T. Ramachandrudu

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: TENALI

PRESENT: SRI T. RAMACHANDRUDU

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TENALI

Thursday, this the 07th day of October, 2021

HMOP No.30 of 2020

Between:

Malabanti Naga Manikanta, S/o. Srinivasa Rao, aged about 28 years, Hindu, employee, R/o. Door No.1-105, Near Srinivasa Talkies,

Kolluru village, Kolluru mandal, Guntur district. ..Petitioner.

And

Malabanti Sri Lakshmi Tirupathamma, W/o. Naga Manikanta, D/o. Rayapureddy Basava Anjaiah, aged about 23 years, Hindu, House wife, R/o. Behind Krishna Rao Hospital street, Main road,

Kolluru village, Kolluru mandal, Guntur district. ..Respondent.

This petition coming on 06.10.2021 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Ravindra Babu, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri A. Kasi Viswanadha Raju, Advocate for the Respondent, and having stood over for consideration till this day, on considering the material available on this Court made the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the petitioner/wife under Section 9 of Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 seeking the Court to direct the respondent to come and join with the petitioner for discharging the conjugal and costs of the petition.

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

The petitioner’s marriage was performed with the respondent on 03.11.2018 at Subrahmanyeswara Swamy Devasthanam, Mopidevi, Krishna District, as per

Hindu rites and caste customs. At the time of marriage the parents of the respondent gave a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards her pasupu kumkuma, the respondent purchased the gold ornaments with the said amount, and the said gold ornaments are lying with the respondent now. Apart from the said sum the respondent also gave Ac.0.50 cents of land to the respondent towards her pasupu kumkuma in her name. Immediately after the marriage, the respondent joined with the petitioner at his house at Kolluru for leading happy marital life and the marriage 2 was consummated on great risk and the petitioner and the respondent lived for a period of one month only. It is further averred that the respondent told the petitioner that the marriage was performed against her will, and at the force of her paternal grand mother as she was she was grown up by her paternal grand mother from child hood and that her paternal grandmother needs to stay with them even after their marriage and the petitioner allowed the paternal grandmother of the respondent into their house. The respondent also told that she wanted to lead the life without marriage by living with her paternal grand mother only, but she married only for the sake of society. The respondent used to behave adamantly with the petitioner and when the petitioner tried to talk with the respondent, she shows mood swings, she did not act as a dutiful wife by doing household work, the respondent did not listern to the parents of the petitioner when they tried to mend the attitude of the respondent and she told the petitioner and his parents that she wants to go to her paternal grandmother home to stay with her.

3.It is further averred by the petitioner that as things stood thus, the petitioner went to Bangalore for his job purpose by leaving the respondent at his parents house as her mental condition is not stable, then in the month of February, 2019, she accepted to join with the petitioner listening to the words of her parents and elders, but there also she did not change her attitude and refused to lead conjugal life with the petitioner, did not cook food in the house, did not take care of the petitioner, and when the petitioner went to job, then she used to call him and ask him to come back home by saying that she is having fear to live alone in the house and asks the petitioner to bring her paternal grand mother to their house. The petitioner used to understand her and always tries to convince her, but the respondent still acts the same every day. Further when the petitioner tries to touch the respondent, she abuses him and attacks him, she sleeps separately on the floor and used to wake up in the midnight odd hours and used to cry sitting in the bed corner by leaving her hair, and when the petitioner questions her about her such behaviour, she runs away from the house, and the petitioner take back her and tried to convince her, and the respondent told the petitioner that she don’t like him and don’t want to stay with him. Then the petitioner called the paternal grand mother of the respondent to their house for the sake of the respondent, even then also she 3 did not act properly with the petitioner. It is further averred that when the petitioner went to his job, then the respondent and her paternal grandmother went to Kolluru without intimating petitioner and when the petitioner went back and called the respondent through phone, then she told him that she don’t want to lead the conjugal life with him, on that the petitioner went to Kolluru and placed the matter before elders, then on the advice of elders, the respondent joined with the petitioner at Kolluru and stayed for only 2 days and left the company of the petitioner without intimation on 07.11.2019. The petitioner bore all the harassments made out by the respondent with a fond hope that she will change her attitude at any time in future, but the respondent did not change her attitude, subsequently the petitioner again sent mediators and elders to the respondent’s house for mediation, but the mediation proved futile, the petitioner is having love and affection towards the respondent and he wants to lead marital life with the respondent, as such he forgot all the mis-happenings on the part of the respondent and he also wants to provide her treatment, hence the petitioner filed to file this petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner further submits that he did not file any petition before any court of law under Hindu Marriage Act, there is no collusion between them in filing this petition and that they have no issues.

4.After receipt of the notice, counter filed by the respondent by denying most of the averments made in the petition except her marriage with the petitioner. She submitted that at the time of marriage she completed her graduation and the petitioner working in H.M.S. Host Private limited in Bangalore Airport. She further submitted that her paternal grand mother gave Rs.2,50,000/- to her towards pasupu kumkuma, and the petitioner and his parents made believe the respondent and her parents that they improve the said amount and they also promised to them that they will return the said amount to the respondent whenever she demands, on that the parents of the respondent entrusted the above said pasupu kumkuma amount to the petitioner and his parents for augmentation in the presence of elders by name R. Venkateswara Rao and Ila Subba Rao. The respondent further submitted that her paternal grandmother performed her marriage with the petitioner in a grand manner by spending Rs.4,00,000/-, presented one soverin gold ring to the petitioner, and gold necklace of two soverins, matties of ½ soverin, gold 4 kalyanam ring of ½ soverin, papidibilla of ½ soverin, gold ring of 4 grams, black beed stone chain of ½ soverin to the respondent and also gave Ac.0.50 cents of land to the respondent towards her pasupu kumkuma, as per the demand of the petitioner and his parents and the said all gold ornaments are in the custody of the petitioner, the marriage was consummated immediately after the marriage, and the respondent joined the petitioner at his house Kolluru to lead conjugal life.

5.The respondent further averred that after completion of 16 days fuction of the marriage, the petitioner went to work place at Bangalore by leaving the respondent with the petitioner’s parents at Kolluru and then onwards the petitioner’s parents showed aversion towards the respondent and harassed her with their acts and words by saying that she is a mad person and treated her as a slave, but the respondent bore the ill-treatment of her in-laws with a hope that the petitioner would take her to his work place and she can lead happy conjugal life with him. In the month of

February, 2019, the petitioner set up the family with the respondent at Bangalore, there the petitioner also harassed her by his acts and words by saying that she is a mad person, and with the instigation of his parents, he used to demand her to bring

additional amount from her parents for which she expressed her parents inability,

then the petitioner used to beat her indiscriminately.

6.The respondent further averred that in the month of March, 2019, she suffered with the vomiting, at that time the petitioner called the respondent’s paternal grand mother to Bangalore, abused and beat the respondent before her without any reasonable cause, when her grand mother questioned about the attitude of the petitioner, then he called the elders by name R. Venkateswara Rao, P.

Satyanarayana to Bangalore and even in their presence also the petitioner behaved adamantly towards the respondent and expressed his disinterest to lead marital life with her, on that the elders tried to convince the petitioner in many ways, but the petitioner did not heed their words and necked out the respondent and her grand mother from his house on 02.4.2019, and as there is no other go the said elders, the respondent and her grand mother came down to Kolluru.

7.The respondent further averred that the respondent and her parents made several mediations through the elders by name R. Venkateswara Rao and Ila Subba 5

Rao and Kosuri Appaiah on various occasions, but the petitioner and his parents did not come forward to settle the matter amicably and postponing the same on one pretext or other, even then the respondent and her parents waited with a hope that one day or other the petitioner may change his attitude and take back the respondent to his family fold, but in the meanwhile the petitioner filed the above petition with false and frivolous allegations. The respondent submitted that she has got love and affection towards the petitioner and if the petitioner gives assurance to her that he has not harassed her and also look-after her affectionately, she is always ready and willing to join with the petitioner at his work place to lead happy conjugal life. The respondent further submitted that she is hale and healthy, has no psychiatric problem, she is having good mental condition, but the petitioner and his parents tried to create that she is a mad person by weaving a false story against her.

The respondent denies all other allegations and put the petitioner to strict proof of the same, and therefore, the respondent prays the court to dismiss the petition with costs.

8. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced by either the petitioner or the respondent, but the the respondent filed a memo stating that there is no objection to her to allow the petition without prejudice to her contention in this petition by directing the petitioner to take back the respondent to his family fold to lead happy conjugal life.

9. Heard both sides.

10. On the strength of the above pleadings, the points to be determined are:

1. Whether the petition is to be allowed as prayed for?

2. To what relief ?

11.POINT No.1:

This petition is filed by the petitioner/husband u/sec.9 of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 praying the court to direct the respondent to come and join with the petitioner for for discharge of the conjugal obligations. The respondent filed counter denying most of the allegations made in the petition and both the parties admitted that their marriage was performed on 03.11.2018 at Subrahmanyeswara Swamy 6

Devasthanam, Mopidevi, Krishna district as per Hindu rites and caste customs.

The counsel for the respondent filed a memo stating that the respondent has no objection to allow the petition without prejudice to her contentions in this petition by directing the petitioner to take back the respondent to his family fold to lead happy conjugal life, and the petitioner counsel received notice and requested the court to pass orders accordingly.

12.When once the respondent filed memo stating that she has no objection to allow the petition without prejudice to her contention in this petition by directing the petitioner to take her back to his family fold to lead happy conjugal life. The admitted facts need not be proved u/sec.58 of Indian Evidence Act. The respondent is ready and willing to join with the petitioner to his family fold. Hence, in view of the above memo the petition is allowed directing the respondent to come and join with the petitioner for discharging the conjugal obligations.

13.Hence point No.1 is answered accordingly.

14.Point No.2:-

In the result, the petition is allowed without costs directing the respondent to come and join with the petitioner for discharging the conjugal obligations, within one month from the date of this order.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 07th day of October, 2021.

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Tenali.

Appendix of Evidence

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced by either the petitioner or the respondent.

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Tenali. * 7

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: TENALI

PRESENT: SRI T. RAMACHANDRUDU

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TENALI

Thursday, this the 07th day of October, 2021

HMOP No.30 of 2020

Between:

Malabanti Naga Manikanta, S/o. Srinivasa Rao, aged about 28 years, Hindu, employee, R/o. Door No.1-105, Near Srinivasa Talkies,

Kolluru village, Kolluru mandal, Guntur district. ..Petitioner.

And

Malabanti Sri Lakshmi Tirupathamma, W/o. Naga Manikanta, D/o. Rayapureddy Basava Anjaiah, aged about 23 years, Hindu, House wife, R/o. Behind Krishna Rao Hospital street, Main road,

Kolluru village, Kolluru mandal, Guntur district. ..Respondent.

This petition is filed by the petitioner/wife under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking the Court to direct the respondent to come and join with the petitioner for discharging the conjugal obligations and costs of the petition.

Petition presented on:01.02.2020

Petition filed on:18.02.2020

Cause of action : Cause of action for the petition arose on 0711.2019 when the respondent left the company of the petitioner and on 03.11.2018 when the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized at Subrahmanyeswara Swamy Devasthanam, Mopidevi, Krishna District as per Hindu rights and caste customs and when the respondent joined with the petitioner at his house at Kolluru for leading happy marital life and when the marriage was consummated on a great risk and when the respondent expressed her dislike towards the petitioner since from the beginning of the marriage even though she is leading the marital life with the petitioner and when the respondent told the petitioner that she wants her paternal grand mother to stay with them as she was grown up by her and when the petitioner allowed her into their house by understanding her and when the respondent is having mental problem and when the petitioner went to Bangalore for his job by leaving the respondent at her parents house as her mental health is not good and when in the month of February, 2019 the respondent went to Bangalore to join with the petitioner after listening to her parents and elders words and when there also the respondent did not change her attitude and when did not act as a dutiful wife and when the petitioner tried to touch her then the respondent abuse him and attack him and when the respondent forced the petitioner to call her paternal grand mother there also and she came to Bangalore and when the petitioner went to job then the respondent and her grand mother went to Kolluru without intimating the petitioner and when the respondent called the petitioner through phone then the respondent told him that she don’t want to lead the marital life with him and when the petitioner went to Kolluru and when placed the matter before elders and when the respondent joined with the petitioner at his house at Koluru and when the respondent still did not change her attitude and when lived there for two days only and when on 8 0711.2019 the respondent left the company of the petitioner and went to her parents house and when several mediations were proved and futile and when the petitioner is forgetting all the mis-happenings on the part of the respondent as he is having very much love and affection towards the respondent and when the petitioner wants to lead the marital life with the respondent by providing her treatment and when the petitioner is constrained to file the petition for restitution of conjugal rights directing the respondent to come and join with him and at Kolluru both the parties lastly resided - all are within the jurisdiction of this Court.

Particulars of Valuation :

This being a petition filed under the provisions U/s.9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on which, a fixed Court fee of Rs.10/- is herewith paid Under Sch.II Art.I of A.P.C.F and S.V Act.

This petition coming on 06.10.2021 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Ravindra Babu, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri A. Kasi Viswanadha Raju, Advocate for the Respondent, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made doth order and decree as follows:

1)That the petition be and the same is hereby allowed.

2)that the respondent is hereby directed to come and join with the petitioner for discharging the conjugal obligations from the date of this order within one month; and

3)that the petitioner do bear his own institutional costs of Rs.12/- and the respondent do bear her own costs of Rs.Nil (CM and FC not filed).

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 7th day of October, 2021.

Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Tenali

Table of costs

DescriptionPetitionerRespondent

CM and FC not filedCM and FC not filed

Vakalat2=00-

Stamps on petition10=00-

Total12=00Nil

Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Tenali 9

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: TENALI

PRESENT: SRI T. RAMACHANDRUDU

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Thursday, this the 7th day of October, 2021

HMOP No.78 of 2020

Between:

Potharlanka Naga Raju, S/o. Venkateswarlu, aged about 35 years, Hindu, Private employee, R/o. Door No.2-11-4, Katragadda vari street,

Nandulapet, Tenali, Guntur District. ..Petitioner.

And

Bitra Jyothirmai (Potharlanka Jyothirmai), W/o. Potharlanka Naga Raju, D/o. Bitra Raja Rao, aged about 34 years, Hindu, Private employee, R/o. Door No.5-362, Dwarakanagar, Near Poleramma temple,

Mangalagiri, Mangalagiri mandal, Guntur district. ..Respondent.

This petition came before me on 07.10.2021 for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Ravindra Babu, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri K. Prakasa Rao, Advocate for the Respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the petitioner/husband under Section 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking the Court to grant decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of the petitioner/husband with the respondent/wife, which was held on 03.02.2008 and costs of the petition.

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

Petitioner’s/husband love marriage with the respondent/wife was performed on 03.02.2008 at Narendra Bhavan, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad, according to the

Vedic Rituals under the Arya Marriage validation Act 19 of 1937, and prior to that marriage both parties tried to convince their parents, but they did not accept because of different communities, subsequently on several mediations through their relatives and parents, parents of the petitioner came to an understanding that again they have to perform their marriage as per Hindu rites and caste customs, but the 2 parents of the respondent are unwilling to come forward to perform their marriage, anyhow, on 02.8.2009, their marriage was performed again as per Hindu rites and caste customs at Sri Venkateswara Swamy Devasthanam, Dwaraka Tirumala, West

Godavari district. It is further averred that both are Hindus, petitioner belongs to

Rajaka community, whereas the respondent belongs to Weaver’s community, so their marriage is arranged marriage and intercaste marriage. The petitioner completed MCA and the respondent also completed MCA and M.Tech., and they are class mates, the petitioner has joined as a Lecturer in Narasaraopet Engineering college, Narasaraopet for some time, later the petitioner joined at Bangalore in

WIPRO Technologies, the respondent also joined as a lecturer in Siddhardha

College, Vijayawada for some time, later the petitioner shifted his family to

Bangalore and they both lived happily upto 2013, they were blessed with a female child and her name is Jasmitha and now she is aged about 7 years, at Bangalore the respondent also joined as an employee in a private firm and became adamant towards the petitioner, did not care towards the petitioner as a dutiful wife, used to insult the petitioner before his friends as well as parents by saying that he belongs to lower caste than her caste, whereas the petitioner looked-after the respondent and child with utmost love and affection.

