Sri V.Gowri Shankara Rao

HMOP NO.34/2025 CJ (SD) COURT, CDM.

1

APVS140000502025

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION), CHODAVARAM.

Present : Sri V.Gowri Sankara Rao,

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chodavaram.

Wednesday, this the 6th day of May, 2026.

H.M.O.P.NO.34/2025

Between Boddapati Lokesh, S/o Boddapati Lakshmanarao, aged 28 years, resident of D.No. 22-198, Boddapativari Street, Pakeersahebpeta, hamlet of Chodavaram, Chodavaram Mandal, Anakapalli District.

...Petitioner.

And

Boddapati (Polaki) Prathyusha, W/o Lokesh, aged 32 years, employee in State Bank of India, D/o late Venkataramanamurty, D.No.44-18-36, Flat No.F-4, Sannibabu Heights, Thatichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam, presently residing at Durga Prasad Bisoi GTL, 4/2, Railway Bungalow, Clark Town, Mamthi Road, OPP: Salode Tower, Jaripatka, Nagapur, Maharastra.

...Respondent.

This petition is coming on for final hearing before me on 29.04.2026 in the presence of Sri Allu Giridhar, Advocate for the petitioner, and the respondent remained ex parte, and after perusing the material available on record and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1.The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 seeking the Court to grant a decree for restitution of conjugal rights of the petitioner by directing the respondent to join him and to lead marital

Senior Civil

Judge,

Chodavaram

HMOP NO.34/2025 CJ (SD) COURT, CDM.

2 life with him, in the interest of justice. It may be noted here that the petitioner is the husband of the respondent.

2.The averments made in the present petition, in brief, are that the petitioner and respondent have got much acquaintance from the year 2019, and the petitioner fell in love with the respondent when she was working in State Bank of

India, Chodavaram, and he used to work in a private company at

Visakhapatnam. The petitioner and the respondent used to talk with each other, and accordingly they come to a conclusion to get married, and at that time the respondent was transferred to State Bank of India, Sabbavaram Branch, and even then they used to meet with each other. While matter stood thus, the petitioner and the respondent informed their love to their parents and elders, and by then the father of the respondent was no more, and the respondent had one brother who is residing at Visakhapatnam. The senior paternal uncle, maternal uncle and other relatives of the respondent are living at Nagapur, Maharasthra, and all of them agreed to perform the marriage of the respondent with the petitioner, and accordingly they fixed the marriage date as 24.06.2021, and they performed the marriage at V Convention Function Hall Gandhigramam,

Chodavaram, with the expenses of the parents of the petitioner, and no dowry or other presentations were given by either side at the time of the marriage or subsequent to the marriage.

3.It is also averred therein that the respondent joined the conjugal society of the petitioner at Pakeersahebpeta and put up the marital home there, and he used to bring the respondent to Sabbavaram to her work place and he used to attend his duties and return back by evening, and out of the wedlock they were blessed with a son on 24.06.2022, and thereafter she used to raise silly disputes with the petitioner and she used to scold and insult the parents of the petitioner as they belonged to agricultural family. The respondent used to insult the petitioner stating that he has no proper employment, and she used to insist and

Senior Civil

Judge,

Chodavaram

HMOP NO.34/2025 CJ (SD) COURT, CDM.

3 demand the petitioner to purchase a car, for which he expressed his financial inability to the respondent but she did not heed his words and she used to harass him, and thereby he could not bear her harassment and he purchased a car by borrowing amounts from others. The mother and brother of the respondent got so many debts and in order to discharge their debts, the respondent used to borrow amounts from the people of Sabbavaram and employees of State Bank of India, Visakhapatnam, and from others, and she used to lead luxurious life and demanded the petitioner to meet her expenses.

While so, on on 30.01.2024 when the petitioner woke up and by that time the respondent and her mother left the house leaving their son with the petitioner, and then he enquired about the respondent with his relatives but he could not trace her whereabouts and her phone was also switched off. Thereupon, the petitioner out of anxiety lodged a report before Pendurthi Police stating that the respondent was missing and left the marital home by leaving their son with the petitioner, and after lapse of 21 days, the respondent and her mother informed

Pendurthi Police that the respondent is in Nagapur and they are in safe position, and the said fact was informed by Pendurthi Police to the petitioner.

4.It is averred therein that the absence of the respondent and loss of mother feeding to his son, his son fell sick and immediately he joined his son at Lotus

Hospital, Visakhapatnam, as inpatient but his son could not recover from ill- health, and the Doctor who treated his son, advised the petitioner to bring the respondent, who is the mother of his son. Immediately the petitioner informed the same to the brother of the respondent, namely, Praveen over phone about the situation by showing his son in Whatsapp who was in hospital, and he requested him to send it to the respondent as her phone was switched off. In spite of the above, the respondent did not turn up and she refused to come to see his son and asked him to do whatever he liked or join his son in orphanage home. Then, the Doctor advised the petitioner to send his son to the place of the

Senior Civil

Judge,

Chodavaram

HMOP NO.34/2025 CJ (SD) COURT, CDM.

4 respondent to recover his health, and as per the advice of the Doctor, he along with his son, his uncle Bobbari Prameswararao @ Siva, his brother-in-law

Uggina Govinda went to Nagapur but the respondent, her brother and her uncles demanded the petitioner to discharge the debts contracted by the respondent and her mother to look after the welfare and health of his son, and they demanded the same to be in writing, and if he did not oblige the same, they threatened him with dire consequences and implicate him in false criminal cases. As there is no other go, the petitioner executed an undertaking as demanded by the respondent, her brother and her uncles, and he returned back to his village as the respondent refused to join him. Subsequently, on several occasions the petitioner requested the respondent over phone and her brother and mother to send the respondent along with his son to the marital home but the respondent and the above persons did not answer the phone.

5.It is also averred therein that then the petitioner raised a dispute through the elders of Visakhapatnam and requested the respondent to join him along with his son, and the respondent and her mother showed the said undertaking executed by him and showed the debts contracted by the respondent, her mother and her brother and demanded him to discharge the same by disposing of his house and the lands in the village of his father. Thereupon, the panchayat elders questioned the respondent and her family members to show the documents of debts and also asked them to call the persons where the respondent borrowed the amounts as mentioned in the letter/undertaking, for which the respondent and her family members admitted that she was insisting the amounts mentioned in the letter/undertaking and she tendered an apology and requested the petitioner to discharge the borrowed sum to the tune of

Rs.25.00 lakhs by way of sale of the house and lands of his father, and she also stated that there is no source of income to her and her family members to discharge the debts in the presence of the elders. The petitioner informed that if

Senior Civil

Judge,

Chodavaram

HMOP NO.34/2025 CJ (SD) COURT, CDM.

5 the respondent along with his son join him, he would convince his parents to dispose of the properties and discharge the debts to some extent but she along with her inmates did not agree for the same, and she refused to join him, and his parents got small extent of land and house, which is required for their sustenance and maintenance, and if the same are sold, they would be on road.

The petitioner failed in all his attempts to bring back the respondent to the marital home and his attempts turned futile, and the respondent used to act under the directions of her mother and other inmates, who are behind back of the respondent and are spoiling her mind, and they misguided in all walks of her life. There are no laches on part of the petitioner, and the respondent is under obligation to join him and to lead conjugal life with him and to give conjugal happiness to him as a dutiful wife and discharge her conjugal duties in the marital home, but she willfully and wantonly deserted him without any sufficient and reasonable cause and excuse, and thus the same is a cruelty against him, and her acts against him from the beginning itself is a cruelty. The respondent deserted the petitioner from 30.01.2024 onwards and she is living with her mother and other inmates, and the petitioner has got much love and affection towards her. The petitioner failed in all his attempts to bring back the respondent to the marital home and therefore he got issued a registered lawyer’s notice on 04.02.2025 to the respondent to her both addresses calling upon her to join him, and she managed the postal authorities and got endorsement thereon as the respondent left, and thus she withdrew from the conjugal society of the petitioner without any just or sufficient cause or excuse, and she is his legally wedded wife, and she is bound under law to come and join with him to lead conjugal life and to provide conjugal happiness to him. There is no collusion in between the petitioner and the respondent in approaching this Court, and there is no undue

Senior Civil

Judge,

Chodavaram

HMOP NO.34/2025 CJ (SD) COURT, CDM.

6 delay in filing the present petition, and no similar application is filed in any Court of law previously for the relief claimed hereinabove. Hence, the present petition.

