Patna High Court
Manish Singh @ Manish Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The court vacated the interim protection order, dismissed the bail application, and directed the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs 8,000 per month for the minor children.
Summary
Manish Singh petitioned for pre‑arrest bail in a complaint under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The matter had been referred to mediation, which failed, and an interim protection order was in place. The petitioner claimed he wanted to settle with his wife, Pinki Devi, by paying a lump sum, while the wife highlighted neglect of maintenance for their two minor children. The court, noting the petitioner’s failure to support the children, vacated the interim protection, ordered a monthly maintenance of Rs 8,000 to the wife, and directed that any guardianship issues be decided by a civil court. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether pre‑arrest bail should be granted in a case punishable under Section 498A.
- Whether the interim protection order should be vacated in view of the petitioner’s neglect of maintenance.
- Whether the petitioner is liable to pay maintenance for his minor children.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 498A
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- Section 498A
- maintenance
- minor children
- interim protection order
- mediation
- family law
- domestic violence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85437 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-849 Year-2024 Thana- GOPALGANJ COMPLAINT CASE
District- Gopalganj
======================================================
Manish Singh @ Manish Kumar Singh Son of Jawahar Singh R/o Village -
Munja, P.S. - Baikunthpur, Dist. - Gopalganj.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Pinki Devi Manish Singh Vill- Bhojpurwa P.S.- Manjhagarh Dist- Gopalganj
2. Pinki Devi Wife of Manish Singh, D/o Late Rajkishor Singh R/o Village -
Bhojpurwa, P.S. - Manjhagarh, Dist. - Gopalganj.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arbind Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Khurshid Anwar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 09-04-2026 Heard Mr. Arbind Kumar Singh, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Khurshid Anwar,
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Complaint Case No. 849 of 2024 registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Vide order dated 15.12.2025, the matter was
referred to Patna High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre
for amicable settlement, however, it has been informed that the
dispute between the parties could not be resolved through the
process of mediation and a report dated 09.02.2026 to that effect
has been submitted by the learned Mediator, which has been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85437 of 2025(3) dt.09-04-2026
2/3
kept at Flag “M”.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner informs that it is hard for the petitioner to live along
with the O.P. No. 2, who is his legally wedded wife and he
wants to get rid of the O.P. No. 2 by giving her a lumpsum
amount, which she desires.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite
Party No. 2 submitted that Opposite Party No. 2 is primarily
concerned about the wellbeing and proper upbringing of her two
minor children. The petitioner has failed to extend adequate
support and has neglected his responsibilities towards the
maintenance and care of the said minor children.
6. Considering the aforesaid information, which has
not been denied by learned counsel for the petitioner, the interim
protection granted to the petitioner vide order dated 15.12.2025
is hereby vacated.
7. The parties may avail appropriate remedy in
accordance with law before the learned District Court.
8. However, this Court being aware of its role of
parens patriae to take care of the two minor children directs the
petitioner and his family to take care of the two minor children.
9. If the two minor children decide to live with them,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85437 of 2025(3) dt.09-04-2026
3/3
the question of guardianship will be decided by the competent
Civil Court.
10. In the meantime, considering the general inflation
rate and for providing good education, the petitioner, who is
earning substantial amount by working in a shop at Delhi, as
informed by learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2, is directed to
make payment of 8,000/- per month to the O.P. No. 2 on account
of maintenance of the two minor children.
11. Accordingly, the present bail application stands
disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Niraj/-
U T
Checking your session…