3.The petitioner further averred that he is a devotee, whereas the respondent did not oblige the same and she is not interested to conduct pooja in the house, eventhough the petitioner tried to convince the respondent to conduct joint pooja in the house, she refused for the same, the respondent completely stopped the petitioner to talk whenever her parents visit their house, the mother of the respondent also abused the petitioner by using unparliamentary language that the petitioner is a lower caste person, has no fixed assets and that his parents have not 3 possessed any property and roper education, the entire family members of the respondent insulted the petitioner in the society and completed changed the mind of the respondent and instigated her not to care the petitioner, the parents of the respondent have no interest towards the petitioner because of inter caste marriage, the parents and brothers have also threatened the petitioner with dire consequences, the respondent used to go very often to her brother’s house namely Naveen who is working as an employee in Pune.

4.It is further averred that the respondent and the petitioner came to Tenali on 02.12.2014 to shift their family to Tenali where the parents of the petitioner residence is located, but on 04.12.2014 at about 10.30 A.M, the respondent quarreled with the petitioner and when the petitioner went out for purchasing some sundry items and returned back and found that the respondent along with baby were not in the house, as such searched for them and found that she left the petitioner’s company and went away to her parents’ house along with baby without any intimation to the petitioner, then immediately he approached the respondent and requested her to come back to the petitioner, but she expressed her dislike towards him and then the petitioner returned back, sent mediators for mediation, the mediation was proved futile. The petitioner further averred that he also resigned his job due to the attitude of the respondent, and residing at Tenali with his parents.

5.It is further averred by the petitioner that he filed HMOP.7/2015 on the file of the Prl. Senior Judge Court, Tenali, to direct the respondent to come and join with him for restitution of conjugal rights, after receiving the summons, the respondent appeared before court, got filed the memo to refer the matter to Lok Adalat and accordingly the HMOP.7/2015 was referred to Lok Adalat and there before Lok adalat committee the respondent agreed to join with the petitioner, on that 4 accordingly as award was passed by the Lok adalat committee vide case

No.521/2015 and as per the terms and conditions of the award dated 12.12.2015, the respondent has to join with the petitioner where he is working either at

Bangalore or Chennai and after getting the job, the petitioner approached the respondent and requested her to come and join with him, but she refused, thereafter the petitioner filed EP.80/2018 for implementing the terms of the Lok adalat award, but the respondent intentionally avoided to take notice and left the address mentioned in the award, and in those circumstances, the petitioner approached the court to file the petition for getting the divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion and there is no hope of reunion to the couple permanently, there is no similar petition pending before any court, there is no collusion between the petitioner and the respondent in filing this petition. Hence, this petition.

6.The respondent/wife filed a counter denying the most of the allegations in the petition and submitted that she filed PLC.9/2021 against the petitioner before the

Mandal Legal Services Authority and both parties agreed for a sum of

Rs.2,00,000/- towards full and final settlement and award was also passed by the authority wherein Rs.1,00,000/- of fixed deposit was in Co-operative Central Bank

Limited, Mangalagiri in the name of P. Jasmitha and the other Rs.1,00,000/- handed over to the respondent, and prays the court to allow the petition.

7. In support of the case of the petitioner, the petitioner examined himself as

PW1 and Exs.P1 and P3 were marked. Ex.P1 is wedding card. Ex.P2 is marriage photographs (2 in number) along with CD. On behalf of the respondent, the respondent herself examined as RW.1 but no document is marked.

8. Heard both sides.

9. On the strength of the above pleadings, the points to be determined are:

5

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to decree of divorce by dissolving his marriage with the respondent held on 03.02.2008 as prayed for?

2. To what relief ?

10.POINT No.1:-

The evidence of PW1 along with Exs.P1 and P2 documents shows that the the respondent is legally wedded of the respondent and their marriage took place on 03.02.2008 at Narendra Bhavan, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad, according to Vedic rituals under the Arya marriage Act validation Act 19 of 1937, it is a love marriage and they tried to convince their parents, they did not accept because of different communities, subsequently several mediations were held through their elders and their parents came to an understanding that again they have to perform their marriage as per Hindu rites and caste customs, but the parents of the respondent are not willing to come forward to again marriage, anyhow on 02.8.2009 the marriage was performed again as per Hindu rites and customs at Sri Venkateswaraswamy

Devasthanam, Dwaraka Tirumala, West Godavari district. Immediately after the marriage the marriage the petitioner joined as a lecturer in Narasaraopet

Engineering college, after some time the respondent also joined in Siddhardha college, Vijayawada, both did jobs for some time and they lived happily upto 2013, due to their wedlock the respondent gave birth to a female child, her name is

Jasmitha, now she is aged about 7 years, the respondent joined in a private firm in

Bangalore, after joining the job the respondent’s behaved adamantly towards the petitioner and did not care the petitioner as a dutiful wife, the respondent also used to abuse the petitioner by saying that he belongs to lower caste than the respondent’s caste and the respondent not interest to conduct Pooja in the house and the respondent insult the petitioner in the society, the parents of the respondent 6 have not interested in inter caste marriage.

11.Immediately the respondent and the petitioner came to Tenali on 02.12.2014 and shifted the family to Tenali, where the residence of the parents of the petitioner is located. On 04.12.2014 when the petitioner went to purchase some sundry items and when he came to the house, he found that the respondent along along with the baby are not in the house, then he searched for them and found that the respondent along with the baby left the company and went away to her parents house without intimation, immediately the petitioner approached the respondent and requested her to come back along with their baby, but she expressed her dislike towards the petitioner. Then the parents of the respondent abused the petitioner by mentioning his caste before the public. Then he sent mediators for mediation and the said mediation was proved futile, the petitioner also resigned to his job due to the attitude of the respondent. The petitioner filed HMOP.7/2015 on the file of the Prl.

Senior Civil Judge Court, Tenali, to direct the respondent to come and join with the

petition for restitution of conjugal rights. After receiving the summons the respondent agreed to join with the petitioner and accordingly the award was passed by the Lok Adalat. Even after passing of the Lok adalat award the respondent did not join the company of the petitioner and refused and then the petitioner filed

EP.80/2018 for implementing the terms of the Lok adalat award. As such, the

petitioner filed this petition on the grounds of cruelty and desertion and there is no scope for reunion, there is no collusion between the petitioner and the respondent and the respondent deserted the petitioner.

12.On the other hand the respondent herself examined as RW.1 and reiterated the contents of the counter and in the cross examination RW.1 admitted that she has received an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- cash from the petitioner towards permanent 7 alimony and the petitioner also deposited Rs.1,00,000/- in GDCC bank in the name of Jasmitha who is her daughter and she has no objection to grant divorce in favour of the petitioner.

13.Therefore the evidence of PW.1 along with documents Exs.P1 and P2 clearly establish that the marriage of the petitioner was performed with the respondent and the petitioner was harassed by the respondent both physically and mentally and the respondent deserted the petitioner. Moreover the respondent has no objection if divorce is granted to the petitioner by way of dissolving their marriage as they received the amount from the petitioner, as award was also passed in PLC.9/2021, the petitioner has also given an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent towards permanent alimony and the petitioner also deposited an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in

GDCC Bank, Mangalagiri, in the name of their daughter Jasmitha. Hence the ingredients u/sec.13(1)(ia)(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are fulfilled.

Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. Hence this point is answered accordingly.

14. Point No.2 :

In the result, this petition is allowed without costs by granting decree of divorce in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent by dissolving the marriage of the petitioner which took place with the respondent on 03.02.2008 from the date of this order.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 07th day of October, 2021.

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Tenali.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner:

PW1- Potharlanka Naga Raju.

8

For Respondent:

RW.1 : Bitra Jyothirmai @ Potharlanka Jyothirmai.

Exhibits Marked

For Petitioner:

Ex.P1 : Wedding card. Ex.P2 : Marriage photographs (2 in number) along with CD.

For Respondent:

Nil

Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Tenali.

* 9

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: TENALI

PRESENT: SRI T. RAMACHANDRUDU

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Thursday, this the 7th day of October, 2021

HMOP No.78 of 2020

Between:

Potharlanka Naga Raju, S/o. Venkateswarlu, aged about 35 years, Hindu, Private employee, R/o. Door No.2-11-4, Katragadda vari street,

Nandulapet, Tenali, Guntur District. ..Petitioner.

