P.

8. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the D.Hr is entitled for the relief prayed in the

petition ?

9. Point::- It is undisputed fact that D.Hr filed suit against J.Dr for recovery of amount based on pronotes and obtained decree on 13.7.2017.

It is also not in dispute that the J.Dr did not satisfy the decree so far. So

D.Hr filed this E.P seeking arrest of J.Dr for realization of decree amount stating that inspite of having means, J.Dr is evading to pay the decree 4 amount. J.Dr is denying his means. In E.P., seeking arrest of J.Dr, D.Hr must prove that J.Dr has means to pay the decretal amount since the date of decree and yet refused or neglected to pay the same, to detain him in prison, as observed in the decision between Gubbala Rama Rao Vs.

Kopanathi Suryanarayana reported in 2007 (4) ALT 151, relied on by

J.Dr.

D.Hr examined as P.W.1 reiterated that J.Dr is living by business and running Venkata Sai Photo Studio at Gandhi Nagar, Dharmavaram and getting Rs.30,000/- per month and he is also doing real estate business and getting Rs.50,000;/- per annum and so he is having sufficient means to pay the E.P. amount and inspite of it, he failed to pay the amount and evading to pay it.

D.Hr also examined one S.Mahesh as P.W.2. P.W.2 deposed that J.Dr is living by business and running Venkata Sai Photo Studio at Gandhi

Nagar, Dharmavaram and getting Rs.30,000/- per month and J.Dr is also doing real estate business and getting Rs.50,000/- per annum and has sufficient means to pay the E.P. amount to the petitioner and inspite of demands made by the petitioner, J.Dr has not paid anything towards E.P.

amount.

Thus, the evidence of D.Hr/P.W.1 and P.W.2 is that J.Dr is doing real estate business and running Venkata Sai Photo Studio at Dharmavaram and getting income. D.Hr, who stated that J.Dr is doing real estate business and getting income of Rs.50,000/- per annum, stated in his cross- examination that he does not know whether J.Dr is doing real estate business also. This evidence of D.Hr denies that J.,Dr is doing real estate business because if really J.Dr is doing real estate business, D.Hr would have stated that J.Dr is doing real estate business instead of denying his knowledge. Then coming to the next version of D.Hr that J.Dr is running

Venkata Sai Photo Studio at Gandhi Nagar, Dharmavaram. D.Hr asserted in cross-examination that J.Dr is running Venkata Sai Photo Studio and 5 studio stands in the name of J.Dr’s son and it is elicited from J.Dr that his son name is Venkata Sai. J.Dr suggested to P.W.1 that he has no photo studio and he confronted two bills standing in the name of Venkata Sai

Digital Studio and Video and elicited through him that the said bills show that the proprietor of Venkata Sai Photo Studio is A.Ramana. J.Dr examined as R.W.1 asserted that Venkata Sai Photo Studio’s owner is

A.Ramana and marked two bills standing in the name of Sri Venkata Sai

Photo Studio issued by A.V.Ramana as Exs.R.2 and R.3 and he got summoned the said A.V.Ramana and examined him as R.W.2. R.W.2 deposed that he has been running photo studio in the name and style of

Venkata Sai Photo Studio at Gandhi Nagar, Dharmavaram since 15 years and he is owner of said photo studio. Exs.R.2 and R.3 bills are standing in the name of his photo studio and are issued by him and the income derived from the photo studio is of him and none are having any right over the said income. He further deposed that J.Dr is worker in his photo studio and J.Dr is now not working under him. J.Dr confronted Ex.R.1 photo which is marked through P.W.2 and elicited through R.w.2 that it does not belong to

J.Dr. It is suggested by D.Hr that J.Dr is owner of Venkata Sai Photo

Studio and he is running it and that A.V.Ramana is brother in law of J.Dr and J.Dr got issued Exs.R.2 and R.3 receipts by his brother in law

A.V.Ramana purposefully. J.Dr/R.W.1 and R.W.2 denied these suggestions.

