Patna High Court
Dipu Kumar Singh @ Dipu @ Kariman SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The court held that the matrimonial dispute is a private matter, not an offence against society, and therefore granted interim pre‑arrest bail subject to mediation and the welfare considerations of the children.
Summary
Dipu Kumar Singh applied for pre‑arrest bail in a case arising from a matrimonial dispute where his wife alleged dowry demands, torture and her ouster from the marital home. The petitioner contended that the allegations were false and that the matter should be resolved through mediation. The court observed that matrimonial disputes are private conflicts and not offences against society, citing Supreme Court precedents. It directed the parties to appear before the District Mediation Centre and granted interim protection to the petitioner, conditioning bail on the outcome of mediation. The court emphasized the paramount importance of the children’s welfare and instructed the lower court to consider appropriate financial support for them.
Issues considered
- Whether a matrimonial dispute constitutes an offence against society warranting denial of pre‑arrest bail
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to interim protection and pre‑arrest bail pending mediation
- How the welfare of the children should be addressed in the context of the dispute
Legislation cited
- BNS Act — s. 109, 115, 118(1), 126(2), 85
- D.P. Act — s. 3, 4
- Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 — s. 17
- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 — s. 13
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- matrimonial dispute
- dowry
- mediation
- child welfare
- criminal procedure
- family law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15121 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-151 Year-2025 Thana- Haraiya District- East Champaran
======================================================
Dipu Kumar Singh @ Dipu @ Kariman Singh, Aged about 30 years, Gender-
Male, S/O Pramod Kumar Singh, Resident of village - Chikni, P.O.- Jokiyari,
P.S.- Haraiya, District- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Lalti Devi W/O Dipu Kumar Singh @ Dipu @ Kariman Singh, D/O
Vashisht Singh R/O Vill.- Bharatmahi, P.S.- Haraiya, Dist.- East Champaran
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mrs. Priyanka Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 25-03-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for
the O.P. Nos.2.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Haraiya P.S. Case No. 151 of 2025 for the offences
punishable under Sections 115, 118(1), 126(2), 109, 85 of the
BNS and Sections 3/4 of the D.P. Act.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the O.P. No.
2 was married to the petitioner, Dipu Kumar Singh in the year
2018 as per Hindu Rites and Custom and they have been blessed
with two sons and a daughter out of the said wedlock. After few
years of marriage, petitioner along with his family members,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15121 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
2/9
had started demanding bullet motorcycle as dowry and due to
non-fulfillment of the same, petitioner along with his family
members, had subjected the O.P. no. 2 to various sorts of torture
and ousted her from her matrimonial house.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the O.P.
No.2 and the allegation levelled against him is false and
concocted. Learned counsel further submitted that marriage is a
sacred ceremony but little matrimonial skirmish suddenly erupts
into hatred and the parties can be allowed to ponder to reconcile
their dispute outside the court. He submitted that the matter be
referred for mediation.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant opposing the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail
submitted that an opportunity may be given to the parties to
resolve their dispute amicably outside the Court. He further
submitted that the petitioner and O.P. No.2 have three children
and petitioner is not taking care of her children, who require
proper nourishment and good education and demanded Rs.
20,000/- per month from the petitioner for proper nourishment
and good education of the children.
6. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15121 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
3/9
submitted that a chance be given to the parties for amicable
settlement outside the court.
7. The petitioner’s counsel also informs that he has
received instruction that the petitioner also wants to reconcile
the dispute by way of mediation.
8. The parties have agreed to appear before the
learned District Court at 10:30 A.M. on 03.04.2026 for
resolving the dispute by way of mediation.
9. Heard the parties.
10. This Court finds that the matrimonial dispute is
not an offense against the society rather a matrimonial dispute is
a private conflict between spouses and does not inherently
constitute an offence against society, as has been held by the
Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana,
reported in, (2003) 4 SCC 675, in paragraph nos. 12 and 13
which is as under:-
“12. The special features in such
matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of
the court to encourage genuine settlements of
matrimonial disputes.
13. The observations made by this Court,
though in a slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v.