And

Bitra Jyothirmai (Potharlanka Jyothirmai), W/o. Potharlanka Naga Raju, D/o. Bitra Raja Rao, aged about 34 years, Hindu, Private employee, R/o. Door No.5-362, Dwarakanagar, Near Poleramma temple,

Mangalagiri, Mangalagiri mandal, Guntur district. ..Respondent.

This petition is filed by the petitioner/husband under Section 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking the Court to grant decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of the petitioner/husband with the respondent/wife, which was held on 03.02.2008 and costs of the petition.

Petition presented on:21.09.2020

Petition filed on:07.10.2020

Cause of action : Cause of action for the petition arose when several mediations were held through their relatives and their parents and came to an understanding that again they have to perform their marriage as per the Hindu rites and caste customs and performed their marriage on 02.08.2009 at Sri Venkateswara Swamy Devasthanam, Dwaraka Tirumala, West Godavari District as per Hindu rites and caste customs and both are Hindus and their marriage is arranged and inter caste marriage and when both of them lived upto 2013 happily and in the mean while when the respondent became a pregnant and gave a birth of female child namely Jasmitha and when the respondent has also joined as an employee in private firms at Bangalore and after joining the job, the respondent has adamantly behaved towards the petitioner and when the respondent abused and harassed the petitioner by mentioning the caste name and used to insult the parents of the petitioner and the mother of the respondent also abusing the petitioner by using unparliamentarily language that the petitioner is a lower caste person and he has no fixed assets and also abused the parents of the petitioner that his parents have not possessed any property and proper education and saying that the parents of the petitioner are lazy fellows and on 02.12.2014 when the petitioner and the respondent to shift their family to Tenali where the parents of the petitioner residence is located and on 04.12.2014 at about 10.30 AM the respondent quarreled with the petitioner and when the petitioner went out for purchasing the sundry items and when the petitioner returned back, he found that the respondent and baby were not found in 10 the house and when the petitioner searched them and found that she left the petitioner’s company and went away to her parents house along with baby without any intimation to the petitioner and when the petitioner also filed HMOP.7/2015 and when it is referred to Lok adalat and as per the terms and conditions of the award dated 12.12.2015 the respondent have to join with the petitioner where he is working either at Bangalore or Chennai and after getting the job, whend the petitioner approached the respondent and requested her to come and join with him but she refused and when thereafter the petitioner filed the E.P.80/2018 for implement the terms of the Lok adalat award but the respondent intentionally avoided to take notice and hence the petitioner is filing this petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion and at Tenali where the petitioner and the respondent lastly resided - all are within the jurisdiction of this Court.

Particulars of Valuation :

This being a petition filed under the provisions U/s.13 (1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on which, a fixed Court fee of Rs.10/- is herewith paid Under Sch.II Art.I of A.P.C.F and S.V Act.

This petition came before me on 07.10.2021 for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Ravindra Babu, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri K. Prakasa Rao, Advocate for the Respondent and upon hearing and considering the material on record, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made doth order and decree as follows:

1)That the petition be and the same is hereby allowed.

2)that the marriage dated 03.02.2008 between the petitioner and the respondent be and the same is hereby dissolved by way of a decree for divorce; and

3)that the petitioner do bear his own institutional costs of Rs.12/- and the respondent do bear her own costs of Rs.Nil (CM and FC not filed).

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 7th day of October, 2021.

Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Tenali Table of costs

DescriptionPetitionerRespondent CM and FC not filedCM and FC not filed Vakalat2=00- Stamps on petition10=00- Total12=00Nil * Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Tenali 11

1

IN THE COURTOF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: TENALI

Present: SRI T. RAMACHANDRUDU,

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali

Wednesday, 3rd day of August,2022

H.M.O.P.No. 81 of 2020

Between:-

Gummadi Sudheer, S/o. Yeswara Rao, aged about 31 years, Cultivation, Hindu, R/o. d. No.13-21, Kolluru post and mandal,

Guntur District. ..Petitioner.

Vs.

Gummadi Amullaya @ Devi Amullaya, w/o. Sudheer, D/o. Devi Setahaiah, aged about 28 years, Hindu, Parent’s protection, R/o. Kurra Vari street,

Koluru post and mandal, Guntur district. ..Respondent.

This petition coming on 19-07-2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.G.L. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri T. Butchi Raju, Advocate for the respondent; and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This is a petition filed by the petitioner/husband under Section 9 of Hindu

Marriage Act,1955for restitution of conjugal rights by directing the respondent to come and live with the petitioner and for costs.

The averments of the petition in brief are as follows:-

2. The marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was performed on 12.12.2018 as per Hindu rites and customs at Samardha Sadhguru Sainadhuni

Alayam, Kolluru Village and Mandal. Immediately after the marriage, the respondent joined with the petitioner for living happy marital life at his house. The marraige was consumated. There-after the respondent started harrassing the 2 petitioner without any reasonable excuse. The respondent also quarreled even for preparing the food to the petitioner. The respondent openly said to the petitioner the marraige was performed against her will and consent. The respondent not interested to live with the petitioner. Both the elders advised them to live amicably. Later the petitioner and respondent lead the marital life for some time. There-after the respondent again started harrasment against the petitioner both mentally and physically.

3.The respondent used to quarrel for every silly things with the petitioner and she used to leave him and went to her parental house without informing the petitioner. On 25-1-2019 the respondent picked up the quarrel with the petitioner with out any reason and went away to her parents house without any fault of the petitioner. Being husband, the petitioner with great love and affection towards the respodent, the petitioner tried personally to bring back the respondent so many times requesting the respondent to return and join with the petitioner to lead happy marital life. But his attempts were failed. Hence this petition.

The averments of the counter in brief are as follows:-

4. The respondent/wife filed counter oppsing the petition. She admitted themarriage between the petitioner and the respondent and their relationship as wife and husband. She further averred taht at the time of marriage, her parents gave Rs.1,00,000/- of cash towards her pasupu kumkuma and the same is entrusted to the petitioner and his father for augmentation. The parents of the petitioner also presented a gold aravanki weighing 40-560 grams, haram weighing 52-450 grams, to the respondent, and a gold chain weighing 24-990 grams, gold ring weighing 8-050 grams, bracelet weighing 12-230 grams to the petitioner. They also gave Rs.25,000/- adapaduchu lanchanam. Her parents 3 also presented silver articles weighing 1/2 kg to the respondent. Immediately after the marriage, this respondent joined the petitioner to lead happy marital life with the petitioner.

5.It is further averred that the petitioner addicted to vices like consuming alcohol, and he is having illicit intimacy with one P. Usha of Vizag and daily used to talk with the said Usha and used to meet her often. Further the petitioner used to consume alcohol and come to the house in late night hours and used to pick up quarrel with the respondent for silly reasons and beat the resondent indiscriminately. The resondent further averred that at the time of marriage, the parents of the petitioner informed that the petitioner is working as Civil Contractor, but the petitioner never worked as contractor. Further in the month of January 2019, the petitioner pledged the gold ornaments which were presented to the petitioner by his parents, with the bank, and in the month of February, 2019, the petitioner demanded the respondent to bring one lakh ruppes from her parents.

Then the father of this respondent gave Rs.1 lakh to the petitioner. The petitioner never do any work and he always spent time with the villagers. On the other hand the petitioner pressurized the respondent to join in job at Hyderabad by stating that he will also come to Hyderabad and do contract works at Hyderabad.

As there is no other option, the respondent joined in a job at Hyderabad for a monthly salary of Rs.15,000/-, but the petitioner used to withdraw the entire amount and used to spend the same for his vices.

6.Further the petitioner in the month of December, 2019, pledged the gold aravanki and gold bangles with the bank and spent the amount for his vices. The respondent used to come to Kolluru on Saturday and used to return to Hyderabd on Sunday nights, and her father has to bring her from Tenali and has to leave her at Tenali Railway station when she returns to Hyderabad. The petitioner 4 never cared for the respondent and he never did any work to earn money. When the respondent questioned about the same, the petitioner beat her indiscriminately and tried to kill by pressing her beck, but the respondent escaped with great difficulty. The mother and sister of the petitioner also used to threaten the respondent to bring more money from her parents house. Further the petitioner used to suspect the resondent that she is talking to her colleagues, and used to check the call list and messages in the mobile of the respondent. The petitioner used to harass the respondent stating that the petitioner is having affair with one Gopinadh, which is the relative to the father of the respondent and used to come to the parent’s house of the respondent. The petitioner is having 10 acres of land at Kollur and a residential building and other properties, and he never do any agricultural works in the filed.