From the evidence of both sides, the fact remains that Venkata Sai

Photo Studio is existing at Gandhi Nagar, Dharmavaram town and it is being run but while D.Hr states that J.Dr is the owner of said studio and he is running it, J.Dr states that A.V.Ramana is the owner of said studio and running it and that he is no way concerned with that studio. J.Dr/R.W.1 in his cross-examination stated that he closed his Venkata Sai Photo Studio at

Gandhi Nagar, Dharmavaram about 5 years back. From this evidence of

J.Dr, it can be said that J.Dr is admitting that Venkata Sai Photo Studio belonged to him but his contention is that he closed his Venkata Sai Photo 6

Studio about 5 years back. It is the not the case of J.Dr that he closed his

Venkata Sai Photo Studio about 5 years back and after that A.V.Ramana got it and became owner of it. If really the J.Dr closed his Venkata Sai Photo

Studio about 5 years back, he would have stated the same in his counter and evidence and would have suggested to D.Hr but he did not do so. In the absence of such version, it cannot be accepted that he closed his studio.

Further R.W.2 A.V.Ramana in his evidence stated that he has been running photo studio in the name and style of Venkata Sai Photo Studio at Gandhi

Nagar, Dharmavaram since 15 years and in the cross-examination, he deposed that J.Dr worked under him for a period of 3 years and he left his studio about10 years back. When according to J.Dr, the Venkata Sai Photo

Studio belonged to him and he closed his studio about 5 years back, it can be said that the evidence of R.W.2 that he has been running Venkata Sai

Photo Studio since 15 years and that J.Dr worked under him for 3 years prior to 10 years is false one because when J.Dr closed his Venkata Sai

Photo Studio about 5 years back, the question of R.W.2 becoming owner of said studio and running it since 15 years and J.Dr working for 3 years under him prior to 10 years does not arise. This itself shows that J.Dr invented false story regarding ownership over the Venkata Sai Photo Studio.

Further J.Dr filed two bills /receipts dt.25.7.2017 and 27.2.2018 marked as

Exs.R.2 and R.3, along with his counter. A perusal of Exs.R.2 and R.3 bills reveals that they are carbon copies issued by A.V.Ramana in favour of Javid and Obulappa. The carbon bills will be with the owner of studio. The very having custody of carbon copies i.e., Exs.R.2 and R.3 by J.Dr itself suggests that he is owner of Venkata Sai Photo Studio and has been running it and as such those receipts are in his custody and the same probablizes the version of D.Hr that J.Dr got issued those two receipts by A.V.Ramana. So here it can safely said that Venkata Sai Photo Studio is belonging to J.Dr and he is running the said studio. J.Dr in his cross admitted that he is a photographer and he goes to marriages to photograph the function and he 7 photographs four or five marriages per year. When J.Dr is the owner of

Venkata Sai Photo Studio and running it and goes to marriages to photograph, it can be said that he has source of income and has got sufficient means.

D.Hr asserted in his evidence that inspite of several oral demands made by him, the J.Dr did not pay anything towards the decree amount to the D.Hr. D.Hr. Admittedly decree is passed on 13.7.2017. Now were are in the year 2019 April, nearly 1 ½ years has been elapsed. Non payment of any amount by J.Dr so far inspite of having means itself shows that there is intentional default and negligence on the part of J.Dr in discharge of the decretal amount. Therefore, means of J.Dr and his intentional default and negligence are established. Therefore, J.Dr is liable for arrest and civil prison for realization of E.P. amount. Therefore, the point is answered in favour of petitioner.

10. In the result, the E.P. is allowed with costs. Issue arrest warrants against J.Dr on payment of process by 4-6-2019.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 25th day of April, 2019.

Senior Civil Judge,

Dharmavaram.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for

Petitioner/D.Hr Respondent/J.Dr

P.W.1: A.Maruthi. R.W.1: A. Nagaraju. P.W.2: S.Mahesh. R.W.2: V.Venkataramana.

Exhibits marked for the Petitioner/D.Hr.

- NIL -

Exhibtis marked for the Respondent/J.Dr.

Ex.R.1: Photo do not belong to Nagaraju/J.Dr.

Ex.R.2: Receipt, dt.25.7.2017 issued by Venkata Sai Digital Studio and Video. Ex.R.3: Receipt, dt.27.2.2018 issued by Venkata Sai Digital Studio and Video. S.C.J.

8

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DHARMAVARAM

Present:- Smt. T.Rajya Lakshmi,

Senior Civil Judge, Dharmavaram.

Wednesday, the 1st day of May, 2019

Original Petition No. 4/2018

Between:

Lakkaraju Sravika, D/o Hanumanthuram (w/o Tondapanati

Siva Prasad), aged 20 years, Hindu, student, residing at

D.No.30-275, near Nemali Building, Kothapeta, Dharmavaram.

... Petitioner.

