Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

AMISHA KUMARIversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
WITHDRAWN

Holding

The petition is dismissed as withdrawn because it was filed in the wrong jurisdiction; the appropriate remedy is to file a Miscellaneous Jurisdiction application before the Family Court.

Summary

The petitioner, Amisha Kumari, filed a Criminal Miscellaneous petition seeking transfer of a matrimonial case filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act from the Family Court in Munger to the Family Court in Araria. The High Court observed that such a transfer application should be filed as a Miscellaneous Jurisdiction case, not in a criminal miscellaneous proceeding, and noted the procedural defect. The court directed the office to explain why the matter was placed before it without pointing out the defect. The petitioner was allowed to withdraw the petition and file the appropriate application in the correct forum. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn and the certified copies were to be returned.

Issues considered

  • Can a petition for transfer of a matrimonial case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act be entertained in a Criminal Miscellaneous proceeding?
  • What is the appropriate jurisdiction and procedure for seeking transfer of a family law matter?

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • jurisdiction
  • family law
  • Hindu Marriage Act
  • transfer of case
  • procedural defect
  • criminal miscellaneous

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82648 of 2025
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-127 Year-2025 Thana- MUNGER COMPLAINT CASE
                                                     District- Munger
                 ======================================================
                 Amisha Kumari D/o- Indranand Poddar, R/v - Pachira W.No. - 8, PS-
                 Raniganj, Dist- Araria.
                                                                     ... ... Petitioner
                                              Versus
           1.     The State of Bihar.
           2.     Mukesh Kumar Poddar S/o- Late Raj Kumar Poddar, R/v- Bekapur, W.No-
                  25, PS- Kotwali, Dist- Munger, PIN - 811211.
                                                                  ... ... Opposite Parties
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :     Mr. Vijay Kishore Bharti, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :     Mr. Tarun Prasad Mandal, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   27-01-2026                     Heard learned counsel for the parties.

                                   2. The instant case has been filed seeking transfer

                   of matrimonial case filed under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage

                   Act vide Restitution of Conjugal Rites Case No. 127 of 2025

                   before the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court,

                   Munger to the jurisdiction of Family Court, Araria.

                                   3. For transfer of such case, the petitioner is

                   supposed to file a Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case and not

                   approach this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous. It is surprising

                   that office has not pointed out this defect and there is gross

                   negligence on the part of the office.

                                   4. Office is directed to furnish an explanation for

                   placing this matter before this Court without pointing out the
          Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82648 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2026
                                                      2/2




                    said defect.

                                    5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner

                    seeks permission to withdraw the present petition and file an

                    appropriate application in appropriate proceeding.

                                    6. Permission, as prayed for, is accorded.

                                    7. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as

                    withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.

                                    8. Certified copies will be returned to the petitioner

                    with substitution of their true copies.



                                                            (Arun Kumar Jha, J)

Shahnawaz/-

U     T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.