Smt.v.devi Sai Srivani

1 Decree

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

REPALLE

Present:: Smt V.Devi Sai Srivani,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) :: Repalle.

Thursday, this the 10 th day of July, 2025.

O.S.153/2025

Between:

Naidu Bhagavantha Rao, S/o.Venkata Narayana, Hindu, aged 65 years, R/o.D.No.8-137/1, Nizampatnam village and mandal, Bapatla District.

...Plaintiff.

And

Nakka Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Rangaiah, Hindu, aged 60 years, R/o.D.No.44/1, Pallapatla village, Nizampatnam Mandal, Bapatla District.

…Defendant.

This case is coming before me on 08.07.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.Jeevan Kumar, Advocate for Plaintiff and the Defendant having remained ex-parte, and upon perusing the material on record this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for a preliminary decree in respect of the schedule property to bring the same to sale in case the Defendant fails to discharge the suit amount of Rs.8,44,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs forty four thousand only) with subsequent interest and costs; and for such other reliefs that are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2 Decree

2. The facts set out in the plaint are as follows:

a)The plaintiff submits that the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) from the plaintiff on 20.09.2017 for his agricultural expenses by agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or his order on demand and executed a registered mortgage deed vide Document No.1964/2004 of SRO, Repalle in favour of the Plaintiff towards security.

b)In spite of several demands made by the plaintiff to the

Defendant personally and through mediators for repayment of the said mortgage debt. But the defendant procrastinated the same for some reason or the other. Thereafter, the plaintiff got issued a registered legal notice to the defendant on 10.03.2025, the defendant received the said notice and kept quiet. Therefore, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for recovery of the suit amount.

03. The suit summons of Defendant served personally on 13.06.2025 but he did not choose to contest the suit. Hence, the defendant is set ex-parte.

04. During the course of trial, the plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4 documents.

3 Decree

05. Heard the learned counsel for the Plaintiff. Perused the record.

06. Now, the point for consideration is:

Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for a preliminary decree for

recovery of the suit amount, as prayed for?

07. P O I N T:-

In support of his case, the plaintiff besides examining himself as PW1, got marked Ex.A1 which is Original Registered Mortgage Deed, dt.20.09.2017 executed by the Defendant in favour of the Plaintiff. Ex.A2 is the Office copy of registered notice, dt.10.03.2025 got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant. Ex.A3 is the Postal receipt, dt.10.03.2025 and Ex.A4 is the

Served postal acknowledgment of the defendant. The Plaintiff has reiterated the averments of his plaint in his chief examination. The evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 registered mortgage deed clearly supports the case of the Plaintiff.

08.As the unchallenged evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 document clearly supports the case of the Plaintiff, this Court has no hesitation to answer the point in favour of the Plaintiff.

09.In the result, this suit is decreed preliminarily with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and the defendant is directed to pay a 4 Decree sum of Rs.8,44,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs forty four thousand only) with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and @ 6% p.a from the date of decree till the date of realization on the

principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only). The period of

redemption is three months from the date of this judgment. If the defendant fails to pay the said amount within the period of redemption, the plaintiff is at liberty to bring the mortgaged property of the defendant to sale and realize the said amount.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 10th day of July, 2025.

Sd/-V.Devi Sai Srivani

Prl.Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Repalle.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

P.W.1: Naidu Bhagavantha Rao Nil.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Original Registered Mortgage Deed, dt.20.09.2017 executed by the Defendant in favour of the Plaintiff.

5 Decree

Ex.A2: Office copy of registered notice, dt.10.03.2025 got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant.

Ex.A3: Postal receipt, dt.10.03.2025

Ex.A4: Served postal acknowledgment of the defendant.

For Defendant:

Nil

Sd/-V.Devi Sai Srivani

Prl.Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Repalle.

//True Copy// PCJ(JD), Repalle.

6 Decree

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

REPALLE

Present:: Smt V.Devi Sai Srivani,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) :: Repalle.

Thursday, this the 10 th day of July, 2025.

O.S.153/2025

Between:

Naidu Bhagavantha Rao, S/o.Venkata Narayana, Hindu, aged 65 years, R/o.D.No.8-137/1, Nizampatnam village and mandal, Bapatla District.

...Plaintiff.

And

Nakka Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Rangaiah, Hindu, aged 60 years, R/o.D.No.44/1, Pallapatla village, Nizampatnam Mandal, Bapatla District.

…Defendant.

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for a preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff for the suit amount of Rs.8,44,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs forty four thousand only) with interest at 24% p.a to be paid within the prescribed time and in default, the plaintiff be entitled to apply for a final decree for the sale of the Mortgaged property shown in the schedule of the plaint. In case of sale proceeds are not found sufficient to discharge the decree amount and further interest thereon, prays to pass a personal decree against the defendant for realization of the balance amount and for costs of the suit.