6.The respondent was called absent and there was no representation on her behalf before the Court from any other quarter until 03.45 P.M. on 07.04.2026 though she was served with notice sent through Court, as was apparent from the postal consignment tracking report filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Thus, it appeared that the respondent was not interested to prosecute the present petition vigilantly and diligently anymore according to law, for the reasons best known to her. Thus, the respondent came to be set ex parte on 07.04.2026. That is how, the present petition was taken up for adjudication.

7.In the light of the above, the points that arise for determination are:

1) Whether the petitioner is justified in seeking the Court to grant a decree for restitution of conjugal rights of the petitioner by directing the respondent to join him and to lead marital life with him, having due regard to the facts and circumstances obtaining in this case ?

2) To what relief?

8. During the course of enquiry, in order to prove the case of the petitioner, he examined himself as PW.1 and other witness was examined as PW.2, who is a third party to the present petition, and Exs.P.1 to P.5 were marked on his behalf. Ex.P1 is the wedding card; Ex.P.2 is a set of four photographs along with

CD; Ex.P.3 is the verified copy of the Certificate of Marriage dated 01.11.2021 issued by the Marriage Registrar, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam; Ex.P.4 is the office copy of the registered lawyer’s notice dated 04.02.2025 along with postal receipt addressed to the respondent; and Ex.P.5 is a set of two returned RPAD covers both addressed to the respondent.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the material available on record.

Senior Civil

Judge,

Chodavaram

HMOP NO.34/2025 CJ (SD) COURT, CDM.

7

POINT NO.1:

10.The learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the avements of the present petition and referring to the evidence brought on record on behalf of his client, seriously contended that the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was performed on 24.06.2021, and their marriage was a love marriage, and they lived together happily for a period of one year, and out of the wedlock they were blessed with a son; and that after the birth of their son, the respondent used to scold and insult the petitioner on the ground that he has no permanent employment, and she demanded him to purchase a car for which he expressed inability to do so but she did not heed his words; and that the respondent continued to harass the petitioner and thereby he obtained loan, borrowed monies and purchased a car, and he used to pay the installments of the said loans regularly; and that the respondent borrowed loans from various persons to lead luxurious life and demanded him to discharge those debts, and while so on 30.01.2024 when he woke up he found the respondent and her mother were missing in his house leaving his son, and immediately he made enquiries in the surroundings but their whereabouts were not found and the phone of the respondent was also switched off; and that then he lodged a report before

Pendurthi Police on the ground that the respondent was missing leaving his son with him, and 21 days thereafter the police informed him that she is in Nagapur and is in safe position, and due to her absence his son fell sick, who was admitted in Lotus Hospital, Visakhapatnam, but his son could not be recuperated from ill-health and the Doctor advised him to bring the respondent, who is the mother of his son; and that thereupon the petitioner contacted the brother of the respondent, namely, Praveen and showed his son in Whatsapp and requested him to inform the same to the respondent, who refused to come to see her son and advised the petitioner to do whatever he liked to do about his son or join him in orphanage; and that on the advice of the Doctor the petitioner along with his

Senior Civil

Judge,

Chodavaram

HMOP NO.34/2025 CJ (SD) COURT, CDM.

8 uncle Bobbari Parameswararao @ Siva, his brother-in-law Govinda went to

Nagapur whereat the respondent, her mother and her uncles demanded the petitioner to discharge the debts borrowed by the respondent and her mother to the tune of Rs.25.00 lakhs by disposing of his house and lands, to look after the welfare and health of his son, and they demanded him to give the same in writing, and if he did not oblige the same, they threatened him to implicate in false criminal cases; and that as there was no other go the petitioner executed an undertaking as demanded by the respondent, her mother and her uncles and returned back to his Village as she refused to join him, and later he raised a dispute before the elders who advised her to join the petitioner and lead marital life with him but she did not heed their words; and that the petitioner has no source of income to discharge the said debts borrowed by the respondent and her mother, and if she joins him, he would convince his parents to dispose of the properties and discharge the said debts to some extent but she did not agree therefor; and that thereby he got issued Ex.P.4 registered lawyer’s notice to the respondent to her both addresses which came to be returned with endorsement ‘left’, and therefore she deserted him without any sufficient cause and reasonable excuse, which caused mental agony and hardship to him. The learned counsel therefore requested the Court to allow the present petition as prayed for, in the interest of justice.

11. As can be seen from the material brought on record, it is obvious that the petitioner filed his evidence affidavit in lieu of his chief-examination, and he is thus examined-in-chief as PW.1, who reiterated almost the averments of the present petition and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.5 on his behalf. A perusal of Ex.P.1 wedding card reveals that the marriage was scheduled to be performed between the petitioner and the respondent on 24.06.2021. A glance at Ex.P.2 a set of four photographs along with CD and Ex.P.3 certificate of marriage together discloses that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was performed on

Senior Civil

Judge,

Chodavaram

HMOP NO.34/2025 CJ (SD) COURT, CDM.

9 24.06.2021. A perusal of Ex.P.4 lawyer’s notice dated 04.02.2025 reflects that it was sent to both address of the respondent calling upon her to join the petitioner along with his son, whereas a look at Ex.P.5 a set of two returned RPAD covers both addressed to the respondent manifests that the same were returned unserved with endorsement as the respondent ‘left’. The evidence of PW.2, who is a third party to the present petition and who claimed to have personal knowledge about the facts of the present petition, corroborates the evidence of

PW.1 on all material aspects. Further, the respondent was set ex parte as stated above in detail. However, it is the legitimate duty of the Court to adjudicate the case on merits even though the respondent did not prefer to contest the case on merits, for the reasons best known to her.

12.Coming to the well settled principle of law on the point as to passing of ex parte decrees, in BALRAJ TANEJA v. SUNIL MADAN [AIR 1999 SC 3381] the

Hon'ble Supreme Court held inter alia thus:

“43.……… Whether it is a case which is contested by the defendants by filing a written statement, or a case which proceeds ex parte and is ultimately decided as an ex parte case, or is a case in which the written statement is not filed and the case is decided under Order 8, Rule 10, the Court has to write a judgment which must be in conformity with the provisions of the Code or at least set out the reasoning by which the controversy is resolved.”

13.In MAILWAR NARSAPPA v. B.SANGAMMA [2014 (1) ALT 171] our

Hon'ble High Courtheld inter alia thus:

“10.……… It is well settled that a decree even if ex parte must show application of mind and adjudication on the vital aspects of the suit.”

14.In S.GURVAIAH v. S.RAMESH [2015 (3) ALT 362 (DB)] our Hon'ble High

Courtheld inter alia thus:

Senior Civil

Judge,

Chodavaram

HMOP NO.34/2025 CJ (SD) COURT, CDM.

10 “9.……… The Court dealing with the suit in the absence of written statement, in any case, is obliged to write a judgment as understood in common parlance. A Judge cannot merely say “suit decreed”, the whole process of reasoning has to be set out for deciding the case one way or the other. From bare perusal of the impugned judgment, it is apparent that it suffers from glaring infirmity and it cannot be sustained.”

15.Keeping in mind the law laid down in the said Judgments and turning to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is perspicuous that the evidence adduced by the petitioner as PW.1 coupled with the evidence of PW.2 clinchingly inter alia establishes that the respondent is the wife of the petitioner, and their marriage was performed on 24.06.2021 vide Ex.P.1 wedding card,

Ex.P.2 a set of four photographs, Ex.P.3 certificate of marriage, including other material available on record. After the marriage, the petitioner joined the conjugal society of the respondent, and out of the wedlock they were blessed with a son.

Later, disputes arose between the petitioner and the respondent, as mentioned hereinbefore in detail and thereby the respondent deserted the petitioner without any sufficient cause and reasonable excuse, and she failed to join him to lead marital life despite the best efforts made by him in that regard.

16.At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the Judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court rendered in SMT.SAROJ RANI v. SUDARSHAN KUMAR

CHADHA [1984 AIR SC ] 1562 wherein while considering the aspect of decree for restitution of conjugal rights it was inter alia held thus:

“In India it may be borne in mind that conjugal rights i.e. right of the husband or the wife to the society of the other spouse is not merely creature of the statute. Such a right is inherent in the very institution of marriage itself. See in this connection Mulla's Hindu Law-15th Edn. p. 567-

Para 443. There are sufficient safeguards in Section 9 to prevent it from being a tyranny. The importance of the concept of conjugal rights can be

Senior Civil

Judge,

Chodavaram

HMOP NO.34/2025 CJ (SD) COURT, CDM.