And

Tondapanati Siva Prasad, S/o Late Gurumurthy, aged 32 years,

Hindu, mechanic, residing at D.No. 30/916-A, Balaji Nagar,

Kothapeta, Dharmavaram.

... Respondent.

This petition is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Kum V.G. Bala Sundari, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri. B.Noor Mohammad, Advocate for the respondent and having perused the material papers and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

O R D E R

1. The petition is filed by the petitioner U/sec.13 (1) (ia) of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying to dissolve the marriage between herself and the respondent by way of decree of divorce and for costs.

2. The brief averments of the petition are as follows:

The petitioner is legally wedded wife of respondent. Their marriage was solemnized on 14.2.2013 at Sri Janakirama

Kalyanamantapam, Dharmavaram as per Hindu rites and customs.

After the marriage, the petitioner joined the respondent and lead marital life with him. After marriage, the petitioner learnt that 2 respondent is an alcoholic. Respondent used to consume alcohol everyday and used to beat and abuse the petitioner without any reason. He was demanding petitioner to get amount from her parents on the ground that he was not paying any dowry at the time of marriage. When the parents of the petitioner expressed their inability to pay the amount the respondent not allowed the petitioner to visit her parents’ house on any occasion. The mother of the respondent also advised respondent to mend his behaviour and not to harass petitioner but respondent has not cared even the advice of his mother and continued to harass the petitioner. The mother of respondent died about two years back due to heart attack and since then respondent intensified his harassment alleging that the petitioner and her parents are responsible for the death of his mother and he used to beat the petitioner mercilessly in the presence of others.

Inspite of it, the petitioner bear the same hoping that better things will prevail. But during September, 2017, the respondent beat the petitioner and necked her out of the house. Since then she is staying at her aunt’s house in Dharmavaram. Inspite of number of panchayats, the respondent refused to mend his behaviour and refused to take back the petitioner. The petitioner has no safety for her life in the house of respondent. The marriage between them is irrevocably broken. It is impossible for petitioner to live with respondent and lead marital life with him..Hence, she constrained to seek divorce.

3. No counter is reported on behalf of respondent.

4. During enquiry, on behalf of the petitioner, PW.1 is examined and Exs.P.1 and Ex.P.2 are marked. On behalf of respondent, RW.1 is examined.

5. Heard both counsel.

3

6. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the decree of divorce can be granted dissolving

the marriage between petitioner and respondent?

Point::- It is an admitted fact that petitioner is legally wedded wife of the respondent. Their marriage was performed on 14.2.2013 at Sri Janakirama Kalayanamantapam, Dharmavaram as per

Hindu rites and customs as evidenced under Ex.P.1 wedding card and

Ex.P.2 marriage photo with C.D. and after marriage, the petitioner joined the respondent at matrimonial home and led marital life for some period.

According to petitioner, after marriage, she came to know that the respondent is alcoholic and he used to consume alcohol every day and he used to abuse and beat her without any reason and demanding her to get amount from her parents and when her parents expressed their inability to pay the amount, he did not allow her to go to her parents’ house and inspite of advice of his mother, he did not change his attitude and after death of his mother, he intensified harassment on her stating that she and her parents are responsible for the death of his mother and in the month of September, 2017 he beat her and necked her out of house and inspite of several panchayats, he refused to take back her and so the marriage between them is irrevocably broken and hence, she constrained to seek divorce. But the petitioner during the course of enquiry, filed her chief affidavit stating that she and respondent could live happily only for few days and they both quarrelled even for small disputes and as a result of disputes and differences, they began living separately till today and they have not been able to live together and there is no possibility of any reconciliation and reunion between them and therefore, they both decided to get their marriage dissolved on mutual consent. She further stated that she is withdrawing the allegations made against the respondent. Memo is also filed by 4 petitioner to that effect. In the cross examination also the petitioner stated that she and respondent have been residing separately for the last more than two years and that there is no possibility between her and respondent for their reunion to lead marital life and so she and respondent decided to take divorce on mutual consent. She also admitted that she won’t claim any maintenance from the respondent and rights over his properties in future. The respondent also filed his chief affidavit stating that he and petitioner could live happily only for few days and they both quarrelled even for small disputes and as a result of disputes and differences, they began living separately till today and they have not been able to live together and there is no possibility of any reconciliation and reunion between them and therefore, they both decided to get their marriage dissolved on mutual consent so that they may be able to lead their lives independently and remarry if they so desire and therefore, prayed to pass decree of divorce on mutual consent. In cross-examination also he stated that he and petitioner have been residing separately for the last more than two years and that they have no interest on each other to lead marital life and that there is no possibility for their reunion to lead marital life and so he and petitioner voluntarily decided to take divorce on mutual consent. He further stated that he has no objection to dissolve their marriage on mutual consent.