Plaint presented on: 08.05.2025 Plaint numbered on: 17.05.2025

CAUSE OF ACTION:

Cause of action for the suit arose when the defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 20.09.2017 and got executed the mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff and thereafter the 7 Decree defendant failed to repay the same where the suit scheduled property situated within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court.

PARTICULARS OF VALUATION:

The value of the Mortgage Deed, dt.20.09.2017 Rs.3,00,000/-

Interest @ 24% p.a from 20.09.2017 To 10.04.2025Rs.5,44,000/- -------------------- TotalRs.8,44,000/-

On which a Court fee of Rs.10,926/- is paid under Sec.20 of A.P.C.F and S.V. Act.

Value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction is Rs.8,44,000/-.

This suit is coming on this day before me for final hearing on 08.07.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.Jeevan Kumar, Advocate for Plaintiff and the Defendant having remained ex-parte, upon hearing learned counsel for plaintiff, upon perusing the material available on record and upon consideration to this day this court doth order and preliminary decree as follows:

1)It is hereby declared that an amount due to the plaintiff on the mortgage mentioned in the plaint calculated up to 10.04.2025 is the sum of Rs.8,44,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs forty four thousand only) towards principal and interest, and the sum ofRs.10,928/- (Rupees ten thousand nine hundred and twenty eight only) towards institution costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff, making in all the sum of Rs.8,54,928/- (Rupees eight lakhs fifty four thousand nine hundred and twenty eight only).

2) And it is hereby ordered and decreed as follows:

8 Decree

(i) that the defendant do pay into court on or before 10th day of October, 2025 (Three months time is granted for redemption) a sum of Rs.8,54,928/- with subsequent interest thereon @ 6% per annum from the date of suit i.e. 08.05.2025 till the date of redemption i.e., 10.10.2025 i.e., Rs.21,381/- and costs of Rs.10,928/- in total Rs.32,309/-till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/-;

(ii) that on such payment and on payment thereafter before such date as the court may fix, or such amount as the court may adjudge in respect of such costs of the suit and such costs, charges and expenses as may be payable under Rule 10, together with such subsequent interest as may be payable under Rule 11 of Order XXXIV of the First schedule to the code of Civil Procedure 1908, the plaintiff shall bring into court all documents in his possession or power relating to the mortgaged property in the plaint mentioned and all such documents shall be handed over to the defendant or to such person he appoints and the plaintiff shall if so required re-convey or re transfer the said property free from the said mortgage and clear off free from all encumbrance created by the plaintiff or any person claiming under him or any person under whom he claims and shall, if so required deliver up to the defendant quiet and peaceable possession of the said property.

3) And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that in default of payment as aforesaid, the plaintiff may apply to the court for a final decree for the sale of the mortgaged property and on such application being made the mortgaged property on a sufficient part thereof shall be directed to be sold and for the purpose of such sale, the plaintiff shall produce before the court or such officer as it appoints all documents in his possession or power relating to the mortgaged property.

4)And it is hereby further, ordered and decreed that the money realized by such sale shall be paid into court and shall be duly applied for (after deduction the reform of the expenses of the sale) on payment of the amount payable to the plaintiff under this decree and under any further orders that may be passed in this suit and in payment of any amount which the court may adjudge due to the plaintiff in respect of such costs of the suit and such costs, charges and expenses as may be payable under rule 10 together with such subsequent interest as may be payable under rule 11 of Order XXXIV of the First schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and that the balance, if any, shall be paid to the defendant or other person entitled to receive the same.

9 Decree

5)And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that if the money realized by such sale shall not be sufficient for payment in full of the amount payable to the plaintiff as aforesaid, the plaintiff shall be at liberty (where such remedy is open to him under the terms of the mortgage and is not barred by any law for the time being in force) to apply for a personal decree against the defendant for the amount of the balance and that the parties are at liberty to apply to the court from time to time as they have occasion and on such application or otherwise the court may give such directions as it thinks fit.

(Plaint schedule is hereto attached).

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this the 10th day of July, 2025.

Sd/-V.Devi Sai Srivani

Prl.Civil Judge (Junior Division), Repalle.

TABLE OF COSTS

Sl. No For Plaintiff For Defendant

01Stamp on Vakalat2-00Ex-parte

(C.M. & F.C.

02Plaint fees 10,926-00 not filed)

*Institution Costs 10,928-00

PCJ(JD),

Repalle.

//True copy// PCJ(JD), Repalle.

C.C.No.303/2020 - 1 - P.C.J(J.D) COURT,

Date : 18.07.2025. Repalle.

Fair

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

REPALLE

Present::Smt V.Devi Sai Srivani,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) :: Repalle.

Friday, this the 18 th day of July, 2025.

C.C.No.303/2020

Between:

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Adavaladeevi Police Station. … Complainant.

