Smt. U Indira Priyadarshini

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MADANAPALLE.

Present : Smt. U.Indira Priyadarshini, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle.

Monday, the 27th (Twenty Seventh) day of September, 2021.

H.M.O.P. No.126 / 2021

Between:

1. C.Siva Reddy,

2. K.Jayasree ... Petitioners.

And:

Nil. ... Respondent.

This petition is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri R.Venkataramana Reddy, Advocate for the petitioners and upon hearing the petitioners side and upon perusing the material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed U/Sec. 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 praying this Court to dissolve their marriage which was solemnized on 12.08.2012 at Sri Sreenivasa Kalyanamandapam, Madanapalli by way of a decree of divorce on mutual consent.

02.It is averred in the petition that the 2nd petitioner is the wife of the 1st petitioner and their marriage has been solemnized according to

Hindu rites and customs prevailing in Hindu community on 12.08.2012 at Sri Sreenivasa Kalyanamandapam, Madanapalli. After the marriage, they went to Bangalore and started their married life.

The first petitioner is working in a private company and the second petitioner at the instance of 1st petitioner completed her Fashion

Designer course at Bangalore and thereafter started shop under the name and style of “Ayashi Designer Boutique. After lapse of nearly six 2 years, the petitioners are not begot any children and after consulting the Doctors, they came to know that there are lesser possibilities to get children between them. From the date of knowing the said fact, there arose misunderstandings between them. As a result, the petitioners began to live separately for a period of two years. They have not been able to live together and there is no possibility of any reconciliation of reunion between them as all the efforts done by the elders are went in vain and they settled their financial matters also.

Both the petitioners agreed that their marriage should be got dissolved through Court. The petitioners are unable to live together and their matrimonial tie is irretrievably broken and both the petitioners are residing separately and not willing continue their marital tie and decided to dissolve their marriage by a decree of divorce. Hence both the petitioners pray the Court to dissolve their marriage by decree of divorce on mutual consent.

03.During the course of enquiry, the 1st petitioner himself examined as P.W.1 and 2nd petitioner herself examined as P.W.2 and no documents are marked.

04.Now the point for determination is whether the petitioners can be granted divorce on mutual consent or not?

05.Point:The petitioners 1 and 2 filed their chief affidavits as

P.Ws 1 and 2 reiterating the contents of the petition. P.W.1/husband categorically stated that after the marriage they went to Bangalore and started their married life. He is working in a private company and after lapse of nearly six years they are not begot any children and after consulting the Doctors, they came to know that there are lesser possibilities to get children between them for which misunderstandings arose between them and they are began to living separately for a period of two years till today. PW-1 contended that 3 they have been able to live together and there is no possibility of any reconciliation or reunion between them as all the efforts done by the elders are went in vain and prayed to dissolve the marriage. PW- 2/wife also stated in her chief affidavit that after the marriage at the instance of 1st petitioner she has completed her Fashion Designer

Course at Bangalore and thereafter at the instance of 1st petitioner she started shop under the name and style of “Ayashi Designer

Boutique” and now the shop is running by her. Thereafter due to misunderstandings herself and the 1st petitioner are living separately.

She also stated that herself and the 1st petitioner are unable to live together as husband and wife and both of them decided to dissolve their marriage by a decree of divorce on mutual consent.

06.PW.1 and PW.2 are also stated in their chief affidavits that both of them are agreed that their marriage should be got dissolved through Court of law on mutual consent with the conditions that the house site purchased in the name of second petitioner by the 1st petitioner is given to the second petitioner under a registered document bearing No.585/2014 dated 03.02.2014, the insurance policy bearing No.21164209 that was taken in the name of second petitioner is given to her as it is and she can continue the same or she can withdrawn the same, the shop running under the name and style “Ayashi Designer Boutique” is given to the second petitioner and the two wheeler purchased in the name of second petitioner by the 1st petitioner by name Jupiter is given to the second petitioner. Both the petitioners also stated that they will not initiate any further court litigations against each other in the nature of civil or criminal. Since both the petitioners agreed for divorce on mutual consent, this court has no option except to allow the petition.