11 viewed in the light of Law Commission-71st Report on the Hindu Marriage

Act, 1955. ……...”

Bearing in mind the law laid down in the said Judgments and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the case, it certainly demonstrates that after the birth of their son, the respondent used to scold and insult the petitioner, and she is addicted to luxurious life and thereby she borrowed monies from others and she demanded him to purchase a car, for which he expressed his financial inability but she did not heed his words; and that the petitioner was unable to bear the harassment meted out to him by the respondent, he purchased a car by obtaining loan and by borrowing monies from others; and that despite the same, the respondent deserted him on 30.01.2024 without any intimation to him and then he lodged a report before the police on the ground that she was found missing, and later police informed him that she is in Nagapur and she is in safe position; and that then the petitioner and his relatives went to Nagapur and requested her to join him to lead marital life but it was in vain, and as there was no other go, he got issued Ex.P.4 registered lawyer’s notice to her both addresses, which came to be returned unserved and she failed to join him, and as a result thereof, he was forced to file the present petition for the relief narrated hereinbefore in detail. The respondent remained ex parte for the reasons best known to her and thereby the evidence adduced by the petitioner remained uncontroverted. Not only that, there is no other material forthcoming from the record to disbelieve the evidence adduced by the petitioner. The petitioner is suffering from mental agony and hardship because of the attitude of the respondent in not joining him to lead marital life, without any legitimate rhyme or reason.

17.Having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case discussed hereinabove, and in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and in view of the Judgments referred to supra, and in the best

Senior Civil

Judge,

Chodavaram

HMOP NO.34/2025 CJ (SD) COURT, CDM.

12 interest of justice, this Court is of the humble and considered view that the present petition is liable to be allowed as prayed for. Point No.1 is accordingly answered in the affirmative.

POINT NO.2:

18.For the aforementioned reasons and in the result, the present petition is allowed by granting a decree for restitution of conjugal rights of the petitioner with the respondent. Consequently, the respondent is hereby directed to join the conjugal society of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of this order, failing which the petitioner is at liberty to proceed according to law.

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

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 6th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- V.Gowri Sankara Rao,

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Chodavaram.

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner For Respondent

PW.1: Boddapati Lokesh.None

PW.2: Uggina Govinda.

Documents Marked

For Petitioner For Respondent

Ex.P.1: Wedding card.Nil.

Ex.P.2: A set of four photographs along with CD.

Ex.P.3: Verified copy of the Certificate of Marriage dated 01.11.2021 issued by the Marriage Registrar, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam.

Senior Civil

Judge,

Chodavaram

HMOP NO.34/2025 CJ (SD) COURT, CDM.

13

Ex.P.4: Office copy of the registered lawyer’s notice dated 04.02.2025 along with postal receipt addressed to the respondent.

Ex.P.5: A set of two returned RPAD covers both addressed to the respondent.

Sd/- V.Gowri Sankara Rao,

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Chodavaram.

Senior Civil

Judge,

Chodavaram

HMOP NO.30/2026 CJ (SD) COURT, CDM.

1

APVS140000422026

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION), CHODAVARAM.

Present : Sri V.Gowri Sankara Rao,

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chodavaram.

Thursday, this the 7th day of May, 2026.

H.M.O.P. NO.30/2026

Between: Pasupuleti Sreenivas, S/o Narisimhamurty, aged 35 years, Auto driver, resident of Mushiram Village, Kothavalasa Mandal, Vizianagaram District. …Petitioner. And: Pasupuleti (Nakkina) Krishnaveni, W/o Sreenivas, aged 30 years, resident of Chinapachila Village, Ravikamatham Mandal, Anakapalli District. …Respondent.

This case is coming on for final hearing before me on 30.04.2026 in the presence of Sri G.Suresh, Advocate for the petitioner, and the respondent having remained ex parte, and after perusing the material available on record and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1.The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 13(1)(ia) of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking the Court to grant a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage performed on 21.02.2025 between the petitioner and the respondent on the ground of cruelty, in the interest of justice.

2. The averments made in the present petition, in brief, are that originally the petitioner married one Jinnala Tulasidevi at Musiram Village, Kothavalasa

Mandal, Vizianagaram District, on 17.02.2012 and out of the wedlock he was

Senior ivil Judge,

Chodavaram

HMOP NO.30/2026 CJ (SD) COURT, CDM.

2 blessed with a daughter, namely, Pasupuleti Padmaja. Subsequently the petitioner and his first wife Jinnala Tulasidevi obtained divorce on mutual consent on 18.07.2022 in HMOP No.323/2021 on the file of the learned III

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, and his daughter is living with her

mother/Tulasidevi. The respondent also originally married one Muchakarla

Satyanarayana of Chinapachila Village, Ravikamatham Mandal, on 25.04.2012 according to Hindu law and caste customs, and out of the wedlock she was blessed with a son through her husband Satyanarayana, and subsequently her marriage with Muchakarla Satyanarayana was dissolved on 30.06.2023 in

HMOP No.56/2022 on the file of this Court, and her son is living with her.

3.It is also averred therein that while so the petitioner married the respondent according to Hindu law and caste custom on 21.02.2025 at

Mushiram Village, Kothavalasa Mandal, Vizianagaram District, in the presence of the elders and relatives, and they set up their marital home at Mushiram

Village, Kothavalasa Mandal, and thereafter she refused to cohabitate with the petitioner, and she demanded him to come as illatom son-in-law to the house of her parents at Chinapachila Village, Ravikamatham Mandal, and accordingly he lived with her at Chinapachila Village. The petitioner herein and the respondent herein lived together for 15 days only, and later she displayed no interest to lead marital life with him, and she used to scold him in filthy and fowl language, and she failed to do any work. Then the respondent informed the petitioner that she married him at the instigation of her parents and she has no liking or interest towards him, and she does not want to live with him, and she used to ill-treat and harass him, and she behaved cruelly. As such, the petitioner came back to the house of his parents at Mushiram Village, Kothavalasa Mandal, during the first week of March, 2025. From the beginning the respondent herein was not mingling with the petitioner, and she never showed any respect to him and his mother, and she is a pet in the hands of her mother and other inmates, and she

Senior ivil Judge,

Chodavaram

HMOP NO.30/2026 CJ (SD) COURT, CDM.

3 used to act as per their directions, wishes and instructions, and thereby, she and her parents harassed him mentally and they used to scuffle with him and his mother. The respondent developed aversion and dislike towards the petitioner, and she used to quarrel with him without any justifiable and reasonable excuse during her stay with him, and he personally approached her on several occasions and requested her to come and join him to lead happy marital life, and her mother promised to him that the respondent herein would join him but they did not do so.

4.It is further averred therein that subsequently the petitioner and his mother raised mediation in the presence of the elders and relatives, who advised the respondent to join him and to lead marital life with him. The petitioner, his mother and elders by name Uggina Srinu, K.Siva, Chinthala Pydiraju, and others approached the respondent at the house of her mother and advised her and her mother to send her with the petitioner, but she refused to join the petitioner. The efforts made by the petitioner on all occasions turned futile, and the respondent refused to join him to lead marital life, and in the presence of elders they took back their respective articles presented at the time of the marriage during the mediation on 03.11.2025, and they agreed to obtain divorce by mutual consent.

Accordingly the petitioner and the respondent entered into a divorce deed and the same was reduced into writing on 03.11.2025, but she has been demanding more money in violation of the compromise effected, and in spite of the demands and requests she has been subjecting him to untold misery, cruelty and harassment. The respondent is not also willing to join the petitioner and to lead happy marital life, and she violated the same and refused to give divorce and refused to join him, and she intentionally and deliberately left the marital home without any reasonable excuse and cause on her own accord. The petitioner is in young age, and he is in high need of the company of the respondent to lead marital life, and her absence is causing much inconvenience to him, and he has

Senior ivil Judge,

Chodavaram

HMOP NO.30/2026 CJ (SD) COURT, CDM.

4 been suffering both mentally and physically, and she is bound to perform her conjugal duties as a dutiful wife in the marital home, and she willfully, wantonly and without reasonable excuse totally discarded and deserted him from 1st week of March, 2025, and since then she has been living with her mother. The respondent withdrew from the conjugal society of the petitioner without any just or sufficient cause or excuse, and there are no laches on his part, and she herself deserted him, and she behaved cruelly and left the marital home. There is no collusion in between the petitioner and the respondent in approaching this

Court, and there is no undue delay in filing the present petition, and no similar application is filed in any Court of law previously for the relief claimed hereinabove. Hence, the present petition.