AND

1. Yamineni Tirumala Rao, S/o.Yellaraiah, aged 30 years,

2. Yemineni Mangamma, W/o.Yellaraiah, aged 49 years,

3. Morla Lakshmi Kumari, W/o.Venkateswara Rao, aged 38 years,

4. Sonti Kanakamma, W/o.Tirupathaiah, aged 75 years,

5. Yenumula Venkateswaramma, W/o.Koteswara Rao, aged 40 years,

6. Yenumula Jayamma, W/o.Nageswara Rao, aged 36 years,

7. Thatha Kumari, W/o.Veeranjaneyulu, aged 34 years,

8. Meka Mangamma @ Bulli, W/o.Venkat Rao, aged 37 years,

9. Yenumula Gopi, S/o.Koteswara Rao, aged 19 years, (All are C/Gowda, Adavala village, Dindi Panchayat, Nizampatnam Mandal). … Accused.

This case has come up before me on 17.07.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri O.Rambabu, advocate for the Complainant and the Accused appeared in person and the matter having been stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Adavaladeevi Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused A1 to A9 for the offence U/s.498-A, 323, 324, 506,448 r/w 34 of IPC in Cr.No.36/2020 of Adavaladeevi Police Station.

C.C.No.303/2020 - 2 - P.C.J(J.D) COURT,

Date : 18.07.2025. Repalle.

Fair

2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that:

a.PW3/Y.Tirupatamma is the grand-daughter of PW1/K.Pothuraju.

PW3 got married 12 years ago with A1 and not blessed with kids. A1 has not looked after PW3 properly since the marriage. A1 got acquaintance with A8. A1 has been harassing PW4 physically and mentally. A2 and A3 who are the sister and mother of A1 instigated A1 to harass PW3 and planned to get him another marriage. Three days prior to report, while LW5/Y.Srinivasa Rao is at home, she objected A1 regarding his intimacy with A8. Then A1 grew angry and bet her black and blue with hands and legs and necked her out by threatening with dire consequences at mid night. Then PW3 reached the house of PW1. Later, PW1 along with elders Lws 5 to 8 namely Y.Srinivasa rao, Y.Rambabu, M.Venkaiah and

M.Sreenu called A1 for discussion but he did not heed. A1 foisted rumors on PW3 that she told A1’s niece has some acquaintance with other person. Then A4 and her close relatives trespassed into the house of complainant, attacked PW3 and

PW1 with sticks, bet PW1 and his left eye resulting in blood oozing. In the mean time A9 armed with stick and intimidated to do away PW1’s life and even threatened PW3 in filthy language. LW2/K.Suvarthamma, PW2/S.Rambabu,

PW3/Y.Tirupatamma, Lws 5 to 9 witnessed the occurance and PW2 and LW10 rescued the complainant and admitted in hospital. On 11.05.2020 the complainant deposed his statement to police.

b.On receipt of hospital intimation, LW12/HC3500, B.Krishna of Repalle

P.S visited the CHC, Repalle secured LW1/K.Pothuraju recorded her statement and forwarded to PW4/HC 3811 Naidu Naga Raju, Adavaladeevi P.S who registered the statement and intimation as a case in Cr.No.36/2020 U/s.498-A, 323, 324, 506,448 r/w 34 of IPC of Adavaladeevi P.S on 12.05.2020 at 11.00 hrs

C.C.No.303/2020 - 3 - P.C.J(J.D) COURT,

Date : 18.07.2025. Repalle.

Fair and submitted copies of FIR to all officers concerned and originals to the Hon’ble

Court and took up investigation in this case.

c. PW4 visited Adavala village of Dindi Panchayat and secured PW1,

LW2, PW2, PW3, Lws 5 to 10 and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C statements.

LW14/A.Hari babu, SI of Police, Adavaladeevi PS verified the investigation done by

PW4. He served 41A Cr.P.C notice to A1 to A9. LW14 obtained wound certificate of PW1 from LW11/Dr.J.Venkateswarlu, Medical Officer, CHC, Repalle and opined that injuries are simple in nature. After completion of investigation LW14 filed charge sheet.

3.This case was taken cognizance of the offence U/s.498A, 323, 324, 506, 448, r/w 34 of I.P.C. On appearance of the accused, copies of all documents as required U/s.207 of Criminal Procedure Code, were furnished to them.

4.Upon considering the facts of this case, this Court framed the

Charges for the offence U/s.498A, 323, 324, 506, 448, r/w 34 of I.P.C. against A1 to A9 and they are examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C and as such, they were explained and read over the particulars of the alleged offence to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Then the prosecution was directed by the Court to lead their evidences in the case.

5.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. Ex.P1 is the signature of P.W.1 on the statement recorded in hospital/report. Ex.P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1. Ex.P3 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2. Ex.P4 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3.