The evidence of parties clearly speaks that the petitioner and respondent wanted to get divorce having no interest on each other to lead marital life due to disputes. When the petitioner and respondent are having no interest on each other to lead marital life and admittedly they have been residing separately for more than two years and there is no possibility of reunion between them to lead marital life and their marital tie is irretrievably broken and further the six months mandatory period is also elapsed, I am of the view that they can be granted divorce 5 on their mutual consent to facilitate them to lead independent life, by converting the petition on mutual consent. Accordingly, the point is answered.

7. In the result, the petition is allowed dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent on mutual consent and a decree of divorce is granted. No order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 1st day of May, 2019.

Senior Civil Judge,

Dharmavaram.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Petitioner: Respondent:

PW.1: L.Sravika. RW.1: T.Siva Prasad.

Documents marked for Petitioner:

Ex.P.1: Wedding Card

Ex.P.2 : Marriage Photo with C.D.

Documents marked for Respondent:

- Nil -

S.C.J.

… 6

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DHARMAVARAM

Present:- Smt. T.Rajya Lakshmi,

Senior Civil Judge, Dharmavaram.

Tuesday, the 30th day of April, 2019

Original Petition No. 4/2019

Between:

D. Lakshmi Devi, W/o G.Gangadhara, aged about 34 years, Hindu,

House wife, residing at Indiramma colony, Bathalapalli village,

Bathalapalli Mandalam, Ananthapuramu District.

… Petitioner.

And

D.Gangadhara, S/o Ganganna, aged about 50 years, Hindu, business, residing at Siddrampuram village, Bukkapatnam Mandalam,

Ananthapuramu District.

... Respondent.

This petition is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.Narayana, Advocate for the petitioner and respondent remained exparte and having perused the material papers and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

1.The petition is filed by the petitioner U/sec.13 (1a) (1b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying to dissolve the marriage between herself and the respondent by way of decree of divorce and for costs.

2.The brief averments of the petition are as follows:

The petitioner is legally wedded wife of the respondent. Their marriage was solemnized on 5-1-2005 at Sree Katamaiah swamy Konda,

Sanjeevapuram village, Bathalapalli Mandalam as per Hindu rites and customs prevalent in Hindu community. After the marriage, the petitioner joined the matrimonial home and lead a happy married life for four years.

During the wedlock, she begotten two child by name Anitha, daughter, aged about 12 years and son by name Anjina Kumar, aged about 9 years 2 respectively. Thereafter the petitioner came to Bathalapalli and lived there for one month and later they went to Siddarampuram village and lived there for 4 years and there the respondent started to harass and took up galata with the help of his parents. Out of love and affection towards the respondent, the petitioner bore all these grudges with fond hope that good time will prevail over the respondent but invain. The respondent did not look after the affairs and not provided the food properly and beating her without any justifiable reasons. The respondent has been addicted to bad habits like gambling, debauching and drinking and when the petitioner has questioned about the attitude of the respondent, the respondent bluntly beating the petitioner mercilessly. But the petitioner out of the love and affection towards the respondent took the elder mediation at number of times. But the respondent did not change his mental attitude even sofar. The respondent did not discharge his duties as a dutiful husband and he neglected to see the affairs of the petitioner and her children and driven out her from matrimonial home. As there is no other way, she came to her parental house and residing with her parents.

Respondent did not change his attitude and choose to take back the petitioner to share the conjugal rights with her. Several panchayat were held to reconcile but invain. About two months back another panchayat was held but there was no change or chance of reunion of the matrimonial life of the petitioner. Since ten years there is absolutely no access between the petitioner and the respondent and the petitioner is living along with her parents at Bathalapalli. So, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is irreconcilably failed and it is no longer safe or convenient

for the petitioner to continue the marital life with the respondent. It is

further submitted that the petitioner has suffered a lot of mental agony which cannot be expressed in any terms of money. Hence, she constrained to file this petition for divorce.

3. Respondent remained exparte.

3

4. On behalf of the petitioner, PW.1 is examined and

Ex.P.1 is marked.

5. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner.

6. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion?