4

07.Considering all these factors, I am of the view that the marriage of the petitioner and respondent shall be dissolved and divorce can be granted on mutual consent.

08.In the result, the petition is allowed by dissolving the marriage between the first petitioner and second petitioner which was solemnized on 12.08.2012 at Sri Sreenivasa Kalyanamandapam, Madanapalli by granting decree of divorce on mutual consent. No costs. 

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 27th day of September, 2021.

Sd/- Smt. U.Indira Priyadarshini

PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MADANAPALLE

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner: For Respondent:

P.W.1: C.Siva Reddy, -None- P.W.2: K.Jayasree.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

Nil.

Id/- Smt. U.Indira Priyadarshini PSCJ/MPL.

Fair Order in

H.M.O.P.No. 126 of 2021

Dt. 27.09.2021.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MADANAPALLE.

Present : Smt. U.Indira Priyadarshini, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle.

Monday, the 27th day of September, 2021.

H.M.O.P. No.167 / 2021

Between:

1. A.Prakash,

2. M.Jyothi ... Petitioners.

And:

Nil. ... Respondent.

This petition is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Y.Samba Siva Reddy, Advocate for the petitioners and upon hearing the petitioners side and upon perusing the material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed U/Sec. 13-B (1) and (2) of Hindu Marriage

Act 1955 praying this Court to dissolve their marriage which was solemnized on 02.05.2018 at Ellama Gangamma Temple, Bangalore by way of a decree of divorce on mutual consent.

02.It is averred in the petition that the 2nd petitioner is the wife of the 1st petitioner and their marriage has been solemnized according to

Hindu rites and customs prevailing in Hindu community on 02.05.2018 at Ellamma Gangamma Temple, Bangalore being love marriage and their marriage performed by the sister of 1st petitioner.

After the marriage, they put up their family at Bangalore for a period of two years. During their wedlock, the second petitioner blessed with two male children. Thereafter the 1st petitioner addicted to liquor and there are some differences arose between the 1st petitioner and 2 2nd petitioner. The second petitioner came to her parental home. Due to mediations conducted by both side elders and that the 1st petitioner joined with second petitioner at his native village Thummachetlapalli,

Angallu village and lived for a period of two months but the matrimonial life between the petitioners did not patch up. All the mediations proved futile. The petitioners are unable to live together and their matrimonial tie is irretrievably broken and both the petitioners are residing separately since more than nine months.

There are no hopes of reunion between the petitioners. Hence both the petitioners pray the Court to dissolve their marriage by decree of divorce on mutual consent.

03.During the course of enquiry, the 1st petitioner himself examined as P.W.1 and 2nd petitioner herself examined as P.W.2. and no documents are marked.

04.Now the point for determination is whether the petitioners can be granted divorce on mutual consent or not?

05.Point:The petitioners 1 and 2 filed their chief affidavits as

P.Ws 1 and 2 reiterating the contents of the petition. P.W.1/husband categorically stated that after their marriage, they set up family at

Bangalore and he has been working in Muthoot Finance for some time and Bajaj Finance for some time. The second petitioner used to pickup quarrels with him for silly reasons for which aversion developed between them against each other and the second petitioner totally neglected him as such he is living with his parents inevitably at

Marimireddigaripalle. P.W.1 further stated that they did not show any interest to have conjugal life between them and they avoided each other for the same as such the matrimonial life between them is irretrievably broken and there is no possibility of leading matrimonial life. They are living separately since about one year and there is no 3 possibility of reunion and cohabitation between them. He also stated that all the efforts made by the relatives proved futile and hence both the petitioners decided to dissolve their marriage by decree of divorce on mutual consent.