Ex.P5 is hospital intimation dt.10.05.2020, Ex.P6 is the F.I.R. Ex.P7 is the rough sketch. Ex.P8 is the wound certificate of P.W.1. The evidence of

LW2/K.Suvarthamma, Lws 5 to 8 namely Y.Srinivasa rao, Y.Rambabu,

C.C.No.303/2020 - 4 - P.C.J(J.D) COURT,

Date : 18.07.2025. Repalle.

Fair M.Venkaiah and M.Sreenu, LW9/Y.Nancharaiah, LW10/Y.Srinivasa Rao,

LW11/Dr.J.Venkateswarlu, LW12/HC B.Krishna of Repalle P.S and

LW14/A.Haribabu SI of police were given up by the prosecution. The evidence of

L.W.13/HC Naidu Naga Raju was examined as P.W.2 who is the I.O.

6.Since there is no incriminating material in prosecution’s evidence, examination of accused U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with.

7.Heard the arguments of both sides.

8. Now the Points for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved its case against A1 to A9

for the offence punishable under Section U/s.498-A, 323, 324, 506,448

r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?”

POINT NOS.i & ii:

9.In the instant case, the prosecution story revolves around facts that the A1 subjected P.W.1 to cruelty during their marital and that A1 to A9 caused vol- untary hurt to Pws 1 and 3 with sticks, trespassed into the house of PW1 and threatened P.W.1 and PW3 with dire consequences and as such they received bleeding injuries.

10.To prove the prosecution case, four witnesses were examined on record.

11.P.W.1/Complainant in his chief examination, deposed that he is the resident of Adavala village. PW1 deposed that he does not know anything in this case. He signed on report at the instance of police station and he does not know its contents. The learned A.P.P., sought permission to declare the witness as hostile.

P.W.1 turned hostile without supporting the case of prosecution and nothing was elicited from his cross-examination. Pws 2 and 3 alos truned hostile without sup-

C.C.No.303/2020 - 5 - P.C.J(J.D) COURT,

Date : 18.07.2025. Repalle.

Fair porting the case of prosecution. The evidence of Pws 1 to 3 shows that the com- plainant compromised with the accused persons.

12. P.W.4/HC, who investigated in this case, deposed that LW12 recorded statement of PW1 and forwarded to him. He verified the statement of

PW1 and basing on it he registered his case, prepared rough sketch, examined witnessess. PW4 further stated that he handed over case file to LW14 who issued 41A notices to accused persons, received wound certificate and filed charge sheet.

Nothing was elicited from cross-examination of PW4.

13.On perusal of entire testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 4, there is no incriminat- ing evidence on record to show that the A1 subjected P.W.1 to cruelty and that A1 to A9 voluntarily caused hurt with stick, trespassed into the house of PW1 and threatened them Pws 1 and 3 with dire consequences.

14.Therefore, this Court has not found a single proof attributed against

A1 to A9 that they committed the offences U/s.498-A, 323, 324, 506,448 r/w 34 of

IPC. Without there being any evidence, the accused persons cannot be convicted for said offences and that the prosecution has absolutely not succeeded in proving its case against the accused persons for the said offences U/s.498-A, 323, 324, 506,448 r/w 34 of IPC., and, as such, the accused persons are entitled for clean acquittal. Hence, this Point is answered accordingly.

15. In the result, A1 to A9 are found not guilty of the offence U/s.498-A, 323, 324, 506,448 r/w 34 of IPC., and accordingly, they are acquitted U/s.248(1) of

Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused persons, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 18th day of July, 2025.

Sd/- V.Devi Sai Srivani

Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Repalle.

C.C.No.303/2020 - 6 - P.C.J(J.D) COURT,

Date : 18.07.2025. Repalle.

Fair

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

P.W.1 : K.Pothuraju

P.W.2 : Sonti Rambabu

P.W.3 : Yemineni Tirupatamm

P.W.4 : Nayudu Nagaraju

FOR DEFENCE:

- None -

EXHIBITS MARKED.

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 : Signature of P.W.1 on the statement recorded in hospital/report.

Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1.

Ex.P3 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2.

Ex.P4 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3.

Ex.P5 : Hospital intimation dt.10.05.2020.

Ex.P6 : F.I.R.

Ex.P7 : Rough sketch.

Ex.P8 : Wound certificate of P.W.1

FOR DEFENCE: Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

- Nil -

Sd/- V.Devi Sai Srivani

Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Repalle.

// True Copy //

//True copy//

PCJ(JD), Repalle. //Treie

Judicial First Class Magistrate - Cum -

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Machilipatnam.

1 AJMFC,RPL OS No.99 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION):

REPALLE.

Present: Smt. V.Devi Sai Srivani Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Repalle FAC Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Repalle

Tuesday, this the 26th day of August,2025

ORIGINAL SUIT No.99/2025

Between: Shaik Meerabi W/o. Mohammad Tajuddin D/o. Karimulla, aged about 21 years, Muslim, Housewife, Parent’s protection, R/o. Door No.1-107, Bethapudi, Repalle Mandal, Bapatla District. …. Plaintiff

And

Mohammad Tajuddin S/o. Shamshuddin, aged about 25 years, Muslim, Unemployee, R/o. Door No.15-7-19, Bestaapalem, Opp. Ramalayam, Bapatla, Kanagala, Bapatla District. …. Defendant.