7.The resondent further averred that on 25.12.2019, when the resopndent requested the petitioner to leave her at Tenali Railway Station to go to

Hyderabad, then the petitioner abused the resondent and his father in filthy language, beat the resondent indiscriminately and necked her out of the family house and demanded her to bring Rs.2,00,000/- of cash from her father, otherwise he will not allow her to enter into the house. Then, as there is no other option, the respondent went to her parents house and has been living there with her parents. Subsequently, the meditions made by the parents of the resondent to settle the matter amicably, proved futile, as the petitioner and his parents refused to allow the resondent into their house if she did not bring Rs.2,00,000/- of cash as demanded by them. The father of the respondent expressed his inability to give the said amount. The petitioner and his parents never interested to bring back the respondent to their house. All of a sudden the resondent received the notice from the court in this OP. The respondent is always ready 5 and willing to settle the matter amicably. Therefore, this respondent prays the court to dismiss the petition with costs.

8.On behalf of the petitioner, Pws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P3 were marked. The Respondent herself was examined as RW1 and no documents were marked.

9. Heard arguments.

10. Now, the points for determination are:

1.Whether the petitioner is entitled for restitution of conjugal rights as prayed for in this petition?

2.To what relief ?

11.POINT NO.1: Whether the petitioner is entitled for restitution of conjugal rights as prayed for in this petition ?

12.It is the case of the petitioner that his marriage was performed with the respondent on 12.12.2018 as per the Hindu rites and customs at Samardha

Sadhguru Sainadhuni Alayam, Kolluru Village and Mandal. Immediately after the marriage, the respondent joined with the petitioner for living happy marital life at his house. The marraige was consumated. There-after the respondent started harrassing the petitioner without any reasonable excuse. The respondent also quarreled even for preparing the food to the petitioner.

13.The respondent openly said to the petitioner thay hrt marraige was performed against her will and concern. The respondent not interested to live with the petitioner. Both the elders advised them to live amicably. Later the petitioner and respondent lead the marital life for some time. There-after the respondent again started harrasment against the petitioner both mentally and physically.

6

14.The respondent used to quarrel for every silly things with the petitioner and she used to leave him and went to her parental house without informing the petitioner. On 25-1-2019 the respondent picked up quarrel with the petitioner with out any reason and went away to her parents house without any fault of the petitioner. Being husband, the petitioner with great love and affection towards the respodent, the petitioner tried personally to bring back the respondent so many times requesting the respondent to return and joined with the petitioner to lead happy marital life.

15. In order to prove his case, the petitioner examined himself as PW1 and deposed about his case as set out in the petition. Ex.P1 is the wedding card

dated 12.12.2018, Ex.P2 is the two photographs along with CD., Ex.P3 is the

Certificate of identitification of the petitioner. He examined his neighbour as Pw.2 and proved that he also conducted mediation. On the other hand, the respondent herself examined as RW1 and deposed about her case as set out in the counter.

16. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and respondent are wife and husband and they were got married on 12.12.2018 as per Hindu Rites and customs.

17. Finally on 25-01-2019 without informing to the petitioner, the respondent left the house without any reason and with out fault of the petitioner. Whereas, according to the respondent, her husband i.e., the petitioner/PW.1 on the first night itself came in a drunken stage and behaved rudely with the respondent and beat her without any fault and demanded additional dowry of Rs.2 lakhs from her father and also in the month of February, 2019 the petitioner pledged the gold ornaments and harrased the respondent as she is having affair with one

Gopinadha and used to ckeck her mobile. The petitioner and his parents never interested to bring back the respondent to their house. The respondent is ready 7 and willing to settle the matter amicably.

18. The petitioner filed this petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act. It is here relevant to go through Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, which reads as follows:-

Section 9 Restitution of conjugal rights : 1 [***] When either the

husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn

from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply, by

petition to the district court, for restitution of conjugal rights and the

court, on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such

petition and that there is no legal ground why the application should

not be granted, may decree restitution of conjugal rights

accordingly.

2 [ Explanation. Where a question arises whether there has been

reasonable excuse for withdrawal from the society, the burden of

proving reasonable excuse shall be on the person who has

withdrawn from the society.] [***]

19.Being a wife, a duty is caste upon the respondent/wife to reside with her husband wherever he lives. The explanation in Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act goes to show that when any spouse reside separately, the burden is on them to prove that there is sufficient and reasonable cuase for them to live separately from their spouse. In the present case admittedly, the petitioner and respondent are residing separately. Though the petitioner is not come up with any specific date of his wife residing separately, his evidence shows that she has been residing separately from 25-1-2019. Thus, one thing is clear that on 25-1-2019 respondent is residing separately from her husband. It is not her case that the petitioner beat and driven out her. Since admittedly the respondent is residing spearately, it is for her to explain the circumstances which made her to live separately from her husband.

8

20. It is the evidence of respondent/wife as RW1 that her husband used to beat her suspecting her character even though she did not commit any mistake and he used to verify the phone calls of her mobile by suspecting her character that she is having affair with one Gopinadh. It is her furrther evidence that the petitioner never did contract work. It is her further evidence that the petitioner is addicted to vices such as consuming liquor and coming to the house in drunken state.

21.Regarding the petitioner consuming liquor and other allegation is that the petitioner used to beat her suspecting her character. But, regarding that, except the sole testimony of RW1, there is no other evidence in proof of that allegation.

If really the petitioner beat the respondent by suspecting her character, why the respondent kept quiet without informing her parents is not explained. There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the respondent held mediation through her parents and elders regarding attitude of petitioner in beating and suspecting the respondent. But, no such effort was made by the respondent. She did not even issue notice stating that due to the behaviour of petitioner, she was constrained to live away from her husband. Thus, except self serving testimony of the respondent/wife, there is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the petitioner beat and suspected her character. It is the evidence of RW1 that her husband used to beat her and suspect her character. The RW1 did not turn up for cross examination and this court eschewed evidence of RW1. Hence the contention of the chief affdiavit are not proved by the RW1.

22.Being a wife the respondent has no right to live separately from her husband without any reasonable cause. It is the contention of the respondent that due to the cruel behaviour of her husband she is residing separately. But, none instances of cruelty have been put forth by the respondent. Except vague 9 allegations that he used to beat her and he used to cheque her phone calls. As already discussed, there is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the respondent/wife has informed about the behaviour of petitioner to her parents or to the parents of petitioner and see that his behaviour is changed. Moreover, every act cannot be treated as cruelty.

23.But in a case of V. Bhagat Vs. D. Bhagat reported in AIR 1984 S.C. 710, their Lord ships have held that mental cruelty under Sec. 13(1) (ia) can be broadly defined as that :-

“conduct which reflects upon the other party, such mental pain

and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live

with the other. In other words mental cruelty must be of a such

nature that the parties cannot be reasonably accepted to live

together.”

24.In the present case, except that the petitioner used to beat and suspect her character, there is nothing in the evidence to suggest that nature of petitioner/husband is harmful to the limb and life of the respondent and that the conduct of petitioner/husband is such that it is impossible for the respondent/wife to live with her husband. Having withdrawn from the marital society it is for the respondent to explain the circumstances under which she was constrained to reside separately. But, except vague and bare allegations, the respondent did not adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate her allegations and to prove that there is a reasonable cause for withdrawal from marital society. Since the respondent who is a wife is staying from her husband without a reasonable cause, the petitioner is entitled for restitution of conjugal rights as prayed for. The point is answered accordingly.

10

25. POINT NO.2: To what relief?

In the result, the petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to join with the petitioner within two months from the date of this order. Under the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court this the 03rd day of August, 2022.

Sd/-xx

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TENALI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Petitioner:-

PW.1 : Gummadi Sudheer. PW.2 : Kurra Subba Rao.

For Respondent:-

RW.1 : Gummadi Amulya @ Devi Amulya.

Documents marked

For Petitioner:-

Ex.P1 : Wedding Card. Ex.P2 : Two photographs along with CD. Ex.P3 : Certificate of identification of petitioner.

Sd/-xx

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TENALI.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: TENALI

PRESENT: SRI T.RAMACHANDRUDU

ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TENALI

Tuesday, this the 5th day of October, 2021

HMOP No.122 of 2020

Between:

Shaik @ Siddabattuni Shahin, W/o.Siddabattuni Venkateswara Rao @ Venkateswarlu, D/o.Late Shaik Subhani, Muslim, aged about 32 years, R/o.20-21- 45, Rice Colony, Ramalingeswarapet, Tenali, Guntur District.