5.Though notice sent through SPAD was served on the respondent, she failed to appear before the Court on 21.04.2026 and even there was no representation on her behalf before the Court from any other quarter until 01.45

P.M. on that day. Thus, it appeared that the respondent was not interested to prosecute the present petition vigilantly and diligently anymore according to law, for the reasons best known to her. Hence, the respondent came to be set ex parte on 21.04.2026. That is how, the present petition was taken up for adjudication.

6.In the light of the above, the points that arise for determination are:

1) Whether the petitioner is justified in seeking the Court to grant a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty, having due regard to the facts and circumstances obtaining in this case, as prayed for ?

2) To what relief?

7. During the course of enquiry, in order to prove the case of the petitioner, he was examined himself as PW.1 and Ex.P.1 was marked. He also examined one Senapathi Kanaka Raju PW.2, who is a third party to the present petition.

Senior ivil Judge,

Chodavaram

HMOP NO.30/2026 CJ (SD) COURT, CDM.

5

8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, who almost reiterated the averments of the present petition with reference to the evidence adduced on behalf of his client. Perused the material available on record.

POINT NO.1:

9. As can be seen from the material brought on record, it is obvious that the petitioner filed his evidence affidavit in lieu of his chief-examination, and he is thus examined-in-chief as PW.1, who reiterated almost all the averments of the present petition and got marked Ex.P.1 on his behalf. Ex.P.1 is the wedding card.

The evidence of PW.2 reflects that he corroborated the evidence of PW.1 on all material aspects. Further, the respondent was set ex parte as stated above in detail. However, it is the legitimate duty of the Court to adjudicate the case on merits even though the respondent did not prefer to contest the case on merits, for the reasons best known to him.

10.Coming to the well settled principle of law on the point as to passing of ex parte decrees, in BALRAJ TANEJA v. SUNIL MADAN [AIR 1999 SC 3381] the

Hon'ble Supreme Court held inter alia thus:

“43.……… Whether it is a case which is contested by the defendants by filing a written statement, or a case which proceeds ex parte and is ultimately decided as an ex parte case, or is a case in which the written statement is not filed and the case is decided under Order 8, Rule 10, the Court has to write a judgment which must be in conformity with the provisions of the Code or at least set out the reasoning by which the controversy is resolved.”

11.In MAILWAR NARSAPPA v. B.SANGAMMA [2014 (1) ALT 171] our

Hon'ble High Courtheld inter alia thus:

“10.……… It is well settled that a decree even if ex parte must show application of mind and adjudication on the vital aspects of the suit.”

Senior ivil Judge,

Chodavaram

HMOP NO.30/2026 CJ (SD) COURT, CDM.

6

12.In S.GURVAIAH v. S.RAMESH [2015 (3) ALT 362 (DB)] our Hon'ble High

Courtheld inter alia thus: “9.……… The Court dealing with the suit in the absence of written statement, in any case, is obliged to write a judgment as understood in common parlance. A Judge cannot merely say “suit decreed”, the whole process of reasoning has to be set out for deciding the case one way or the other. From bare perusal of the impugned judgment, it is apparent that it suffers from glaring infirmity and it cannot be sustained.”

13.Keeping in mind the law laid down in the said Judgments and turning to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is discernible that the evidence adduced by the petitioner as PW.1 coupled with the evidence of PW.2 clinchingly inter alia establishes that the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner, and their marriage was performed on 21.02.2025 vide Ex.P.1 wedding card including other material available on record, as per Hindu law and caste customs. After the marriage, the petitioner and the respondent set up their marital home at Mushiram Village, Kothavalasa Mandal, and later she refused to cohabitate with him, and she demanded him to come as illatom son-in-law to the house of her parents at Chinapachila Village, Ravikamaatham Mandal, and accordingly he agreed therefor and he lived with her at Chinapachila Village, and they lived together happily for 15 days only. Out of the wedlock they were not blessed with any children. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent displayed no liking towards him to lead marital life with him, and she used to scold him in filthy and fowl language, and thereby he came back to the house of his parents at Mushiram Village; and that the efforts made by the petitioner in the matter proved futile, and in the presence of the elders they exchanged the articles presented to them at the time of marriage, and during the mediation on 03.11.2025 whereat they also agreed to obtain divorce by mutual consent and the same was reduced into writing; and that later the respondent has been

Senior ivil Judge,

Chodavaram

HMOP NO.30/2026 CJ (SD) COURT, CDM.

7 demanding more money in violation of the compromise effected before the elders in the said mediation; and that from the first week of March, 2025 onwards the respondent has been residing at the house of her parents, and thereby she neglected the petitioner and she caused cruelty to him without any reasonable excuse and justifiable cause; and that the respondent also subjected the petitioner to mental agony and harassment, and she is not inclined to lead marital life with him, and her marriage with the petitioner has to be dissolved. In view of the nature of the torture and harassment meted out to him, the petitioner decided to take divorce from the respondent in his larger future interest on the ground of cruelty. Thus, it is crystal clear that the respondent treated the petitioner cruelly, without any fault on his part. That apart, the respondent remained ex parte in the present petition, for the reasons best known to them.

The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 remained uncontroverted and unchallenged. As a result, the petitioner is legitimately entitled to seek a decree of divorce from the respondent as she wantonly put an end to the marital tie between them, and she treated the petitioner cruelly, and she tortured and harassed him mentally, as rightly and vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

14.At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the Judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court rendered in DURGA PRASANNA TRIPATHY v. ARUNDHATI

TRIPATHY [AIR 2005 SC 3297] wherein while considering provisions of Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 it was inter alia held succinctly thus:

“Marriages are made in heaven. Both parties have crossed the point of no return. A workable solution is certainly not possible. Parties cannot at this stage reconcile themselves and live together forgetting their past as a bad dream. We, therefore, have no other option except to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court and affirming the order of the

Family Court granting decree for divorce.”

Senior ivil Judge,

Chodavaram

HMOP NO.30/2026 CJ (SD) COURT, CDM.

8

15.In A.JAYACHANDRA v. ANEEL KAUR [AIR 2005 SC 534] while considering the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 the Hon’ble Supreme

Court held illuminatingly thus:

“It is difficult to lay down a precise definition or to give exhaustive description of the circumstances, which would constitute cruelty. It must be of the type as to satisfy the conscience of the Court that the relationship between the parties had deteriorated to such an extent due to the conduct of the other spouse that it would be impossible for them to live together without mental agony, torture or distress, to entitle the complaining spouse to secure divorce. Physical violence is not absolutely essential to constitute cruelty and a consistent course of conduct inflicting immeasurable mental agony and torture may well constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 10 of the Act. Mental cruelty may consist of verbal abuses and insults by using filthy and abusive language leading to constant disturbance of mental peace of the other party.”

16.In PARVEEN MEHTA v. INDERJIT MEHTA [AIR 2002 SC 2582] the

Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the provisions of Section 13(1)(ia) of

the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 held inter alia thus:

“Cruelty for the purpose of Section 13(1)(ia) is to be taken as a behavior by one spouse towards the other which causes reasonable apprehension in the mind of the latter that it is not safe for him or her to continue the matrimonial relationship with the other. Mental cruelty is a state of mind and feeling with one of the spouses due to the behavior or behavioral pattern by the other. Unlike the case of physical cruelty the mental cruelty is difficult to establish by direct evidence. It is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case. A feeling of anguish, disappointment and frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of the other can only be appreciated on assessing the

Senior ivil Judge,

Chodavaram

HMOP NO.30/2026 CJ (SD) COURT, CDM.

9 attending facts and circumstances in which the two partners of matrimonial life have been living. The inference has to be drawn from the attending facts and circumstances taken cumulatively.”

17.In GURBUX SINGH v. HARMINDER KAUR [AIR 2011 SC 114] the

Hon’ble Supreme Court yet again inter alia while the considering the aspect of

cruelty held compactly thus:

“12.……… Sustained unjustifiable and reprehensible conduct affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse may lead to mental cruelty.

………”

18.Bearing in mind the law laid down in the said Judgments and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the case, it certainly demonstrates that the respondent treated the petitioner cruelly, and she tortured and harassed him physically and mentally, and thereby reunion is impossible, and dislike between the petitioner and the respondent was burning hot, and thereby the chances of living together amicably by the petitioner and the respondent under one roof to lead their marital life are now very bleak and remote. Not only that, the evidence of the petitioner remained uncontroverted and unchallenged as stated hereinbefore, and there is no other material forthcoming from the record to disbelieve the evidence adduced by the petitioner.