This suit is coming on 22-08-2025 before this court for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Borra Srinivasa Rao, advocate for plaintiff and defendant remained exparte and on perusing the material on record, this Court made the following:

J U D G E M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff(wife) under section 26 of C.P.C.

r/w Sec.2 of the Dissolution of the Muslim Marriage Act,1939 seeking the Court to dissolve the marriage of the plaintiff with the defendant held on 25.04.2024. .

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

The plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of the defendant and their marriage was solemnized on 25.04.2024 at Suryakali Function

Plaza, near railway station, Bapatla, according to Muslim law. Soon after the marriage, the plaintiff joined with the defendant at Bapatla 2 AJMFC,RPL OS No.99 of 2025 and their marriage was consummated. They lived amicably for a period of one month only. Thereafter, disputes arose between the plaintiff and defendant, due to misbehaviour and bad vices of defendant. The defendant started harassing the plaintiff both physically and mentally with a demand to bring more money from her parents. Plaintiff expressed inability of her parents to fulfill the demand of defendant.

Then, defendant increased the harassment against the plaintiff by stating that due to marrying plaintiff, defendant fate was gone wrong in his career. In the month of May,2024, defendant deserted the plaintiff.

Thereafter, elders made mediations, but were proved futile. Since, the plaintiff is residing with her parents at Bethapudi. On 01.05.2024, the defendant came to the parental house of plaintiff and beat her indiscriminately. Having waited for nearly 10 months after desertion of defendant, as there is no use, plaintiff is constrained to file this suit..

Hence, the suit.

3.defendant remained exparte. plaintiff herself got examined as P.W.1 and Ex.A1 to A3 are marked.

4.Heard.

5.Now the point for consideration is that:

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of divorce”?

6.POINT:

This is a petition filed by the plaintiff under section 26 of

C.P.C. r/w Sec.2 of the Dissolution of the Muslim Marriage Act,1939 seeking the court to grant divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The version of the plaintiff is that the defendant married her on 25.04.2024 at Suryakali Function Plaza, near railway station,

Bapatla, according to Muslim law and soon after the marriage, she joined with him and lead marital life for one month. The unchallenged 3 AJMFC,RPL OS No.99 of 2025 evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 discloses that the defendant married the plaintiff according to Muslim Rites and Customs on 25.04.2024 at Suryakali Function Plaza, near railway station,

Bapatla, according to Muslim law. Thus, plaintiff proved that she is the legally wedded wife of defendant.

7.The present application is filed under section 2 of

Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act,1939 which reads thus:

A woman married under Muslim law shall be entitled to obtain a decree for the dissolution of her marriage on any one or more of the following grounds, namely:—(i)that the whereabouts of the husband have not been known for a period of four years;(ii)that the husband has neglected or has failed to provide for her maintenance for a period of two years;(iii)that the husband has been sentenced to imprisonment for a period of seven years or upwards;(iv)that the husband has failed to perform, without reasonable cause, his marital obligations for a period of three years;

(v)that the husband was impotent at the time of the marriage and continues to be so;(vi)that the husband has been insane for a period of two years or is suffering from virulent venereal disease;

(vii)that she, having been given in marriage by her father or other guardian before she attained the age of fifteen years, repudiated the marriage before attaining the age of eighteen years:Provided that the marriage has not been consummated;(viii)that the husband treats her with cruelty, that is to say,—(a)habitually assaults her or makes her life miserable by cruelty of conduct even if such conduct does not amount to physical ill-treatment, or(b)associates with women of evil repute or leads an infamous life, or(c)attempts to 4 AJMFC,RPL OS No.99 of 2025 force her to lead an immoral life, or(d)disposes of her property or prevents her exercising her legal rights over it, or(e)obstructs her in the observance of her religious profession or practice, or(f)if he has more wives than one, does not treat her equitably in accordance with the injunctions of the Quran;

8.Thecareful perusal of Section 2(viii) of Dissolution of

Muslim Marriage Act,1939, the plaintiff has to establish that the defendant treated her with cruelty. The specific version of the plaintiff is that they lead marital life amicably for a period of one month from the date of marriage, thereafter, the defendant addicted to bad vices like drinking, gambling etc and used beat her without any provocation with a demand to bring money from her parents. The evidence of P.W.1 discloses the acts committed by the defendant. What happened between the wife and husband within the four walls, known to them only and no 3rd person aware of it. The unchallenged evidence of P.W.1 shows that the defendant beat her frequently in a drunken state. Thus the material on record proves that the defendant treated the plaintiff with cruelty.

