Patna High Court
Manish KumarversusThe State of Bihar, Through its Chief Secretary, Patna.
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
A writ of habeas corpus cannot be issued in disputes of a matrimonial or family nature.
Summary
Manish Kumar filed a writ petition seeking a habeas corpus writ, alleging that his wife and child were being unlawfully confined by his in‑laws who had allegedly brainwashed his daughter. He claimed he was prohibited from meeting them, describing the matter as a matrimonial discord arising from family disputes. The Court examined the petition and observed that the petitioner was fully aware of the whereabouts of his family and that the dispute was essentially a private family matter. It held that a writ of habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy not intended for resolving domestic or matrimonial conflicts. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as not entertained, with liberty reserved for the petitioner to approach an appropriate forum for relief.
Issues considered
- Can a writ of habeas corpus be issued in a matrimonial or family dispute?
- Is the remedy of habeas corpus appropriate for resolving private domestic conflicts?
Subjects
- habeas corpus
- family law
- matrimonial dispute
- writ jurisdiction
- extraordinary remedy
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1329 of 2026
======================================================
Manish Kumar S/o - Hari Shankar Singh P.O.- Sadaveh, Sadhe, Sadwa Patna,
P.S.- Dulhin Bazar, Patna, Bihar -801102.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, Through its Chief Secretary, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Patna
3. The Senior Superintendent of Police (SP), Patna
4. The Superintendent of Police (SP), Patna City, Patna
5. The Officer-in-Charge (OIC), P.S.- Alamganj, Patna City.
6. The Officer-In-Charge (OIC), P.S.- Dulhin Bazar, Patna.
7. Rishu Kumari D/o- Manoj Kumar R/o- Nurani Bagh, Colony- 5/B,
Alamganj, P.S. - Gulzarbagh, Patna, Bihar -800007
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mayank Singh, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Priya Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Lokesh Kumar, AC to AG
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KUMAR MANISH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
2 06-07-2026 Although the matter has been listed under heading
“For Orders on Office Notes”, but this being a case in which a
prayer has been made for issuance of a Writ in the nature of
Habeas Corpus, the Court has perused the application.
2. It appears from the very first paragraph of the writ
application that the petitioner is well aware of the whereabout of
his wife and child but his case is that his in-laws have
brainwashed their daughter and, therefore, he alleges that his
wife and child have been unlawfully confined and the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1329 of 2026(2) dt.06-07-2026
2/2
has been prohibited from meeting them. This seems to be a case
of matrimonial discord.
3. From the averments made in the writ petition also,
it appears that the petitioner alleges unwarranted involvement of
his in-laws in his family affairs which led to the deterioration in
the family life of the petitioner. He admits that there had been
tussle in the family on petty issues and he further admits that the
petitioner totally separated from his family since last one year
and this has caused him depression.
4. In our considered opinion, the remedy applied for is
misdirected. This extraordinary writ in the nature of a Writ of
Habeas Corpus cannot be issued in the kind of disputes between
the parties. The petitioner is required to seek his remedy
elsewhere as may be advised to him.
5. This writ application is dismissed as not
entertained. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to seek his
remedy before appropriate forum in accordance with law.
(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.