19.Having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case discussed herein above, and in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel

for the petitioner, and in view of the Judgments referred to supra, and in the best

interest of justice, this Court is of the humble and considered view that the present petition is liable to be allowed as prayed for. Point No.1 is accordingly answered in the affirmative.

POINT NO.2:

20.For the aforementioned reasons and in the result, the present petition is allowed by granting a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty in favour of the

Senior ivil Judge,

Chodavaram

HMOP NO.30/2026 CJ (SD) COURT, CDM.

10 petitioner and against the respondent, duly dissolving the marriage performed between them on 21.02.2025. However, having due regard to the propinquity between the petitioner and the respondent, there shall be no order as to costs.

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

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 7th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- V.Gowri Sankara Rao,

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Chodavaram.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner For Respondent

PW.1: Pasupuleti Sreenivas.None.

P.W.2: Senapathi Kanaka Raju.

Documents Marked

For Petitioner For Respondent

Ex.P.1: Wedding card.Nil.

Sd/- V.Gowri Sankara Rao,

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Chodavaram.

Senior ivil Judge,

Chodavaram

HMOP NO.39/2025 CJ (SD) COURT, CDM.

1

APVS140000572025

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION), CHODAVARAM.

Present : Sri V.Gowri Sankara Rao,

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chodavaram.

Friday, this the 8th day of May, 2026.

HMOP NO.39/2025

Between: Yadla Raghu, S/o late Satyanarayana, aged about 33 years, employee in East Coast Railway, permanent resident of Kotha Agraharam (Kothuru) Village, H/o Singannadorapalem Village, K. Kotapadu Mandal, Anakapalli District. …Petitioner. And: Yadla Geethika Sree @ Yalla Geethika Sree, W/o Yadla Raghu, D/o Yalla Venkata Rao, aged about 23 years, Engineer, residing at Door No.37-5-83, Sai Ram Nagar, Industrial Estate, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam. …Respondent.

This case is coming on for final hearing before me on 04.05.2026 in the presence of Sri K.David, Advocate for the petitioner, and of Sri G.V.Ganeswara Rao, Advocate for respondent, and after perusing the material available on record and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1.The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking the Court to grant a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage performed on 17.12.2020 between the petitioner and the respondent on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, in the interest of justice.

Senior Civil

Judge,

Chodavaram

HMOP NO.39/2025 CJ (SD) COURT, CDM.

2

2.The averments made in the present petition, in brief, are that the petitioner and the respondent are Hindus, and the mother of the petitioner/Yadla Lakshmi and Boddu Sarojini are the daughters of one Yalla Demudu through his 2nd wife/Demudamma, and the said Yalla Demudu has two daughters and one son/Yalla Venkata Rao through his 1st wife/Mahalakshmi, and the respondent is the daughter of the paternal half sibling of the mother of the petitioner. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent was an arranged marriage which was solemnized on 17.12.2020 at the house of the parents of the petitioner at Kothuru Village (Kotha Agraharam Village), K.Kotapadu Mandal,

Anakapalli District, according to the Hindu rites and their caste customs and there was no exchange of dowry, and lanchanams for the said marriage.

Subsequently the said marriage was registered at Gram Panchayat

Sachivalayam, Singannadorapalem, on 30.12.2020 and immediately after the said marriage, nuptial function was arranged at the house of the parents of the petitioner, and their marriage was consummated, and they used to lead their marital life at Kothuru Village. Thereafter the petitioner and the respondent resided for sometime at Kancharapalem and later they started their separate residence at Kapu Jaggarajupeta to suit the convenience of the Engineering study of the respondent and they lived there for three months. The petitioner is the only son to his mother, who used to reside with the petitioner and the respondent at Kapu Jaggarajupeta, and the respondent disliked the stay of the mother of the petitioner with them, and she always used to insist the petitioner to keep his mother away from them. The respondent used to ill-treat the mother of the petitioner without any reasonable cause, and while so the petitioner got his training at Koraput and Srikakulam, and the respondent has not shown interest to continue in the said rented house at Kapu Jaggarajupeta with the mother of the petitioner, and thereby she insisted to vacate the said rented house and she went back to the house of her parents, and as such the mother of the petitioner

Senior Civil

Judge,

Chodavaram

HMOP NO.39/2025 CJ (SD) COURT, CDM.

3 returned back to their Village Kothuru. The respondent opted to live with her parents at Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam, but the petitioner used to operate his training programme from the house of the parents of the respondent, and the father of the respondent is Head Constable in Police Department,

Visakhapatnam City, and the mother of the respondent has been working as LIC

Agent. The brother of the respondent has been pursuing his studies at

Chandigarh, and the parents of the respondent are very much interested to keep the respondent in their house to have the keeping, for which the respondent also showed her interest.

3.It is also averred therein that the respondent started to show her dislike towards the petitioner and she used to express that her marriage took place because of the pressure of her father, and if her wish was taken into consideration for her marriage she would have married a rich, high qualified and well body shaped beauty man. The respondent and her classmates used to comment the body shape of the petitioner, and she also used to degrade and diminish the character of the petitioner in the eye of the family and the society which put the petitioner to immense mental agony. The father of the respondent also used to insult and ill-treat the petitioner for his shelter at his home, and while so the respondent conceived pregnancy for which the petitioner and his mother felt so happy and delighted, whereas the respondent and his parents showed disinterest to carry the pregnancy and they proposed to get terminated the pregnancy, and by the time of the marriage the petitioner was aged about 29 years old and very energetic and having sexual desire, and he was expecting to lead happy, safe, conjugal life and to beget children through his wedlock as the samskar of the marriage is to progeny and offspring. The petitioner is very fond of children and he thought that it is right time to have the children and he requested the respondent to carry the pregnancy, and even then without his consent, knowledge and information, the respondent and her parents got

Senior Civil

Judge,

Chodavaram

HMOP NO.39/2025 CJ (SD) COURT, CDM.

4 aborted the said pregnancy, and the said inhuman act on the part of the respondent and her parents put the petitioner to severe mental cruelty and put him to distress. The petitioner is young and energetic and he is in thought of having sexual life with the respondent, and he used to propose the respondent to have sexual intercourse for which each and every time the respondent used to reject the said proposal, and her refusal put the petitioner to physical and mental distress. The petitioner also proposed to put up separate residence at

Visakhapatnam to unleash the control of the parents of the respondent but the respondent and her parents refused to do so, and on the other hand they asked the petitioner not to sleep into their house, and then the petitioner also requested the respondent to come along with him to his work place for which also she refused.

4.It is further averred therein that thus from 22.06.2021 onwards the petitioner and the respondent have been living separately, and ther is no conjugal life between them, and the differences arose in between them because of the attitude of the respondent, and the cordial terms, happiness and joy between them were evaporated, and it became hard to the petitioner to lead their marital life. As such the petitioner and the respondent came to an understanding to obtain mutual divorce from the Court of law in view of their future lives, and accordingly they filed a mutual divorce petition on 16.09.2022 in

FCOP No.2375/2022 on the file of the Hon’ble Additional Family Court,

Visakhapatnam, and later the respondent and her father showed their true colour and thereby they demanded the petitioner to get relinquished the property rights of his mother Yadla Laxmi and her sisters in their favour. The respondent and her father also made it clear that unless they relinquish their rights, the respondent would not appear before the said Hon’ble Family Court and she would not cooperate for getting divorce. The respondent and her father also opened their actual mind and planned on the said occasion that the marriage of

Senior Civil

Judge,

Chodavaram

HMOP NO.39/2025 CJ (SD) COURT, CDM.

5 the respondent with the petitioner took place only to get the entire joint family property in their favour, and on that the petitioner was astonished and he understood the foul play committed by the respondent and her father. As the mother of the petitioner and her siblings and half female siblings did not come forward to relinquish their property rights in the joint family property in favour of the respondent and her father, who did not attend before the said Hon’ble Family

Court in the said case, and as a result thereof the said case was dismissed for default on 01.04.2024. Because of the desertion, acts, attitude, behaviour and non-cooperation of the respondent, the petitioner is put to severe physical and mental cruelty. Hence, the present petition.