06.The 2nd petitioner as P.W.2 reiterated the contents of the petition and she also agreed for divorce on mutual consent. She also categorically stated that the 1st petitioner failed to provide minimum needs and maintain her well and also pledged her gold ear studs, finger rings, gold chain belonged to her and during their wedlock she blessed two male children who is presently aged about 3 years and 1.5 years respectively and after filing of this petition, the elders of both sides opined that the custody of her elder son namely Krishna

Teja given to the custody of the 1st petitioner and the younger son namely Koushik is given to her custody and she is allowed to visit her elder son Krishna Teja who is given in custody to 1st petitioner for which the 1st petitioner should not raise any objection vice versa she will not object the 1st petitioner in case of his visit to their younger son

Koushik who is given in her custody. She also stated that herself and the 1st petitioner are unable to live together as husband and wife and both of them decided to dissolve their marriage by a decree of divorce on mutual consent. Since both the petitioners agreed for divorce on mutual consent, this court has no option except to allow the petition.

06.Considering all these factors, I am of the view that the marriage of the petitioner and respondent shall be dissolved and divorce can be granted on mutual consent.

07.In the result, the petition is allowed by dissolving the marriage between the first petitioner and second petitioner which was solemnized 4 on 02.05.2018 at Ellama Gangamma Temple, Bangalore by granting decree of divorce on mutual consent. No costs. 

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 27th day of September, 2021.

Sd/- Smt. U.Indira Priyadarshini

PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MADANAPALLE

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner: For Respondent:

P.W.1: A.Prakash, -None- P.W.2: M.Jyothi.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

Nil.

Id/- Smt. U.Indira Priyadarshini PSCJ / MPL.

Fair Order in

H.M.O.P.No.167 of 2021

Dt. 27.09.2021.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MADANAPALLE.

Present : Smt. U.Indira Priyadarshini, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle.

Monday, the 27th (Twenty Seventh) day of September, 2021.

H.M.O.P.No.168 / 2021

Between:

Sri Mekala Kumar ... Petitioner.

And:

Smt. Rajanna Siva Varaha Thallamamba @ Keerthi ... Respondent.

This petition is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.Krishna Reddy and Sri P.V.Narasimhulu, Advocates for the petitioner and of Sri S.Parveez Ahmed, Advocate for the respondent; and upon hearing the arguments on both sides and upon perusing the material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

This Petition is filed U/Sec.13 (1) (i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying this Court to dissolve the marriage between the petitioner and respondent which was solemnized on 20.03.2020 at Sree Labala

Gangamma Devasthanam, Chembakur road, Madanapalle Mandal,

Chittoor district by way of decree of divorce and for costs.

02.The averments of the petition are as follows:

It is averred that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent has been solemnized according to Hindu rites and customs prevailing in Hindu community on 20.03.2020 at Sree Labala

Gangamma Devasthanam, Chembakur road, Madanapalle Mandal,

Chittoor district. After the marriage, they put up the family at

Guttumeedapalle village, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor district and both of them lived happily for a period of two months. After that the respondent and her parents insisted the petitioner to shift the family to

Eswaramma colony, Madanapalle. The respondent got bore grudge against the petitioner and his family members and harassing them 2 unnecessarily. The respondent addicted sophisticated and luxury life and she is not showing any interest to stay at petitioner’s house. The respondent is staying most of the days in her parental home only and the respondent used to left the matrimonial society of the petitioner without prior intimation and without assigned reasons best known to her. After the petitioner went to respondent parent’s house, he requested to come and join with him but the respondent bluntly refused the same. The petitioner conducted several mediations through elders but her family are not heed up the advice of elders.

There are no hopes of reunion. Several mediations were conducted but in vain. There is no hope for reunion. Hence the petition.

03.Notice was served on the respondent and the counsel for the respondent filed vakalat on behalf of respondent. Both parties filed a petition under Order 23 Rule 3 of C.P.C. to permit them to compromise the matter. The said petition is also allowed.

04.Now the point for consideration is whether the marriage of the petitioner and respondent can be dissolved or not?