...Petitioner

And

Siddabattuni Venkateswara Rao @ Venkateswarlu, S/o.Brahmaiah, Hindu, aged about 39 years, Cycle Mechanic, r/o.21-35-7, Putaparthi Sai Baba Temple road, Rice Colony, Ramalingeswarapet, Tenali, Guntur District.

....Respondent

This petition came before me on 01.10.2021 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.S.Nageswara Rao and Sri M.V.Sambasiva Rao, Advocates for the Petitioner and the Respondent remained exparte and upon hearing and considering the material on record, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

: : O R D E R : :

This petition is filed by the petitioner/wife under Section 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking the Court to grant decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of the petitioner/wife with the respondent/husband, which was held on 01.09.2005 and costs of the petition.

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

The petitioner’s marriage was performed with the respondent on 01.09.2005 at Lakshmi Padmavathi Sametha Sri Venkateswara Swamy Vari Devasthanam,

Vykuntapuram, Tenali as per Hindu Caste and Customs. Immediately after marriage the marriage was consummated and the petitioner joined with the respondent for leading happy marital life at Tenali and where the respondent was a Cycle

Mechanic. Out of their wedlock, a two children were born by name Siddabattuni 2

Kushi, 14 years, and Siddabattuni Harish, 12 years.

After gave birth a male child, the respondent changed his mind, and harassing the petitioner without any reasonable cause and the respondent addicted to bad vices like drinking and neglected the petitioner and came to the house in late nights in a drunken state. The respondent did not allow the petitioner to go to her parents house for festivals and other good occasions. The respondent wants to return to her parents house which his native place without having any avocation for which the petitioner refused. Whenever the petitioner expressed her inability, to go to her house, he used to beat her severally. The respondent pressurized the petitioner to return back. The respondent do any work and spend the days without having any avocation. When the petitioner questioned it the respondent necked out the petitioner from his house with wearing apparel. As there is no alternative the petitioner came to her parents house in the year 2013 and narrated the matter to them. The parents of the petitioner sent elders to the respondent and requested him to take back the petitioner for leading a marital life but the respondent bluntly refused for the same. Since then the petitioner has been residing with her parents as the respondent deserted her and behaved cruelly without any reasonable cause.

Thus all the attempts made by the petitioner and her parents to get the petitioner with the respondent proved futile. The petitioner and respondent separately resided from 7 years. In the month of January, 2013 she deserted by the respondent. There being no option left for the petitioner except to file an application before this Court for divorce. Hence, the petitioner constrained to file this petition on ground of cruelty and desertion. Hence, this petition.

3. Respondent present and stated that there is no chance for their reunion and hence reconciliation failed and he has no objection to allow this petition, and as 3 such, this Court set him exparte and proceeded with the matter.

4. In support of the case of the petitioner, the petitioner examined herself as PW1 and Exs.P1 to P3 were marked. Ex.P1 is Marriage card. Ex.P2 is marriage photographs (3 in number) along with CD. Ex.P3 is marriage receipt issued by Sri

Lakshmi Padmavathi Sametha Sri Venkateswara Swamy Vari Devasthanam,

Vykuntapuram, Tenali.

5. Heard the counsel for petitioner.

6. On the strength of the above pleadings, the point to be determined is:

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of petitioner with the respondent held on 01.09.2005 as prayed for?

2. To what relief ?

7.POINT No.1:

(i)The evidence of PW1 shows that the petitioner’s marriage was performed with the respondent on 01.09.2005 at Lakshmi Padmavathi Sametha Sri

Venkateswara Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Vykuntapuram, Tenali as per Hindu Caste and Customs. Immediately after marriage the marriage was consummated and the petitioner joined with the respondent for leading happy marital life at Tenali and where the respondent was a Cycle Mechanic. Out of their wedlock, a two children were born by name Siddabattuni Kushi, 14 years, and Siddabattuni Harish, 12 years. After gave birth a male child, the respondent changed his mind, and harassing the petitioner without any reasonable cause and the respondent addicted to bad vices like drinking and neglected the petitioner and came to the house in late nights in a drunken state. The respondent did not allow the petitioner to go to her parents house for festivals and other good occasions. The respondent wants to return to her parents house which his native place without having any avocation for which the petitioner refused. Whenever the petitioner expressed her inability, to go 4 to her house, he used to beat her severally. The respondent pressurized the petitioner to return back. The respondent do any work and spend the days without having any avocation. When the petitioner questioned it the respondent necked out the petitioner from his house with wearing apparel. As there is no alternative the petitioner came to her parents house in the year 2013 and narrated the matter to them. The parents of the petitioner sent elders to the respondent and requested him to take back the petitioner for leading a marital life but the respondent bluntly refused for the same. Since then the petitioner has been residing with her parents as the respondent deserted her and behaved cruelly without any reasonable cause.

Thus all the attempts made by the petitioner and her parents to get the petitioner with the respondent proved futile. The petitioner and respondent separately resided from 7 years. In the month of January, 2013 she deserted by the respondent. There being no option left for the petitioner except to file an application before this Court for divorce. Hence, the petitioner constrained to file this petition on ground of cruelty and desertion. Respondent did not choose to adduce any oral or documentary evidence and therefore, the respondent was set exparte. Respondent filed a memo stating that he has no objection to allow this petition. Therefore the unchallenged evidence of the petitioner along with Exs.P1 to P3 clearly establishes that the petitioner was harassed by the respondent both physically and mentally, and the respondent deserted the petitioner from January, 2013, hence the ingredients under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act are fulfilled, therefore the petitioner is entitled to get divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Hence, the point No.1 is answered accordingly.

8. Point No.2 : In the result, this petition is allowed without costs by granting decree of divorce in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent by 5 dissolving the marriage of the petitioner which took place with the respondent on 01.09.2005 from the date of this order.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 5th day of October, 2021.)

Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Tenali

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner:

PW1- Shaik @ Siddabattuni Shahin

For Respondent:

Set - Exparte

Exhibits Marked

For Petitioner:

Ex.P1 is Marriage card. Ex.P2 is marriage photographs (3 in number) along with CD. Ex.P3 is marriage receipt issued by Sri Lakshmi Padmavathi Sametha Sri Venkateswara Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Vykuntapuram, Tenali.

For Respondent:

Nil

Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Tenali * 6

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: TENALI

PRESENT: SRI T.RAMACHANDRUDU

ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TENALI

Tuesday, this the 5th day of October, 2021

HMOP No.122 of 2020

Between:

Shaik @ Siddabattuni Shahin, W/o.Siddabattuni Venkateswara Rao @ Venkateswarlu, D/o.Late Shaik Subhani, Muslim, aged about 32 years, R/o.20-21- 45, Rice Colony, Ramalingeswarapet, Tenali, Guntur District.

...Petitioner

And

Siddabattuni Venkateswara Rao @ Venkateswarlu, S/o.Brahmaiah, Hindu, aged about 39 years, Cycle Mechanic, r/o.21-35-7, Putaparthi Sai Baba Temple road, Rice Colony, Ramalingeswarapet, Tenali, Guntur District.

....Respondent

This petition is filed by the petitioner/wife under Section 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking the Court to grant decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of the petitioner/wife with the respondent/husband, which was held on 01.09.2005 and costs of the petition.

Petition presented on:05.11.2020

Petition filed on:02.12.2020

Cause of action : Cause of action for the petition arose when the respondent married the petitioner as per Hindu rites and customs and when the marriage was consummated and the petitioner joined with the respondent for leaving happy marital life at Tenali and where the respondent was a cycle mechanic and their wedlock two children were born by name Siddabattuni Kushi, 14 years and Siddabattuni Harish, 12 years and when gave birth a male child, the respondent changed her mind, and harassing the petitioner without any reasonable cause and when the respondent addicted to bad vices like drinking and neglected the petitioner and came to the house in late nights in a drunken state and when the respondent did not allow the petitioner to go to her parents house for festivals and other good occasions and he used to beat her severally and when the respondent pressurized the petitioner to retun back to her parents house and when there the respondent do any work and spend the days without having any avocation and when the petitioner questioned it the respondent necked out the petitioner from his house with wearing apparel and when as there is no alternative the petitioner came to her parents house in the year January, 2013 and narrated the matter to them and mediation by elders proved futile and when the petitioner has been residing with her parents as the respondent deserted her and behaved cruelly without any reasonable cause and the petitioner last resided at Tenali - all are within the jurisdiction of this Court.