Point::- It is the case of the petitioner that she is legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnised on 5-1-2005 at Sree Katamaiah swamy Konda, Sanjeevapuram village of

Bathalapalli Mandalam as per Hindu rites and customs prevalent in Hindu community and after marriage, she joined the respondent at matrimonial home and lead happy married life for four years and begot two children and later the respondent started picking up quarrel with her at the instance of her parents and addicted to bad vices like gambling, dabaching and drinking and beat her mercilessly and did not provide food to her and her children and neglected them totally and finally driven out her from matrimonial home and inspite of mediations he did not change his attitude and did not take her back to share conjugal life and so the marriage between them is irretrievably broken and hence she constrained to seek divorce.

7. In support of her case, petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 reiterating the said version in her evidence and exhibited Ex.P.1 wedding card evidencing her marriage with respondent. Though, notice was issued to the respondent and the same was served on the respondent, he did not choose to contest the matter and dispute the evidence of petitioner. Thus, the oral and documentary evidence of petitioner became undisputed.

8. The oral and documentary evidence of the petitioner establish that the respondent is husband of the petitioner and they lived happily for four years after marriage and thereafter respondent addicted to bad vices 4 like gambling, dabaching and drinking and beat her mercilessly and did not provide food to her and her children and neglected them and thereby made her to suffer mental agony and finally he driven her out of the matrimonial home without any lawful excuse and thereby deserted her and deprived her matrimonial life. The said act of the respondent amounts to cruelty and desertion and same is a good ground for petitioner to seek divorce. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant decree in favour of the petitioner by dissolving the marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Therefore, the point is answered in favour of the petitioner.

9. In the result, the petition is allowed dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent on the ground of cruelty and desertion and a decree of divorce is granted. No order as to costs.

Directly dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 30th day of April, 2019.

Senior Civil Judge,

Dharmavaram.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Petitioner: Respondent:

PW.1: D.Lakshmi Devi - None-

Documents marked for Petitioner:

Ex.P.1: Wedding card.

Documents marked for Respondent:

- Nil -

S.C.J.

...

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

ANANTHAPURAMU

Smt T.Rajya Lakshmi,

Spl. Sessions Judge. POCSO Court, Ananthapuramu.

FAC Principal District & Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu

Tuesday, this the 07th day of November, 2023

Crl.M.P.No.877 of 2023 in S.C.69/2023

[Cr.No.170/2014 of Guntkal Rural P.S.)

Between:-

1. Palakurthy Yedukondalu, S/o P.Ramaiah, Hindu, aged about 45 years, R/o H.No.56-1-26/A, Pothurajupalem Village, Agraharam Road, Ongole.

2. Palakurthy Venkateswarlu, S/o Ramaiah, Hindu, aged about 53 years, R/o H.No.9-1000B3, Kallukotigaristreet, Chimakurthy village,

Prakasham District. ... Petitioners/A10 & A12.

A N D

State Represented by its S.H.O., Inspector of Police, Crime Investigation Department, Regional Office, Kurnool,

Reptd., by Spl. Public Prosecutor. ... Respondent/Complainant.

This petition is coming on 06.11.2023 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.Murali and Sri P.Hazees, Advocates for the petitioners/A10 &

A12 and of learned Spl. Public Prosecutor CID, RO for the State and on hearing both sides, this Court passed the following :-

O R D E R

This application is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying the Court to enlarge the petitioners/A10 & A12 on bail in Cr.No.170/2014 of Guntkal Rural

P.S., registered for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 420, 406, 120- 2

B r/w 34 IPC and Secs.5 of A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial

Establishment Act, 1999, Secs.4, 5 and 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation

Scheme Banning Act 1978.

2. Notice of this applicationhas beengiven to the learned Spl. Public

Prosecutor.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/A10 and A12 and the learned Special Public Prosecutor.

4. Now the point for determination is “Whether the petitioners [A10 & A12 are entitled for bail?

5. Point::-

The allegations against the petitioners/A10 & A12 are that they established Maithri Plantation and Horticulture Private Limited Company and also four other companies under Companies Act and they and other accused collected total amount of Rs.288,42,97,950/- through 4,54,523 depositors and repaid maturity amount of Rs.130,28,11,579/- and defrauded for a sum of

Rs.158,14,86,371/- and A6 to A12 including the petitioners committed default of repayment of deposit amount to the innocent depositors and thereby violated the provisions of APP DFE Act, 1999 and committed the offences u/secs.403, 420, 406, 120-B r/w 34 of I.P.C & Secs.4, 5, 6 of PCMCS [Banning

Act.