05.POINT:- When the matter was coming up for enquiry, as already stated, both parties filed petition under Order 23 Rule 3 of

C.P.C. to compromise the petition and the said petition is allowed. The terms of compromise are as follows:

1.The petitioner agreed to settle the matter with the respondent at the intervention of village elders to avoid future litigations and better prospects of life. Both parties should not interfere with the affairs of the future life of each other.

2.One should not be filed any criminal cases against each other before any courts of law in future.

3.The petitioner paid a sum of RS.58,000/- (Rupees Fifty eight thousand only) and 100 grams of gold jewellery today i.e., on 27.09.2021 to the respondent towards permanent alimony. The respondent is not entitled to claim any future maintenance or right over the 3 petitioner in a person or his properties.

4.The respondent has no right to initiate any civil or criminal cases against the petitioner and his family members in future. Both the petitioner and respondent cannot question each other, their way of leading life and they lead their life as they like after divorce and decree.

5.Hence today onwards there is no matrimonial relationship with each other i.e., petitioner and respondent. Both parties have liberty to marry with their will and wishes. Both parties in view of the above terms agreed to dissolve the marriage of the petitioner and respondent by way of decree and divorce according to law in the interest of justice.

6.Both the petitioner and respondent agreed to bear their own costs.

06.This Court has examined both the petitioner and respondent subsequently with regard to terms of compromise. Both of them informed that they agreed for terms of compromise and they also agreed for dissolution of marriage.

07.Since the petitioner and respondent mutually agreed for dissolution of marriage, I am of the view that the marriage shall be dissolved in terms of compromise.

08.In the result, this petition is allowed. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent which was solemnized on 20.03.2020 at Sree Labala Gangamma Devasthanam, Chembakur road,

Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor district is hereby dissolved in terms of compromise. In the circumstances, no costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 27th day of September, 2021.

Sd/- Smt. U.Indira Priyadarshini

PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MADANAPALLE

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side Id/- Smt. U.Indira Priyadarshini P.S.C.J./MPL.

4

Fair Order in

H.M.O.P.No. 168 of 2021

Dt. 27.09.2021.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PUNGANUR.

Present : Smt. U.Indira Priyadarshini, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle FAC. Senior Civil Judge, Punganur.

Monday, the 13th day of September, 2021

O.S. No. 9 of 2021

Between:

M.Pawan Kumar Reddy ... Plaintiff.

And:

1. Ramanjulu @ Babu,

2. Venkataramana @ Ramana,

3. Venkata Reddy,

4. Venkataramana @ Painter,

5. T.Nagaraju,

6. Venkataramana,

7. C.Venkataramana,

8. Hanumanthu. … Defendants.

This suit is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Y.Raghunatha Reddy and M.A.Noori, Advocates for the plaintiff; upon perusing the material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

This suit is filed for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their men, friends, relatives, followers from in any way interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property in conducting granite quarrying operations, transportation of dressed granite blocks from the plaint schedule property by way of permanent injunction and for costs.

02.Plaintiff’s counsel filed a memo by not pressing the suit.

The same is recorded. Hence suit is dismissed as not pressed.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 13th day of September, 2021.

Sd/- Smt. U.Indira Priyadarshini,

PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MADANAPALLE,

FAC/SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PUNGANUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Nil.

SCJ/PGR.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MADANAPALLE

Present : Smt. U.Indira Priyadarshini, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle.

Monday, the 27th day of September, 2021

H.M.O.P. No.169 of 2021

Between:

M.Soma Shekar ... Petitioner.

And

S.Bhavani ... Respondent.

This petition is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.Jayanarayana Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner; upon perusing the material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed under Section 13 (i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act praying this Court to dissolve the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent which was solemnized on 20.07.2020 by way of decree of divorce and for costs.

02.Both parties absent. K.Raghupathy, Advocate filed vakalath

for respondent. Petitioner and counsel filed not press memo. Hence

petition is dismissed as not pressed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 27th day of September, 2021.

Sd/- Smt. U.Indira Priyadarshini

PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MADANAPALLE

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Nil. Id/- Smt. U.Indira Priyadarshini PSCJ / MPL.