L.H.V. Prasad [(2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733]
are very apt for determining the approach required to be
kept in view in a matrimonial dispute by the courts. It
was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial
disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony,
the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple
to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little
matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often
assume serious proportions resulting in commission of
heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15121 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
4/9
involved with the result that those who could have
counselled and brought about rapprochement are
rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in
the criminal case. There are many other reasons which
need not be mentioned here for not encouraging
matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder
over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably
by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court
of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in
that process the parties lose their “young” days in
chasing their “cases” in different courts.
11. The parties have willingly desired to appear before
the learned District Court on or before 03.04.2026, so that the
matter can be referred to the District Mediation Centre.
12. Learned District Court is directed to take
necessary steps to refer the matter before the learned Mediator
of the District Mediation Center by fixing a date for appearance
of the parties to give effect to “Mediation for the Nation 2.0”.
13. Learned Mediator of the District Mediation Center
concerned, upon appearance of the parties, shall make his/her
best efforts to settle the dispute amicably and thereafter submit
his/her report before the concerned learned District Court, well
within a period of three months, till then, no coercive action
shall be taken against the petitioner in connection with the
aforesaid case.
14. In case, the parties resolve their dispute amicably
or arrive at a mutual settlement, in light of the law laid down by
the Apex Court as referred hereinabove, the petitioner is
required to be released on pre-arrest bail on such terms and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15121 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
5/9
conditions as the learned District Court deems it fit and proper.
15. In case of failure on the part of the petitioner to
appear on 03.04.2026 before the learned District Court or any
date fixed by the learned Mediator, the interim protection
granted to the petitioner shall automatically lose its force.
16. In case, it is deliberate on the part of the
complainant to reconcile, then in that case, the interim
protection granted to the petitioner shall continue and the trial
shall proceed in accordance with law.
17. In case, the parties fail to reconcile, then in that
case, parties may avail appropriate remedy. Then also, petitioner
is directed to be released on pre-arrest bail on such terms and
conditions as the learned District Court deems it fit and proper.
18. If both the parties arrive at amicable settlement,
then they must withdraw the criminal cases, if any, which they
have lodged against each other.
19. As a result of the strained matrimonial relationship
between husband and wife, the child should not suffer. The
Apex Court found it in the case of Howarth v. Northcott, 152
Conn 460 that the welfare of the child is of paramount
consideration of the Court. I find it apt to reproduce the
observations made by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15121 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
6/9
which is as under:
"In habeas corpus proceedings to determine
child custody, the jurisdiction exercise by the Court rests in
such cases on its inherent equitable powers and exerts
theforce of the State, as parens patrie, for the protection of
its infant ward, and the very nature and scope of the inquiry
and the result sought to be accomplished call for the
exercise of the jurisdiction of a court of equity.” (emphasis
supplied)
It was further observed;
“The employment of the forms of habeas corpus
in a child custody case is not for the purpose of testing the
legality of a confinement or restraint as contemplated by
the ancient common law writ, or by statute, but the primary
purpose is to furnish a means by which the court, in the
exercise of its judicial discretion, may determine what is
best for the welfare of the child, and the decision is reached
by a consideration of the equities involved in the welfare of
the child, against which the legal rights of no one, including
the parents, are allowed to militate. It was also indicated
that ordinarily, the basis for issuance of a writ of habeas
corpus is an illegal detention; but in the case of such a writ
sued out for the detention of a child, the law is concerned
not so much with the illegality of the detention as with the
welfare of the child.”
20. In this regard, it would be also gainful to
reproduce the observation made by the Apex Court in Mausami
Moita Ganguli V. Jayant Ganguli reported in (2008)7 SCC 673
in paragraph nos. 19 to 21 and 23 to 26:
“19. The principle of law in relation to the
custody of a minor child are well settled. It is trite that
while determining the question as to which parent the care
and control of a child should be committed, the first and the
paramount consideration is the welfare and interest of the
child and not the rights of the parents under a statute.
Indubitably, the provisions of the law pertaining to the
custody of a child contained in either the Guardians and
Wards Act, 1890(Section 17) or the Hindu Minority and
Guardianship Act, 1956 (Section 13) also hold out the
welfare of the child as a predominant consideration. In fact,
no statute, on the subject, can ignore, eschew or obliterate
the vital factor of the welfare of the minor.”