9. The further version of the plaintiff is that the defendant deserted her in the month of May,2024 and since then, the plaintiff and the defendant are living separately. The plaintiff is residing with her parents at Bethapudi village soon after desertion of her by the defendant. There is no material to show that the defendant had taken steps for restitution of conjugal rights. The present petition is filed in the year 2025. Thus, the defendant deserted the plaintiff for a continuous period of one year, but not for a continuous period of two 5 AJMFC,RPL OS No.99 of 2025 years prior to filing of the petition with an intention to put an end to the cohabitation. Hence, plaintiff is not entitled for the relief as claimed under voluntary desertion made by the defendant. Further, in view of the discussion made above, the plaintiff proved that the defendant treated her with cruelty. Hence, considering the material on record, this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled for divorce on the ground of cruelty.

10.In the result, this suit is allowed and the marriage of the plaintiff with the defendant held on 25.04.2024 at Suryakali Function

Plaza, near railway station, Bapatla as per Muslim Law is hereby dissolved by way of decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-III, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 26th day of August,2025.

Sd/- V.Devi Sai Srivani

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (Jr. Division), Repalle.

FAC ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (Jr. Division), Repalle.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff : P.W.1:Shaik Meerabi.

For Defendant : Exparte

Documents marked

For Plaintiff Ex.A1: Wedding Card,dt.25.04.2024 Ex.A2: Marriage photographs(3) along with CD Ex.A3: Nikah Book issued by Andhra Pradesh state Waqf Board, Vijayawada.

For Defendant: Nil.

Sd/- V.Devi Sai Srivani

P.C.J.(Jr.D),Repalle. FAC A.C.J.(Jr.D),Repalle.

1 Decree

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

REPALLE

Present::Smt V.Devi Sai Srivani,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) :: Repalle.

Tuesday, this the 15 th day of July, 2025.

O.S.22/2025

Between

M/s. R.S.Finance And Investments, Rep. By its Manager/Authorised person, Ithagani Srinivas, S/o.Sailu, Hindu, aged 50 years, R/o.D.No.7-11- 96, Gummadi street, Near Nakka Vari Cheruvu, Repalle, Bapatla District.

...Plaintiff.

And

Uyyala Yedukondalu, S/o.Nageswara Rao, Hindu, aged 47 years, Secondary Grade Teacher (Telugu), R/o.5-41-2, Dharanikota village, Amaravathi Mandal, Guntur District. …Defendant.

This case is coming before me on 14.07.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri B.Vijaya Kumar, Advocate for Plaintiff and the Defendant remained ex-parte and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.5,96,400/- (Rupees five lakhs ninety six thousand four hundred only) being the principal and interest due on promissory note dated 01.09.2023 for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- executed by the Defendant in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. and for subsequent interest and for costs.

2 Decree

02.The facts set out in the plaint are that the Defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- [Rupees four lakhs fifty thousand only] on 01.09.2023 from the plaintiff for the purpose of his family expenses by agreeing to repay the same with interest @24% per annum with yearly rests either to the plaintiff or his order on demand and got executed a suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff at Repalle.

In spite of several demands made by the plaintiff to the Defendant personally and through his staff for repayment of the said promissory note debt. But the defendant postponed the same on one pretext or the other.

Therefore, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for recovery of the suit amount.

03.The defendant failed to file written statement within stipulated period.

Hence, the Defendant is set ex-parte.

04.The plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4 documents.

05.Heard the counsel for Plaintiff.

06. Now the point for consideration is:

"Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for a decree for the suit

amount as prayed for?"

07. P O I N T:

P.W1 in his Chief Affidavit reiterated the contents of his plaint.

Plaintiff filed Ex.A1 Original Promissory note dated 01.09.2023 for a sum 3 Decree of Rs.4,50,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff’s firm.

Ex.A2 is the Form-A acknowledgment of registration of firm, dt.21.08.2023.

Ex.A3 is the Form-C registration of plaintiff’s firm, dt.22.08.2024 and Ex.A4 is the Letter of authorization issued by plaintiff’s firm, dt.08.01.2024. Since the Defendant remained ex-parte, the evidence of PW1 remained unchallenged. On a careful perusal of the unchallenged evidence of PW1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A4 documents, it clearly goes to show that there is a case in favour of the Plaintiff that the Defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.4,50,000/- [Rupees four lakhs fifty thousand only] from the plaintiff under Ex.A1 Promissory note and the Defendant failed to discharge the said debt. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the Defendant. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the Plaintiff.

08. IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs, in favour of the

Plaintiff and against the Defendant for a sum of Rs.5,96,400/- (Rupees five lakhs ninety six thousand four hundred only) with subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit i.e., 09.01.2025 till the date of decree and at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.4,50,000/- [Rupees four lakhs fifty thousand only].

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 15thday of July, 2025.

Sd/-V.Devi Sai Srivani

Prl.Civil Judge (Junior Division), Repalle.