7

Particulars of Valuation :

This being a petition filed under the provisions U/s.13 (1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on which, a fixed Court fee of Rs.10/- is herewith paid Under Sch.II Art.I of A.P.C.F and S.V Act.

This petition came before me on 01.10.2021 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.S.Nageswara Rao and Sri M.V.Sambasiva Rao, Advocates for the Petitioner and the Respondent remained exparte and upon hearing and considering the material on record, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made doth order and decree as follows:

1)That the petition be and the same is hereby allowed.

2)that the marriage dated 01.09.2005 between the petitioner and the respondent be and the same is hereby dissolved by way of a decree for divorce; and

3)that the petitioner do bear her own institutional costs of Rs.12/- and the respondent do bear his own costs of Rs.Nil (CM and FC not filed).

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 5th day of October, 2021.

Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Tenali

Table of costs

DescriptionPetitionerRespondent CM and FC not filedCM and FC not filed Vakalat2=00- Stamps on petition10=00- Total12=00Nil

Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Tenali * 8 9

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: TENALI

PRESENT: SRI T.RAMACHANDRUDU

ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TENALI

Tuesday, this the 5th day of October, 2021

HMOP No.122 of 2020

Between:

Shaik @ Siddabattuni Shahin, W/o.Siddabattuni Venkateswara Rao @ Venkateswarlu, D/o.Late Shaik Subhani, Muslim, aged about 32 years, R/o.20-21- 45, Rice Colony, Ramalingeswarapet, Tenali, Guntur District.

...Petitioner

And

Siddabattuni Venkateswara Rao @ Venkateswarlu, S/o.Brahmaiah, Hindu, aged about 39 years, Cycle Mechanic, r/o.21-35-7, Putaparthi Sai Baba Temple road, Rice Colony, Ramalingeswarapet, Tenali, Guntur District.

....Respondent

This petition is filed by the petitioner/wife under Section 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking the Court to grant decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of the petitioner/wife with the respondent/husband, which was held on 01.09.2005 and costs of the petition.

Petition presented on:05.11.2020

Petition filed on:02.12.2020

Cause of action : Cause of action for the petition arose when the respondent married the petitioner as per Hindu rites and customs and when the marriage was consummated and the petitioner joined with the respondent for leaving happy marital life at Tenali and where the respondent was a cycle mechanic and their wedlock two children were born by name Siddabattuni Kushi, 14 years and Siddabattuni Harish, 12 years and when gave birth a male child, the respondent changed her mind, and harassing the petitioner without any reasonable cause and when the respondent addicted to bad vices like drinking and neglected the petitioner and came to the house in late nights in a drunken state and when the respondent did not allow the petitioner to go to her parents house for festivals and other good occasions and he used to beat her severally and when the respondent pressurized the petitioner to retun back to her parents house and when there the respondent do any work and spend the days without having any avocation and when the petitioner questioned it the respondent necked out the petitioner from his house with wearing apparel and when as there is no alternative the petitioner came to her parents house in the year January, 2013 and narrated the matter to them and mediation by elders proved futile and when the petitioner has been residing with her parents as the respondent deserted her and behaved cruelly without any reasonable cause and the petitioner last resided at Tenali - all are within the jurisdiction of this Court.

10

Particulars of Valuation :

This being a petition filed under the provisions U/s.13 (1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on which, a fixed Court fee of Rs.10/- is herewith paid Under Sch.II Art.I of A.P.C.F and S.V Act.

This petition came before me on 01.10.2021 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.S.Nageswara Rao and Sri M.V.Sambasiva Rao, Advocates for the Petitioner and the Respondent remained exparte and upon hearing and considering the material on record, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made doth order and decree as follows:

1)That the petition be and the same is hereby allowed.

2)that the marriage dated 01.09.2005 between the petitioner and the respondent be and the same is hereby dissolved by way of a decree for divorce; and

3)that there shall be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 5th day of October, 2021.

Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Tenali 11 12

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE: TENALI

Present:- Sri T. Ramachandrudu

principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kavali

Thursday, this the 20th day of April,2023

Sessions Case No.186 of 2021

Between:

State: Sub-Inspector of Police,

Kolluru Police Station. ..Complainant.

AND

Kokkiligadda Lakshmana Rao, S/o. Pothuraju, Kokkiligadda Lakshmana Rao, S/o. Pothuraju,

40 years, Magida, Krapa village, Kolluru mandal.40 years, Magida, Krapa village, Kolluru mandal. ..Accused. ..

This case is coming on 18.4.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. G. E. Rani, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for Complainant and of Sri Sri. G. Prabhakara Rao, Advocate for accused, and having heard and stood over for considration to this day, this Court delivered the following.

JUDGMENT

This case arises out of the charge sheet filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Kolluru Police Station in Cr. No.122/2019 for the offence under Sections 436, IPC with following allegations:

2.The accused is resident of Krapa village of Kolluru mandal and he is living by attending for agricultural coolie works. LW.1-Gorikapudi Bheemaiah who is the

De-facto complainant in this case is also resident of Krapa village and living by attending for agricultural works and also running a small buddy bunk in front of his thatched house in a separate thatched shed. Everyday the said G.

Bheemaiah used to close his buddy bunk at 10 p.m., and sleeps in his varandah.

As usually on 08.05.2019 at 10 p.m., he closed his bunk and slept in his varandah. In the intervening night i.e., on 08/09.05.2019 at about 1 a.m., some 2 flames were raised from his shed, he suddenly woke up, came out from the varandah and noticed that his thatched shed was burning with flames, on that he raised huge shouts. Then the accused who intentionally put the fire to his thatched shed, left away from there towards the house of Krapa Raja Ratnam by walk in hurry manner and G. Bheemaiah-LW.1 witnessed the accused under the lighting of street light which is present in front of the house of Krapa Raja

Ratnam. Further the flames touched to the thatched house of G.

Bheemaiah(LW.1) and both the shed and thatched house along with its articles were completely burnt. On hearing the shouts of LW.1-G. Bheemaiah, neighbours Krapa Nani, Krapa Anitha, Munipalli Isreal, Krapa Parusudda Rao (L.Ws.2 to 5) and some others came and tried to put off the flames. Due to the said fire accident G. Bheemaiah (LW.1) got loss upto Rs.50,000/-. On 09.05.2019

G. Bheemaiah (LW.1) turned up to police station and filed his report against the accused for taking necessary action.

3.Basing on the report of G. Bheemaiah (LW.1), ASI of Police (LW.8) Kolluru police station registered a case in Cr. No.122/2019 u/sec.436 of IPC of Kolluru police station on 09.5.2019 at 10 a.m., and investigated into, visited the scene of offence, in the presence of mediators i.e., Bandala Sunny and Gorikapudi Suresh (L.Ws.6 and 7), examined the same, seized ash from the scene of offence for further investigation, took photographs, prepared rough sketch and drafted an observation report duly attested by the said mediators. ASI of police (LW.8) examined G. Bheemaiah, Krapa Nani, Krapa Anitha, Munipalli Isreal, Krapa

Parusudda Rao (L.Ws.1 to 5), recorded their statements and further seized ash from the scene of offence and sent to RFSL, Guntur for analysis and report. On 24.09.2019 ASI of police (LW.8) arrested the accused, sent him for remand. Later

LW.9-SI of police, Kolluru PS took up investigation in this case, verified the 3 investigation of ASI of police (LW.8), obtained RFSL reports vide in file No.

CHE/125/2019 dated 26.9.2019, and the scientific officer issued opinion that no inflammable hydrocarbons were found in it. After completion of investigation the

SI of police (LW.9) filed charged sheet. Hence the charge.

4.The case was taken on file by the learned II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I

Class, Tenali, in PRC 03/2020 under Sections 436 IPC. After appearance, before court, copies of documents were furnished to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.As the offence under Section 436 I.P.C is exclusively triable by the Court of

Sessions, this case was committed by II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Tenali and in turn the Honourable Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Guntur numbered the case as S.C.186/201 and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to law.

6.After the accused made his appearance before this court on hearing both sides, charge under sections 436 IPC has been framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P1 to P11 and MO.1. The evidence of LW4-Munipalli Israel and S.

