Patna High Court
Deepak KumarversusThe State of Bihar through the Home Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The Court held that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be entertained where the spouse is voluntarily living with her parents, as such matters are outside the extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
Summary
Petitioner Deepak Kumar filed a writ petition seeking a habeas corpus order to produce his wife (Respondent No.9) and child, alleging the wife was kidnapped and had been missing since 12 February 2026. The petitioner had lodged a police case under Section 87 of the Bihar Police Act. During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner disclosed that the wife was actually residing with her parents, known to the petitioner. The State, through the Advocate General, argued that a habeas corpus writ is inappropriate where the alleged missing person is voluntarily living elsewhere. The Court agreed, holding that the writ jurisdiction does not extend to matters of restitution of conjugal rights or child custody when the spouse is voluntarily absent, and dismissed the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ of habeas corpus can be issued when the alleged missing person is voluntarily residing with her parents and known to the petitioner.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Police Act — s. 87
Subjects
- habeas corpus
- writ jurisdiction
- voluntary absence
- restitution of conjugal rights
- child custody
- marital dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1093 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-141 Year-2026 Thana- SITAMARHI District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Deepak Kumar S/o Jagdish Prasad R/o Mohalla- Sonapatti, Ward No-10, East
of Janki Temple, P.O and P.S -Sitamarhi, Distt.- Sitamarhi, At present R/o
village - Lakshman Nagar, ward no. 14, Sitamarhi Town, near Sita and
Mahindra Coaching, P.O. and P.S.- Sitamarhi, District- Sitamarhi
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Home Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna-1.
3. The Inspector General of Police (Tirhut Commissionary, Muzaffarpur)
4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Trihut Commissionary,
Muzaffarpur).
5. The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi
6. The Superintendent of Police, Sitamarhi
7. The Officer-in-Charge, Sitamarhi, Distt.- Sitamarhi
8. Jaylash Devi W/o Ravindra Das NA
9. Premshila Kumari S/o Ravindra Sah R/o vill - Nayamthullahapur, ward no.
14, Post - Yogwana, besides the pool, P.S.- Bathnaha, Distt.- Sitamarhi
10. Ravindra Das S/o Not known R/o vill - Nayamthullahapur, ward no. 14, Post
- Yogwana, besides the pool, P.S.- Bathnaha, Distt.- Sitamarhi
11. Kamlesh Sah S/o Ravindra Sah R/o vill - Nayamthullahapur, ward no. 14,
Post - Yogwana, besides the pool, P.S.- Bathnaha, Distt.- Sitamarhi
12. Sunil Das S/o Jiya Lal Sah R/o vill - Khabara, Block- Mushahari, P.S.-
Muzaffarpur Town, Distt.- Sitamarhi, Elder Borther of Victim
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Devendra Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. S.D. Sanjay, A.G.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KUMAR MANISH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
3 30-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Advocate General for the State.
2. This writ application has been preferred for the
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1093 of 2026(3) dt.30-06-2026
2/3
following reliefs:-
“i) For issuance of writ in nature of Habeas
Corpus and directing and commanding the
Respondent authorities to produce the
respondents No.9 along with his child in
which unknown person has kidnapped etc.
wife of the petitioner (Respondent No. 9) has
traceless from 12.02.2026. Whereby and
whereunder the petitioner has lodged
Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 141/2026 registered
U/S 87 of BNS as well as also filed
representation before the authorities but the
authorities have not taken appropriate steps
with regard to recovery of respondent no. 9.
ii) Any other relief/reliefs as your Lordships
may deem fit and proper.”
3. It appears on perusal of the writ application that the
wife of the petitioner has left the house of the petitioner with her
child. Although in the writ application, the petitioner has given
an impression that his wife is traceless but in course of hearing
of the writ application, learned counsel for the petitioner has, on
query made by this Court, stated that the wife of the petitioner is
presently living with her parents.
4. Learned AG for the State submits that in such a
case where the wife has left her husband’s place and is living
with her parents which is known to the husband, a Writ of
Habeas Corpus would not be maintained.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1093 of 2026(3) dt.30-06-2026
3/3
5. We agree with the submissions of learned AG for
the State. This Court is not dealing with a case for restitution of
conjugal rights or for custody of the child. In a Writ of Habeas
Corpus, this Court would not exercise its extraordinary writ
jurisdiction in a matter where the wife of the petitioner is
knowingly living with her parents. The petitioner is at liberty to
apply for appropriate remedy, as may be advised to him.
6. This writ application stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
( Kumar Manish, J)
lekhi/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.