4 Decree

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

P.W1: Ithagani Srinivas Ex-parte.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Original Promissory note dated 01.09.2023 for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff’s firm.

Ex.A2: Form-A acknowledgment of registration of firm, dt.21.08.2023.

Ex.A3: Form-C registration of plaintiff’s firm, dt.22.08.2024

Ex.A4: Letter of authorization issued by plaintiff’s firm, dt.08.01.2024.

For Defendant: - N I L -

Sd/-V.Devi Sai Srivani

Prl.Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Repalle.

//True copy//

PCJ(JD), Repalle.

5 Decree

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

REPALLE

Present::Smt V.Devi Sai Srivani,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) :: Repalle.

Tuesday, this the 15 th day of July, 2025.

O.S.22/2025

Between

M/s. R.S.Finance And Investments, Rep. By its Manager/Authorised person, Ithagani Srinivas, S/o.Sailu, Hindu, aged 50 years, R/o.D.No.7-11- 96, Gummadi street, Near Nakka Vari Cheruvu, Repalle, Bapatla District.

...Plaintiff.

And

Uyyala Yedukondalu, S/o.Nageswara Rao, Hindu, aged 47 years, Secondary Grade Teacher (Telugu), R/o.5-41-2, Dharanikota village, Amaravathi Mandal, Guntur District. …Defendant.

This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.5,96,400/- (Rupees five lakhs ninety six thousand four hundred only) being the principal and interest due on promissory note dated 01.09.2023 for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- executed by the Defendant in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. and for subsequent interest and for costs.

Plaint Presented on: 09.01.2025 Plaint numbered on: 22.01.2025

CAUSE OF ACTION:

Cause of action for the suit arose when the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- [Rupees four lakhs fifty thousand only] from the plaintiff on 01.09.2023 for the purpose of his family expenses by agreeing to repay the same with interest 24% per annum with yearly rests to the plaintiff or its order on demand and the defendant executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff made several demands to the defendant personally and through its staff or repayment of the said promissory note debt. But the defendant postponed the same on 6 Decree one pretext or the other and where the entire suit transaction took place at Repalle within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. PARTICULARS OF SUIT VALUATION:

Principal amount under the suit promissory note

Dt. 01.09.2023 Rs.4,50,000/-

Interest thereon @ 24% per annum from 01.09.2023 to 09.01.2025 Rs.1,46,400/- ---------------------- Rs. 5,96,400/- -----------------------

On which a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid U/sec. 20 of A.P.C.F & S.V Act. Value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction is Rs.5,96,400-00

This case is coming before me on 14.07.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri B.Vijaya Kumar, Advocate for Plaintiff and the Defendant remained ex-parte and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day this court Doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant;

2. that the defendant be and is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,96,400/- (Rupees five lakhs ninety six thousand four hundred only) with subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit i.e., 09.01.2025 till the date of decree and at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.4,50,000/- [Rupees four lakhs fifty thousand only].

3. that the Defendant do pay a sum of Rs.18,253/- (Rupees eighteen thousand two hundred and fifty three only) to the Plaintiff towards costs of the suit and do bear his own costs of Rs.Nil (remained Ex-parte). Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this the 15th day of July, 2025.

Sd/-V.Devi Sai Srivani

Prl.Civil Judge (Junior Division), Repalle.

7 Decree

TABLE OF COSTS

Sl. No For Plaintiff For Defendant

01Stamp on Vakalat2-00Ex-parte

(C.M. & F.C.

02Plaint fees 8,426-00 not filed) 03Process 35-00 04Advocate fees 9,790-00

Total Costs 18,253-00

PCJ (JD),

Repalle.

//True copy// PCJ(JD), Repalle.

1 O.S.303/2024,dt.26-08-2025

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION), REPALLE

Present: Smt. V.Devi Sai Srivani Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Repalle FAC Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Repalle

Tuesday, this the 26th day of August,2025

ORIGINAL SUIT No.303/2024

Between: Kokkiligadda Srinu S/o. Nireekshana Rao, aged about 32 years, Private Employee, R/o. D.No.14-31/2, Guntur Gudem, Juvvala palem Panchayathi, Kolluru Mandal, Bapatla District. …. Plaintiff

And

Macharla Anand Sagar S/o. Ramaiah, aged about 40 years, Business, R/o. D.No.10-86-4/1, Chenchu Peta, Indira Nagar Colony, Tenali Town, Guntur District. …. Defendant.

This suit is coming on 22-8-2025 for final hearing, before me in the presence of Sri.P. Bhushanam, Advocate for the plaintiff and defendant remained exparte, upon consideration, upon perusing entire material on record and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

Plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of Rs.11,96,533/- being

principal and interest due on promissory note,dt.03-12-2021 executed

by defendant in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum with yearly rests and for the costs of the suit.