5.On the contrary, the respondent filed a counter denying the allegations made in the present petition on the ground that the same are not true except those which are not specifically traversed. It is averred therein that at the time of marriage, the parents of the respondent gave a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- towards dowry to the petitioner and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards adapaduchu lanchanams, and three tulas of gold bracelet, half tula gold ringh, one tule gold chain and saresamanulu worth Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner. The petitioner and his mother demanded the respondent for additional dowry and also insisted the respondent to execute a gift deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the land in an extent of Ac.1.28 cents situated at Kotturu Village which was gifted by paternal grandfather to her. The petitioner and his mother harassed the respondent both mentally and physically, and thereby the respondent is not in a position to live with them and differences arose in between them, and at the instance of the mother of the petitioner, he left the respondent at the house of her parents on 10.04.2021. The petitioner unnecessarily doubted the character of the respondent and he harassed the respondent and thereby she has been living at the house of her parents, and the parents of the respondent raised mediations before the caste elders and well wishers on either side for reunion,

Senior Civil

Judge,

Chodavaram

HMOP NO.39/2025 CJ (SD) COURT, CDM.

6 and the respondent is always ready to live with the petitioner, who did not agree to live with the respondent.

6.It is also averred therein that while so, on the advice of the elders and well wishers, the petitioner agreed to return back the dowry amount of Rs.15,00,000/- which was given by the parents of the respondent at the time of marriage and take divorce through the Court, and with that condition the petitioner and the respondent mutually filed the said FCOP No.2375/2022, and after filing of the said petition, the petitioner did not pay the agreed amount to the respondent and did not attend before the Hon’ble Family Court, Visakhapatnam, and consequently the said case was dismissed for default on 01.04.2024. The respondent never conceived pregnancy during the wedlock, and the same is invented by the petitioner only to harass the respondent. The respondent is ready and willing to lead conjugal life with the petitioner, and there is no pressure on the respondent at the time of marriage, and she herself agreed to the marriage with the petitioner, and only to evade the return back of the dowry amount of Rs.15,00,000/- the petitioner filed the present petition with false allegations. It is thus prayed for dismissal of the present petition with costs.

7.In the light of the above, the point that arises for determination is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to seek a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, in the light of the facts and circumstances obtaining in this case, as prayed for ?

8.Then it was coming up for enquiry from time to time. At that stage, on 22.04.2026 both the petitioner and the respondent were present before the

Court, and the learned counsel on either side submitted before the Court that there is a chance for settlement through mediation between the parties herein, and therefore they requested the Court to refer the present petition for mediation forthwith. Basing on the said submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the matter was referred to mediation centre at MLSC, Chodavaram,

Senior Civil

Judge,

Chodavaram

HMOP NO.39/2025 CJ (SD) COURT, CDM.

7 immediately and thereby both the parties were directed to appear before the said mediation centre along with their counsel. Thereupon, on 04.05.2026 this Court received a report from the mediation centre at MLSC, Chodavaram, wherein both the petitioner and the respondent amicably settled the matter before the learned Mediator and the learned Mediator recorded the terms of the settlement, which reads as follows:

“After understanding the process of mediation, the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement on the terms and conditions as under:

1) Both parties agreed to obtain divorce from the above Court of law in the above numbered HMOP No.39/2025 by dissolving their marriage that took place on 17.12.2020 which was registered on 30.12.2020 by the

Panchayat Secretary, Singannadorapalem Grampanchayat under

Certificate of Marriage with Serial No.29 dated 30.12.2020.

2) The respondent agreed to withdraw the FCOP No.1028/2025 pending on the file of Honourable Court of V Additional District Judge-cum-Family

Court at Visakhapatnam which is filed by her for grant of maintenance against the petitioner herein.

3) The respondent agreed that she will not claim any right over the properties and the personality of the petitioner in any manner for her maintenance or for any other cause in future.

4) Both parties respectively agreed to marry any other person of their choice and other party shall not may cause obstruction, objection and hindrance to such marriage.

5) Both parties agreed to bear their own costs of this litigation and for the said case in FCOP No.1028/2025.”

Thereupon, on the same day i.e. on 04.05.2026 in the presence of the learned counsel on either side, the said terms of the settlement were read over to the petitioner and the respondent in open Court, who together accepted and

Senior Civil

Judge,

Chodavaram

HMOP NO.39/2025 CJ (SD) COURT, CDM.

8 admitted the same to be true and correct, and they voluntarily agreed for those terms. A perusal of the said terms of the settlement discloses that they are not opposed to public policy. Accordingly, this Court is satisfied with the voluntariness of both parties herein in arriving at the said terms of the settlement, and thereby this Court accepted the said terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties herein, in the best interest of both the parties.

9.In the result, the present petition is accordingly disposed of by recording the said terms of the settlement dated 04.05.2026 arrived at between the parties herein in the mediation centre at MLSC, Chodavaram, before the learned

Mediator. However, having due regard to the propinquity between the parties, there shall be no order as to costs.

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

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 8th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- V.Gowri Sankara Rao,

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Chodavaram.

Appendix of evidence and witnesses examined

No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on either side.

Sd/- V.Gowri Sankara Rao,

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Chodavaram.

Senior Civil

Judge,

Chodavaram

HMOP NO.39/2026 CJ (SD) COURT, CDM.

1

APVS140000562026

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION), CHODAVARAM.

Present : Sri V.Gowri Sankara Rao,

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chodavaram.

Friday, this the 8th day of May, 2026.

HMOP NO.39/2026

Between:

1) Pilla Gopi, S/o Venkata Satyanarayana, aged 32 years, Cultivation, resident of Seethayyapeta Village, Butchaiahpeta Mandal, Anakapalli District.

2) Pilla (Patchikura) Mounika, W/o Gopi, aged 25 years, Housewife, resident of C/o Patchikura Chinnamanaidu, Kundram Village, Anakapalli Mandal, Anakapalli District. …Petitioners. And: NIL …Respondent.

This case is coming on for final hearing before me on 07.05.2026 in the presence of Sri K.Bhaskar Das, Advocate for the petitioners, and no respondent since the present petition is filed for divorce on mutual consent, and after perusing the material available on record and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1.The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 13B of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking the Court to grant a decree of divorce on mutual consent by dissolving the marriage between the petitioners that was performed on 20.04.2024, in the interest of justice.

Senior Civil

Judge,

Chodavaram

HMOP NO.39/2026 CJ (SD) COURT, CDM.

2

2.The averments made in the present petition, in brief, are that the second petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the first petitioner, and their marriage was solemnized on 20.04.2024 according to Hindu law and caste customs at

Seethayyapeta Village, Butchaiahpeta Mandal, Anakapalli District, in the presence of the elders and relatives. Immediately after the marriage, their marriage was consummated and they set up the marital home at Seethayyapeta

Village, Butchaiahpeta Mandal, and out of their wedlock they were not blessed with any children, and they lived together happily until March, 2025. During their stay in the marital home, differences crept into the family life between the petitioners, and thereby they threw allegations against each other which resulted in their separation in March, 2025. There are frequent ruptures in their matrimonial life, and those differences could not be pacified and patched up in spite of several efforts by the petitioners to resolve the same and it was in vain.

In all those mediations and counselling efforts by their parents, relatives and elders, namely, Ch.Apparao, Nandavarapu Govinda, etc., the petitioners threw wild allegations against each other in their presence, and thereby the second petitioner went back to the house of parents at Kundram Village, Anakapalli

Mandal, in March, 2025, and since then the petitioners have been living separately.

3.It is also averred therein that the petitioners also complained of lack of compatibility and understanding between them and more so in family life, and they expressed that they lack the basic elements for a happy marital life, love and mutual understanding, and compatibility and trust between them. Thus, there is no resumption of marital relationship between the petitioners, and they consciously felt that they do not have any love for each other, and their marriage is dead for all practicable purposes, and it is irretrievably broken down. The petitioners felt that there is no hope for them to revive their marital life, and they cannot continue to live together as husband and wife any more, and they felt that

Senior Civil

Judge,

Chodavaram

HMOP NO.39/2026 CJ (SD) COURT, CDM.