“20. The question of welfare of the minor child
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15121 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
7/9
has again to be considered in the background of the
relevant facts and circumstances. Each case has to be
decided on its own facts and other decided cases can hardly
serve as binding precedents in so far as the factual aspects
of the case are concerned. It is, no doubt, true that father is
presumed by the statues to be better suited to look after the
welfare of the child, being normally the working member
and head of the family, yet in each case the court has to see
primarily to the welfare of the child in determining the
question of his or her custody. Better financial resources of
either of the parents or their love for the child may be one
relevant considerations but cannot be the sole determining
factor for the custody of the child. It is here that a heavy
duty is cast on the court to exercise its judicial discretion
judiciously in the background of all the relevant facts and
circumstance, bearing in mind the welfare of the child as
the paramount consideration.”
21. In Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal
reported in (1973) 1 SCC 840, a three-Judge Bench of the
Apex Court in a rather curt language had observed that the
controlling factor governing the custody of the child would
be its welfare and not the rights of the parent:
“15. ... The children are not mere chattels: nor
are they mere playthings for their parents. Absolute right of
the parents over the destinies and the lives of their children
has, in the modern changed social conditions, yielded to the
considerations of their welfare as human being so that they
may grow up in a normal balanced manner to be useful
members of the society and the guardian court in case of a
dispute between the mother and the father, is expected to
strike a just and proper balance between the requirements
of welfare of the minor children and the rights of their
respective parents over them.”
“23. Having bestowed our anxious
consideration to the material on record and the observation
made by the courts below, we are of the view that in the
present case there is no ground to upset the judgment and
order of the High Court. There is nothing on record to
suggest that the welfare of the child is in any way in peril in
the hands of the father. In our opinion, the stability and
security of the child is also essential ingredient for a full
development of child’s talent and personality. As noted
above, the appellant is a teacher, now employed in a school
at Panipat, where she had shifted from Chandigarh some
time back. Earlier, she was teaching in some school at
Calcutta.
Admittedly, she is living alone. Except for a very
short duration when he was with the appellant, Master
Satyajeet has been living and studying in Allahabad in a
good school and is stated to have his small group of friends
there. At Panipat, it would be an entirely new environment
for him as compared to Allahabad.”
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15121 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
8/9
“25. It is also significant to note that during the
course of hearing on one of the dates, when we had not yet
interviewed Satyajeet, we had suggested that it would be
better if the child could stay with his mother for some more
time. However, upon hearing us, he started crying and
whining and, showed reluctance to go with the mother.”
Watching his reaction, we dropped the proposal.
“26. Under these circumstances and bearing in
mind the paramount consideration of the welfare of the
child, we are convinced that the child’s interest and welfare
will be best served if he continues to be in the custody of the
father, In our opinion, for the present, it is not desirable to
disturb the custody of master Satyajeet and, therefore, the
order of the High Court giving his exclusive custody to the
father with visitation rights to the mother deserves to be
maintained. We feel that the visitation rights to the
appellant by the High Court, as noted above, also do not
require any modification.”
We, therefore, affirm the order and the afore-
extracted direction given by the High Court. It will,
however, be open to the parties to move this Court for
modification of this order or for seeking any direction
regarding the custody and well- being of the child, if there
is any change in the circumstances.”
21. In the case of Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha
Nagpal reported in (2009) 1 SCC 42, the Apex Court in
paragraph 50 has held as follows:-
"50. When the Court is confronted with
conflicting demands made by the parents, each time it has
to justify the demands. The Court has not only to look at the
issue on legalistic basis, in such matters human angles are
relevant for deciding those issues. The Court then does not
give emphasis on what the parties say, it has to exercise a
jurisdiction which is aimed at the welfare of the minor."
22. Learned District Court, in such circumstances,
where the interest of the child becomes paramount, is directed to
decide the amount, which is required for proper growth and
good education of the three children of the petitioner and the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15121 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
9/9
O.P. No. 2. It is well settled principle of law that the rule of the
Court becomes parens patriae. He must exercise his jurisdiction
to consider for the welfare of the children which is paramount
till the parties resolve their dispute in accordance with the law.
23. With aforesaid direction and observation, the
present application stands disposed of.
24. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
Member Secretary, Bihar State Legal Services Authority and the
Patna High Court Mediation Centre for the purpose of record.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Niraj/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.