2 O.S.303/2024,dt.26-08-2025

2. The brief averments of plaint are that :

(a) Defendant/Macharla Anand Sagar for his business expenses borrowed an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 03.12.2021 in the presence of attestors viz. K.Suresh, G.Raja Rao and scribe viz. Ch. Jitendra Kumar and executed the suit promissory note at Repalle Village on the even date i.e. on 03-12-2021 in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum with yearly rests either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand.

(b)Subsequently, inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff personally and through mediators, defendant admitting his liability postponing the payment on one pretext or other and failed to pay anything. Thereafter, defendant gave a cheque bearing

No.037000,dt.03.06.2022 for Rs.7,00,000/- drawn on IDBI Bank,

Governerpet branch, Vijayawada towards part payment of promissory note debt. Plaintiff presented the said cheque for collection through his banker i.e. State Bank of India, Repalle branch and same was dishonuored for the reason “Funds Insufficient” and returned with memo,dt.06.06.2022. Plaintiff informed the same to defendant and believing the words of defendant, plaintiff again presented the said cheque on 14.07.2022 through his banker i.e. State Bank of India,

Repalle branch and same was dishonuored for the reason “Funds 3 O.S.303/2024,dt.26-08-2025

Insufficient” and returned with memo,dt.16.07.2022. Then, plaintiff issued legal notice,dt.05.08.2022 to the defendant calling upon him to pay the cheque amount of Rs.7,00,000/- within 10 days from the date of receipt of said notice and defendant not claimed and kept quite without discharge the cheque amount. Hence, plaintiff filed suit for recovery of money with interest and costs without issuing any notice.

3. In this case, defendant remained exparte.

4. On behalf of plaintiff, the plaintiff himself is examined as

P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4.

5. Heard learned counsel appearing for plaintiff.

6. Now the point that arises for consideration is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for?

7. POINT:

In order to prove his case, Plaintiff examined himself as

P.W.1 and he filed his chief-examination affidavit by reiterating the entire averments of the plaint and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. Ex.A1 is the Original Promissory note,dt.03-12-2021 executed by defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.7,00,000/-,Ex.A2 is the certified copy of

Registered legal notice,dt.05.08.2022, Ex.A3 is the certified copy of 4 O.S.303/2024,dt.26-08-2025 postal receipt and Ex.A4 is the certified copy of returned Regd. Legal notice,dt.17.08.2022. P.W.1 in his evidence stated that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- from him on 03.12.2021 for business purpose and executed Ex.A1/ Promissory note in his favour at Repalle village on the same day in the presence of attestors viz.

K.Suresh, G.Raja Rao and scribe of Ex.A1 viz. Ch. Jitendra Kumar, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum either to him or to his order on demand. P.W.1 stated that subsequently, inspite of repeated demands made by him, defendant admitted his liability, but postponing the payment on one pretext or other. Finally, on 03.06.2022, the defendant issued cheque bearing No.037000 for

Rs.7,00,000/- drawn on IDBI Bank, Governerpet branch, Vijayawada to the plaintiff and same was presented by the plaintiff for collection through his banker i.e. State Bank of India, Repalle branch. It is further submitted that the bank authorities returned the said cheque with an endorsement ‘Funds Insufficient’. Then, the plaintiff informed the same to the defendant and on the request of defendant, again presented the said cheque and same was returned with a memo on 16.07.2022 with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient”. Later, on 05.08.2022, plaintiff through his advocate issued legal notice to the plaintiff and same was returned on 17.08.2022. Plaintiff further 5 O.S.303/2024,dt.26-08-2025 submitted that he filed STC112/2022 on the file of Additional Civil

Judge’s Court (J.D), Repalle basing on dishonoured cheque issued by

the defendant. In this case, defendant remained exparte. Therefore, the aforesaid unchallenged evidence of PW1 coupled with

Ex.A1/promissory note proved that defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.7,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A1/Promissory note to that effect. So, defendant is bound under law to repay the borrowed amount with accrued interest thereon. The point is answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant.

8. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of

Rs.11,96,533/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Ninety Six thousand Five hundred and thirty three only) in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% p.a., on

principal amount of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven lakhs only) from the

date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of decree till realization.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 26th day of August, 2025.

Sd/- V.Devi Sai Srivani

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (Jr. Division), Repalle.

FAC ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (Jr. Division), Repalle.

6 O.S.303/2024,dt.26-08-2025

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff : P.W.1:Kokkiligadda Srinu

For Defendant : Exparte

Documents marked

For Plaintiff Ex.A1: Original Promissory note,dt.03-12-2021 executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.7,00,000/-. Ex.A2: Certified copy of Regd. Legal notice,dt.05.08.2022. Ex.A3: Certified copy of Postal receipt,dt.05.08.2022. Ex.A4: Certified copy of returned regd. Legal notice,dt.17.08.2022.

For Defendant: Nil.

Sd/- V.Devi Sai Srivani

P.C.J.(Jr.D),Repalle. FAC A.C.J.(Jr.D),Repalle.