Patna High Court
Sanjay Kumar Yadav @Ranjit Kumar @ Ranjit Kumar Yadav @ Ranjeet Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
Matrimonial disputes are private matters and the petitioner is entitled to pre‑arrest bail subject to mediation and child‑welfare conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Sanjay Kumar Yadav, applied for pre‑arrest bail in a complaint alleging he tortured his wife and misappropriated gifts after marriage. The wife (OP No.2) claimed she was deprived of jewellery and money and sought maintenance for their seven‑year‑old daughter. Both parties expressed willingness to resolve the dispute through mediation, and the State also supported an amicable settlement. The High Court held that matrimonial disputes are private matters, not offences against society, and therefore the petitioner is entitled to pre‑arrest bail conditioned on mediation and child‑welfare provisions. The court directed the District Court to refer the matter to a mediator, ordered the petitioner to pay Rs 10,000 per month for the child’s nutrition, and disposed of the bail application.
Issues considered
- The alleged acts constitute a criminal offence warranting denial of pre‑arrest bail
- Whether a matrimonial dispute can be treated as an offence against society
- Whether the petitioner should be granted bail pending mediation
- Determination of appropriate financial support for the child during the dispute
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Statutes (BNS) — s. 115(2), 85
- Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 — s. 17
- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 — s. 13
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- matrimonial dispute
- mediation
- child welfare
- parens patriae
- maintenance
- Section 115(2) BNS
- Section 85 BNS
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2906 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-506 Year-2024 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE - BARH District-
Patna
======================================================
Sanjay Kumar Yadav @ Ranjit Kumar @ Ranjit Kumar Yadav @ Ranjeet
Kumar Yadav S/O Bhagwat Pd. Yadav, Resident of Village Korari, P.S. Deep
Nagar, District Nalanda presently residing at RZE 54, Pipalwali Gali,
Rajnagar, Part-II, Pala, Colony, Police Station Palam, District South West
Delhi, Delhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Anamika Kumari W/O Sanjay Kumar Yadav @ Ranjit Kumar Yadav,
Resident of Village Korai, P.S. Deep Nagar, District Nalanda.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.A.K.Rai, Advocate
Mr.Ashok Kumar Karna, Advocate
Mr.R.Kumar, Advocate
For OP No.2 : Mr.A.K.Kashyap, Advocte
For the State : Mr.Ajay Kumar No. 2, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 01-04-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, learned counsel for OP No.2 and the learned APP for
the State.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Complaint Case No.506© of 2024 (T.R.No.106 of 2024)
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2) and
85 of BNS.
3. As per the allegation made in the complaint
petition, the complainant got married with the petitioner and her
father gave gift of Rs.15 lack, as well as, jewellery of Rs.5 lac.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2906 of 2026(4) dt.01-04-2026
2/9
They were blessed with a female child, who is aged about seven
years. It is alleged that, thereafter, the petitioner along with his
family members started subjecting the complainant to various
sorts of torture and ousted along with her child and snatched all
the ornaments etc.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the
complainant (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 one female
child and petitioner is not taking care of her chil, who require
proper nourishment and good education and demanded Rs.
10,000/- per month from the petitioner for proper nourishment
and good education of her child.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2906 of 2026(4) dt.01-04-2026
3/9
6. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State
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 15.04.2026 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2906 of 2026(4) dt.01-04-2026
4/9
matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often
assume serious proportions resulting in commission of
heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also
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 15.04.2026, 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2906 of 2026(4) dt.01-04-2026
5/9
required to be released on pre-arrest bail on such terms and
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 15.04.2026 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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2906 of 2026(4) dt.01-04-2026
6/9
observations made by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case,
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2906 of 2026(4) dt.01-04-2026
7/9
the vital factor of the welfare of the minor.”
“20. The question of welfare of the minor child
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2906 of 2026(4) dt.01-04-2026
8/9
there. At Panipat, it would be an entirely new environment
for him as compared to Allahabad.”
“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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2906 of 2026(4) dt.01-04-2026
9/9
good education of the three children of the petitioner and the
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. The petitioner being legal guardian of the female
child is directed to provide a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Ten
Thousand) only per month to the complainant to provide
nutrition food to her female child and in case of default in any
month in making payment of the said amount, the complainant
may move before the learned district court for cancellation of
the bail bond of the petitioner.
24. With aforesaid direction and observation, the
present application stands disposed of.
25. 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)
chn/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.