3

6. The petitioners were remanded to judicial custody on their production on

PT warrants on 13.10.2023.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and false case was lodged against them deliberately and they are nothing to do with the Company and they left the Company permanently on 10.6.2010 by way of resignation and cancelled partnership. He further contended that the petitioners are suffering from health issues and petitioner

No.1 [A10] is suffering with blood pressure and diabetics and he needs regular checkups from the doctor and the petitioner No.2 [A12] was infected with lungs disease and suffering a lot due to infection of lungs and it is difficult for him to stay in jail and the medical record to that effect is also filed and therefore prayed to consider and grant bail to the petitioners on medical grounds.

8. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has submitted that there is specific material against the petitioners in the crime and they are also involved nearly in ten cases of this type and in most of the cases, they did not appear

before the Court and NBWs were also issued against the petitioners and

concerned police are taking steps to execute warrants and produce them

before the Court on PT warrants and the offences committed by the petitioners

are socio economic offences and therefore he is opposing grant of bail to the petitioners [A10 & A12].

9. The record reveals that charge sheet was filed against the petitioners and 12 others including Companies [A1 to A5 and A14] and the same is numbered as Sessions Case No.69/2023. In the charge sheet, the petitioners are shown as ‘not arrested’. Therefore, this Court after taking cognizance of the offences against the petitioners and other accused, NBWs were issued against the 4 petitioners and some other accused, who were not yet arrested. In pursuance of NBWs, the petitioners were produced in the main Session case on execution of PT warrants on 13.10.2023. This is a crime of 2014, it is long pending case and the petitioners absconded from appearing in the crime for long period.

Further the record discloses that they are involved in number of crimes. So, keeping in view of the serious nature of allegations against the petitioners and the criminal antecedence, I find no grounds in favour of the petitioners to grant bail to them, even on medical grounds. Accordingly, the point is answered.

10. In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 07th day of November, 2023.

Sd/- T.Rajya Lakshmi,

Special Judge,

POCSO Court, Ananthapuramu,

FAC SESSIONS JUDGE,

ANANTHAPURAMU.

5

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE, ANANTHAPURAMU

PRESENT: Smt.T.Rajyalakshmi, Special Judge for Trial of Offences under the POCSO Act, 2012, Ananthapuramu FAC/Principal District Judge, Ananthapuramu

Friday, the 10 th day of November, 2023

E.P.No.502/2023 in A.A.No.246/2019

Between :

M/s Shriram Finance Limited, Branch at Opp: Government Girls College, Bypass road, Kadiri, Representation by it’s Authorized Signatory, Special Power of Attorney Holder, Mr.S.Mastan Vali, aged 50 years, Now employed in the Company as Branch Collection Manager, Functioning from Kadiri Branch. … D.Hr.

And

1)Madhava Reddy. Poreddy S/o Siva Reddy. Poreddy, aged 29 years, R/o H.No.1-80-1, Thirumala Devara Palli Village, Chowtiwaripally Post, Nallacheruvu Mandal, Ananthapuramu District.

2)Raja Sekhar Reddy. Sane S/o Sane Chinnapa Reddy, aged 38 years, R/o H.No.1-47-1, Thirumala Devara Palli Village, Chowtiwaripally Post, Nallacheruvu Mandal, Ananthapuramu District.

… J.Dr Nos.1 & 2

This Execution petition filed Under Order 21 Rule 37 & 38 of C.P.C against J.Dr Nos.1 & 2 to order for issued a Rule 22 notice to the J.Dr Nos.1 and 2, order 21 Rule 37 and 38 CPC in default to pay the P amount, commit them to civil prison for the realization of the EP amount.

This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri D.Malleswara Reddy, Advocate for the D.Hr and the J.Dr No.2 called absent, set exparte, upon perusing the material papers on record, this court made the following:

O R D E R

Full satisfaction memo is filed on behalf of D.Hr company stating that during EP proceedings J.Dr No.1 paid settlement amount of Rs.45,000/- towards the EP amount to D.Hr and therefore prays to record Full satisfaction.

The learned counsel for D.Hr confirmed FS memo contents. Therefore FS is recorded and EP is terminated.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 10 th day of November, 2023.

Special Judge for Trial of Offences

under the POCSO Act, 2012, Ananthapuramu. FAC/Principal District Judge, Ananthapuramu