Ujval Kumar ASI of police, Kolluru PS (L.Ws.4 and 9) was was given up by prosecution.

8.Later the accused was examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, and he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

9.Heard arguments on both sides.

4

10.Now the Point for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt ?

11.P O I N T:- In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 7. PW1 is the De-facto complainant cum victim. He deposed in his evidence that about 5 years back at about 12’0 clock in the night, some unknown person set fire to his buddy bunk and thatched shed and he suddenly woke up and noticed the buddy bunk and the thatched shed were burning with flames. He further clearly stated that he do not know who set fire to the said buddy bunk and the thatched shed. Due to the said fire accident he sustained loss to an extent of Rs.50,000/- worth articles. Police examined him and obtained his LTI on a white paper and Ex.P1 is his LTI on the white paper. As

PW.1 did not support the case he was treated as hostile and cross examined by

Additional Public Prosecutor. His statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C

was marked as Ex.P2. Pws.2 to 4 who are witnesses and neighbours to the scene of offence deposed that they do not know anything about this case.

Hence, they were treated as hostile and cross examined by Additional Public

Prosecutor. Their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C were marked as

Exs.P3, P4 and P5 respectively.

12.PW.6 is one of the mediators for scene observation report and son of

PW.1, and he deposed in his evidence that he does not know anything about this case. Police obtained his signature in white paper, but he does not know the contents of it. Ex.P7 is his signature in the scene observation report dated 09.05.2019.

13.PW.7- A. Janardhana Rao the then ASI of police, Kolluru PS, deposed in his evidence that on 09.5.2019 at about 10 a.m., he received complaint from PW.1 and as 5 per the instructions of SI of police, he registered a case in Cr. No.122/2019 u/sec.436

IPC and submitted the original FIR (Ex.P8) to the court and copies to all concerned.

PW.7 further deposed that he visited the scene of offence, observed the same, prepared observation report (Ex.P9) of the scene of offence dated 09.5.2019, in the presence of mediators P.Ws.5 and 6, obtained their signatures, and seized the ash (MO.1) from the scene of offence, and also prepared the rough sketch (Ex.P10) to the scene of offence.

PW.7 further deposed that he secured the presence of P.Ws.1 to 4, and LW.4-Munipalli

Israel, recorded their 161 Cr.P.C., statements at the scene of offence, and that on 30.5.2019 he sent the MO.1 to the FSL, Mangalagiri for analysis and report. PW.7 further deposed that on 24.9.2019 he arrested the accused after explaining the grounds of arrest and produced before the court then the accused was remanded to judicial custody. PW.7 further deposed that on 21.6.2019 he received the FSL report (Ex.P11) through proper channel, and as per the Ex.P11 the Scientific Officer issued opinion that no inflammable hydrocarbons were found in it and that later he handed over the case file to the SI of police and the SI of police verified the investigation done by him and filed the charge sheet in this case.

14.During cross examination the investigation officer PW.7 categorically admitted that the scene of offence is situated at a distance of 4 km from the police station and that the complainant did not make any phone call to the 100 for emergency and also to the police station. He further admitted that May is summer season and in that season generally fire accidents will take place. He further admitted that besides the scene of offence there is dust bin and also there are cement benches and baskets made of palm leaves and there is possibility to the public to sit there. Pw.7 further admitted that public used to lit cigarettes and throw away the same near the buddy bunk of the complaint. PW.7 further admitted that the villagers nor the De-facto complainant PW.1 did not caught hold the accused and produced before the police station. Pw.7 further admitted that 6 he arrested the accused after four months of the offence. Pw.7 further categorically admitted that he has not examined any official witnesses to act as mediators to the seizure of MO.1 and also he has not affixed any labels of the mediators on the MO.1. PW.7 further clearly admitted that he has not obtained any photographs of the scene of offence and not called the dog squad to the scene of offence.

15.Pws.1 to 4 who are the de-facto complainant and direct witnesses and neighbours to the scene of offence and the material witnesses, did not support the case of prosecution. When the directs witnesses and the De-facto complainant who are the material witnesses to the prosecution case, have turned hostile and not supported the case, the evidence of Pw.7 the investigation officer is not sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution as his evidence is not supported by prosecution witnesses and also it is full of latches. Thus, there is absolutely no evidence against the accused to hold him guilty of the offence charged with.

16.As per the findings of the Hon’ble High court of A.P., in the judgment reported in “2000 (1) A.L.T. 174, A.P., in between Thallapalli Rajaiah Vs. State of A.P.,” his Lordships held as follows:- “When eye witnesses and injured did not support prosecution case and there is no scope for conviction of the accused, ritual of facing trial would be abuse of process of law”.

As per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court, when there is no scope for convicting the accused, further proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law.

17.On consideration of the evidence on record, I have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. So, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

7

18.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the charges under section 436,

IPC and he is acquitted U/s 235(1) Cr.P.C. This court obtained bonds from the accused and his sureties as required u/sec.437(A) Cr.P.C., and they shall stand in force for for a period of six months. The marked case property i.e., MO.1 ash for a period of six months. The marked case property i.e., MO.1 ash is ordered to be destroyed after appeal time is over.is

Typed to my dictation Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 20 th April, 2023.

Sd/-xx,

PRL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

TENALI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:- PW.1 : GORIKAPAUDI BHEEMAIAH. PW.2 : KRAPA NANI. PW.3 : KRAPA ANITHA. PW.4 : KRAPA PARISUDDA RAO. PW.5 : BANDALA SANNY. PW.6 : GORIKAPUDI SURESH. PW.7 : A. JANARDHANA RAO.

Documents Marked For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : LTI of PW.1 on the report. Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1. Ex.P3 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2. Ex.P4 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3. Ex.P5 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4. Ex.P6 : Signature portion in Scene observation report. Ex.P7 : Signature portion in scene observation report. Ex.P8 : FIR. Ex.P9 : Scene observation report. Ex.P10 : Rough sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P11 : FSL Report.

For Defence: --NIL--

Material objects Marked: MO.1 : Ash.

Sd/-xx,

PRL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

TENALI.

8

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, TENALI.

Sessions Case No.186 of 2021

Between: State: Sub-Inspector of Police,

Kolluru Police Station. ..Complainant.

AND

Kokkiligadda Lakshmana Rao, S/o. Pothuraju, Kokkiligadda Lakshmana Rao, S/o. Pothuraju,

40 years,Magida, Krapa village, Kolluru mandal.40 years,Magida, Krapa village, Kolluru mandal. ..Accused. ..

(P.R.C.No.03/2020 dt.15-02-2021 committed by Smt. Y. Premalatha, II Addl. Judl.

Magistrate of I Class, Tenali).

ChargeU/s.436 IPC. Date of offence09.05.2019 Date of appearance of the accused26.04.2021(through blue jeans) Date of commencement of Trial11.04.2023 Date of closing of trial17.04.2023 Date of sentence or order20.04.2023 Finding of the courtAcquitted.

Sentence of Order :- In the result, accused is found not guilty for the charge under section 436, IPC and he is acquitted U/s 235(1) Cr.P.C. This court obtained bonds from the accused and his sureties as required u/sec.437(A) Cr.P.C., and they shall stand in force for a period of six months. The marked case property a period of six months. The marked case property i.e., MO.1 ash is ordered to be destroyed after appeal time is over.i.e., MO.1 ash is

Explanation for Delay:- Accused was present on 26.04.2021 through blue jeans. On 09.11.2021 Sri G.Prabhakara Rao filed memo of appearance on behalf of the accused. On 04-3-2022 Examination of accused u/sec.228 Cr.P.C., was held and charge u/sec.436 IPC against accused was framed, and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On 11.04.2023 P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined. On 12.04.2023 P.Ws.3 to 6 were examined. On 13.04.2023 PW.7 was examined, the evidence of the remaining witnesses was given up by prosecution and prosecution side evidence of was closed. On 17.04.2023 the accused was examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution side evidence and reported no defence evidence. On 18.04.2023 heard arguments on both sides. On 20.04.2023 Judgment is pronounced.

Sd/-xx,

Prl. Asst. Sessions Judge, TenalI. Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble District Judge, Guntur.

Copy to: The II Addl. Judul. Magistrate of I Class, Tenali. The Director of Prosecutions, A.P., Vijayawada.