3 it would be better to place the matter before the above elders etc. for an amicable settlement and for taking a decision about their respective future. Then the elders, relatives and well wishers convened a meeting between the petitioners in their presence wherein by taking into consideration their age, their future, their socio economic status it was mutually decided and agreed upon by the petitioners, their parents and relatives that their marriage took place on 20.04.2024 shall be dissolved by obtaining divorce by mutual consent. Thus, the belongings of the petitioners resting with each other were duly exchanged each other in the presence of the village elders. The first petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- to the second petitioner towards full and final settlement of all her claims, and accordingly he paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the second petitioner who received it in the presence of the elders, and he agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to the second petitioner at the time of obtaining divorce before the Court for which she agreed therefor. There are no claims pending against each other in future in respect of maintenance of the second petitioner against the first petitioner. There is no collusion between the petitioners in approaching this Court, and there is no similar petition for divorce pending in any Court of law for the relief claimed hereinabove. Hence, the present petition.

4.In the light of the above, the points that arise for determination in the present petition are:

1) Whether the petitioners are justified in seeking the Court to grant a decree of divorce on mutual consent by dissolving their marriage which was performed on 20.04.2024, having due regard to the facts and circumstances obtaining in this case ? and

2) To what relief ?

5. During the course of enquiry, in order to prove their case, the first petitioner was examined as PW.1 whereas the second petitioner was examined as PW.2 and Exs.P.1 and P.2 were marked on their behalf.

Senior Civil

Judge,

Chodavaram

HMOP NO.39/2026 CJ (SD) COURT, CDM.

4

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Perused the material available on record.

POINT NO.1:

7.The learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the averments of the present petition and referring to the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioners, fairly submitted that the marriage between the petitioners was performed on 20.04.2024, and immediately after marriage the second petitioner joined the conjugal society of the first petitioner and their marriage was consummated, and they lived together happily until March, 2025; and that during their stay at the marital home disputes and differences arose between the petitioners and thereby the second petitioner went back to the house of her parents in March, 2025 and since then they have been living separately; and that the efforts made by the parents of the petitioners, their elders, well wishers and relatives to resolve those disputes and to patch up those differences were in vain, and thereby they decided and mutually agreed that their marriage should be dissolved by obtaining divorce by mutual consent, and all the belongings of the petitioners resting with each other were exchanged in the presence of the village elders; and that the first petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- to the second petitioner towards full and final settlement of all her claims against him, and accordingly he paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the second petitioner, who received it, and he agreed to pay the remaining sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the second petitioner after obtaining decree from the Court, and there are no claims pending between them; and that after obtaining divorce they can remarry of their own option and choice for which they would not object against each other. Thus, the learned counsel submitted that the future lives of the petitioners would be good if they are separated legitimately, and therefore he requested the Court to pass a decree as prayed for, in the interest of justice.

Senior Civil

Judge,

Chodavaram

HMOP NO.39/2026 CJ (SD) COURT, CDM.

5

8. As can be seen from the material available on record, it is obvious that the petitioners filed their evidence affidavits in lieu of their chief-examination, and they are examined-in-chief as PWs.1 and 2, who reiterated almost all the averments of the present petition and got marked Exs.P.1 and P.2 on their behalf. A perusal of Ex.P.1 wedding card reflects that the marriage was fixed between the petitioners to be held on 20.04.2024, whereas a glance at Ex.P.2 photograph along with C.D. reveals that their marriage was performed. Thus, the evidence adduced by the petitioners as PWs.1 and 2 clinchingly inter alia establishes that the petitioners are Hindus, and their marriage was performed on 20.04.2024 vide Ex.P.1 wedding card, and Ex.P.2 photograph along with C.D.

and the other material available on record. Immediately after marriage, the second petitioner joined the conjugal society of the first petitioner and their marriage was consummated, and they lived together happily until March, 2025.

Later, disputes and differences arose between the petitioners and thereby the second petitioner went back to the house of her parents in March, 2025 and since then they have been living separately. Although the parents of the petitioners, their elders, and their well wishers, put their best efforts to keep the marriage alive between the petitioners, it was in vain. Thus, from the above, it is crystal clear that there is no cordial relationship between the petitioners, and their marital relationship is irretrievably broken down. Then the petitioners mutually decided and agreed that their marriage should be dissolved by obtaining divorce by mutual consent. Thus, their future lives would be good if they are separated legitimately, as rightly and seriously put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

9.At this stage, it is imperative to refer to the Judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court rendered in AMARDEEP SINGH v. HARVEEN KAUR [AIR 2017

SC 4417] wherein while inter alia considering the aspect as to whether the

Senior Civil

Judge,

Chodavaram

HMOP NO.39/2026 CJ (SD) COURT, CDM.

6 period mentioned in Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is mandatory or directory, it was inter alia held illuminatingly thus:

“21. Since we are of the view that the period mentioned in Section 13B(2) is not mandatory but directory, it will be open to the Court to exercise its discretion in the facts and circumstances of each case where there is no possibility of parties resuming cohabitation and there are chances of alternative rehabilitation.

22. Needless to say that in conducting such proceedings the Court can also use the medium of video-conferencing and also permit genuine representation of the parties through close relations such as parents or siblings where the parties are unable to appear in person for any just and valid reason as may satisfy the Court, to advance the interest of justice.”

Keeping in mind the law laid down in the said Judgment and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is manifest from the record that the petitioners filed I.A.No.116/2026in HMOP No.39/2026 seeking the Court to waive the statutory waiting period as provided under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955, and the said I.A. came to be allowed. Not only that, this

Court also made an enquiry with the maternal grandfather of the second petitioner, who was present along with the learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of enquiry before the Court in the matter, and he echoed that there is no slightest possibility of the petitioners living together under one roof amicably to lead their marital life anymore. Thus, the first petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- to the second petitioner towards full and final settlement of all her claims against him, and accordingly he paid a sum of

Rs.5,00,000/- to the second petitioner, who received it, and he agreed to pay the remaining sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the second petitioner after obtaining decree from the Court, for which she agreed thereof, and there are no claims pending between them. The second petitioner and her maternal grandfather have no

Senior Civil

Judge,

Chodavaram

HMOP NO.39/2026 CJ (SD) COURT, CDM.

7 grievance whatsoever in that regard. The petitioners can remarry of their own option and choice for which they would not object against each other. That apart, there is no other material forthcoming from the record to disbelieve the evidence adduced by the petitioners.

10.From the above, it is crystal clear that the marriage has broken down irretrievably between the petitioners, and thereby they have mutually decided to get separated, and therefore it is better to end the marriage in the best interest of both the petitioners in order to enable them to move on with their future lives as per their own accord and choice, as they are unwilling to live together as husband and wife anymore; and that no useful purpose would be served by making the petitioners to wait, except to prolong their agony.

11.Having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case discussed hereinabove, and in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, and in view of the Judgment referred to supra, and in the best interest of justice, this Court is of the humble and considered view that the present petition is liable to be allowed. Point No.1 is accordingly answered in the affirmative.

POINT NO.2:

12.For the aforementioned reasons and in the result, the present petition is allowed by granting a decree of divorce on mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in favour of both the petitioners by duly dissolving their marriage which was performed on 20.04.2024. However, having due regard to the propinquity between both the petitioners, there shall be no order as to costs. Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected, and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 8th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- V.Gowri Sankara Rao,

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Chodavaram.

Senior Civil

Judge,

Chodavaram

HMOP NO.39/2026 CJ (SD) COURT, CDM.

8

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioners For Respondent

PW.1: Pilla Gopi.None (Mutual consent).

PW.2: Pilla (Patchikura) Mounika.

Documents Marked

For Petitioners For Respondent

Ex.P.1: Wedding card.Nil (Mutual consent).

Ex.P.2: Photograph along with C.D.

Sd/- V.Gowri Sankara Rao,

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Chodavaram.

Senior Civil

Judge,

Chodavaram

HMOP NO.14/2026 CJ (SD) COURT, CDM.

1

APVS140000182026

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION), CHODAVARAM.

Present : Sri V.Gowri Sankara Rao,

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chodavaram.

Thursday, this the 7th day of May, 2026.

HMOP NO.14/2026

Between:

1) Duvvada Sankara Rao, S/o Sriram, aged 35 years, R/o H.No.3-75, SC Colony, Rongalinaidupalem Village, K.Kotapadu Mandal, Anakapalli District.

2) Duvvada (Arigela) Parimala, W/o Sankara Rao, D/o Devanandarao, aged 30 years, Kanchugummala Village, Rolugunta Mandal, Anakapalli District. …Petitioners. And: NIL …Respondent.

This case is coming on for final hearing before me on 06.05.2026 in the presence of Sri K.Appala Naidu, Advocate for the petitioners, and no respondent since the present petition is filed for divorce on mutual consent, and after perusing the material available on record and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1.The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 13B of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking the Court to grant a decree of divorce on mutual consent by dissolving the marriage between the petitioners that was performed on 27.09.2017, in the interest of justice.

2.The averments made in the present petition, in brief, are that the petitioners are husband and wife respectively, and their marriage was performed on 27.09.2017 according to Hindu law and caste customs at Rongalinaidupalem

Senior Civil

Judge,

Chodavaram

HMOP NO.14/2026 CJ (SD) COURT, CDM.

2

Village, K.Kotapadu Mandal, and immediately after the marriage, the second petitioner joined the conjugal society of the first petitioner and their marriage was consummated, and they set up their marital home at Rongalinaidupalem Village, and they lived together for 2½ years and out of the wedlock they were blessed with a daughter, who is now in the custody of the second petitioner.

Subsequently, some disputes arose between the petitioners and on that, they developed ill-will against each other, and there is any amount of misunderstandings between them, and their elders tried to reunion them on two occasions, but it was in vain. Thus, the marital tie between the petitioners was irretrievably broken down, and there is no possibility of the petitioners living together. The first petitioner agreed and paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the second petitioner towards permanent alimony by way of cash in the presence of the elders and their family members, and thereby she agreed to relinquish all her rights against the first petitioner and his properties. The second petitioner agreed that she would not claim anything against him in future, and she also agreed

before the elders that she would not file any criminal and civil cases and

maintenance case against the first petitioner in future. There is no collusion between the petitioners in approaching this Court, and there is no similar petition pending in any Court of law for the relief claimed hereinabove. Hence, the present petition.

3.In the light of the above, the points that arise for determination in the present petition are:

1) Whether the petitioners are justified in seeking the Court to grant a decree of divorce on mutual consent by dissolving their marriage which was performed on 27.09.2017, having due regard to the facts and circumstances obtaining in this case ? and

2) To what relief ?

4. During the course of enquiry, in order to prove their case, the first petitioner was examined as PW.1 whereas the second petitioner was examined as PW.2 and Ex.P.1 alone was marked on their behalf.

Senior Civil

Judge,

Chodavaram

HMOP NO.14/2026 CJ (SD) COURT, CDM.

3

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Perused the material available on record.

POINT NO.1:

6.The learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the averments of the present petition and referring to the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioners, fairly submitted that the marriage between the petitioners was performed on 27.09.2017, and immediately after marriage the second petitioner joined the conjugal society of the first petitioner and their marriage was consummated, and they lived together happily for a period of 2½ years and out of the wedlock they were blessed with a daughter; and that later disputes and misunderstandings arose between the petitioners and thereby the second petitioner went back to the house of her parents and since then the petitioners have been living separately; and that the efforts made by the parents of the petitioners, their elders, well wishers and relatives to patch up those differences were in vain, and they decided and mutually agreed that their marriage should be dissolved by obtaining divorce by mutual consent; and that the first petitioner agreed and paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the second petitioner towards permanent alimony in the presence of the elders and their family members, and thereby she agreed to relinquish all her rights against the first petitioner and his properties; and that the second petitioner also agreed that she would not file any criminal and civil cases and maintenance case against the first petitioner in future, and there are no claims pending between the petitioners, and after obtaining divorce they can remarry of their own option and choice for which they would not object against each other. Thus, the learned counsel submitted that the future lives of the petitioners would be good if they are separated legitimately, and therefore he requested the Court to pass a decree as prayed for, in the interest of justice.

Senior Civil

Judge,

Chodavaram

HMOP NO.14/2026 CJ (SD) COURT, CDM.

4

7. As can be seen from the material available on record, it is obvious that the petitioners filed their evidence affidavits in lieu of their chief-examination, and they are examined-in-chief as PWs.1 and 2, who reiterated almost all the averments of the present petition and got marked Ex.P.1 alone on their behalf. A perusal of Ex.P.1 wedding card reflects that the marriage was fixed between the petitioners to be held on 27.09.2017. The evidence adduced by the petitioners as PWs.1 and 2 clinchingly inter alia establishes that the petitioners are Hindus, and their marriage was performed on 27.09.2017 vide Ex.P.1 wedding card, and the other material available on record. Immediately after marriage, the second petitioner joined the conjugal society of the first petitioner and their marriage was consummated, and they lived together happily for a period of 2½ years, and they were blessed with a daughter. Later, disputes and misunderstandings arose between the petitioners and thereby the second petitioner went back to the house of her parents and since then the petitioners have been living separately.

Although the parents of the petitioners, their elders, and their well wishers, put their best efforts to keep the marriage alive between the petitioners, it was in vain. Thus, from the above, it is crystal clear that there is no cordial relationship between the petitioners, and their marital relationship is irretrievably broken down. Then the petitioners mutually agreed that their marriage should be dissolved by obtaining divorce by mutual consent. Thus, their future lives would be good if they are separated legitimately, as rightly and seriously put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

8.At this stage, it is imperative to refer to the Judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court rendered in AMARDEEP SINGH v. HARVEEN KAUR [AIR 2017

SC 4417] wherein while inter alia considering the aspect as to whether the

period mentioned in Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is mandatory or directory, it was inter alia held illuminatingly thus:

Senior Civil

Judge,

Chodavaram

HMOP NO.14/2026 CJ (SD) COURT, CDM.

5 “21. Since we are of the view that the period mentioned in Section 13B(2) is not mandatory but directory, it will be open to the Court to exercise its discretion in the facts and circumstances of each case where there is no possibility of parties resuming cohabitation and there are chances of alternative rehabilitation.

22. Needless to say that in conducting such proceedings the Court can also use the medium of video-conferencing and also permit genuine representation of the parties through close relations such as parents or siblings where the parties are unable to appear in person for any just and valid reason as may satisfy the Court, to advance the interest of justice.”

9.Keeping in mind the law laid down in the said Judgment and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is manifest from the record that the petitioners filed I.A.No.112/2026in HMOP No.14/2026 seeking the Court to waive the statutory waiting period as provided under Section 13B(2) of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the said I.A. came to be allowed. Not only that, this Court also made an enquiry with the junior paternal uncle of the first petitioner and the father of the second petitioner, who were present along with the learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of enquiry before the

Court in the matter, and they together echoed in one voice that there is no slightest possibility of the petitioners living together under one roof amicably to lead their marital life anymore. The first petitioner agreed and paid a sum of

Rs.1,50,000/- to the second petitioner towards permanent alimony in the presence of the elders and their family members, and thereby she agreed to relinquish all her rights against the first petitioner and his properties. The second petitioner also agreed that she would not file any criminal and civil cases and maintenance case against the first petitioner in future, and there are no claims pending between the petitioners. The second petitioner and her father have no grievance whatsoever in that regard. The petitioners can remarry of their own

Senior Civil

Judge,

Chodavaram

HMOP NO.14/2026 CJ (SD) COURT, CDM.

6 option and choice after obtaining divorce, for which they would not object against each other. That apart, there is no other material forthcoming from the record to disbelieve the evidence adduced by the petitioners.

10.From the above, it is crystal clear that the marriage has broken down irretrievably between the petitioners, and thereby they have mutually decided to get separated, and therefore it is better to end the marriage in the best interest of both the petitioners in order to enable them to move on with their future lives as per their own accord and choice, as they are unwilling to live together as husband and wife anymore; and that no useful purpose would be served by making the petitioners to wait, except to prolong their agony.

11.Having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case discussed hereinabove, and in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, and in view of the Judgment referred to supra, and in the best interest of justice, this Court is of the humble and considered view that the present petition is liable to be allowed. Point No.1 is accordingly answered in the affirmative.

POINT NO.2:

12.For the aforementioned reasons and in the result, the present petition is allowed by granting a decree of divorce on mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in favour of both the petitioners by duly dissolving their marriage which was performed on 27.09.2017. However, having due regard to the propinquity between both the petitioners, there shall be no order as to costs.

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

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 7th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- V.Gowri Sankara Rao,

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Chodavaram.

Senior Civil

Judge,

Chodavaram

HMOP NO.14/2026 CJ (SD) COURT, CDM.

7

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioners For Respondent

PW.1: Duvvada Sankara Rao.None (Mutual consent).

PW.2: Duvvada (Arigela) Parimala.

Documents Marked

For Petitioners For Respondent

Ex.P.1: Wedding card.Nil (Mutual consent).

Sd/- V.Gowri Sankara Rao,

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Chodavaram.

Senior Civil

Judge,

Chodavaram