Patna High Court
Chandan Kumar PanditversusThe State of Bihar through the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The Court held that the facts do not warrant issuance of a writ of habeas corpus and declined to interfere.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ of habeas corpus seeking the release of his wife, alleging she was being illegally confined by her parents after marriage. The petitioner claimed a panchayati had been arranged for her to join his household, but instead she was taken to Pune and held by her parents. The State argued the matter was a matrimonial dispute, suggesting the wife might not wish to return. The Court examined the submissions and, without delving into merits, found that the facts did not justify the extraordinary remedy of a habeas corpus writ. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere and disposed of the writ application, directing the petitioner to seek remedy in the appropriate forum.
Issues considered
- Does the alleged confinement of a married woman by her parents constitute illegal confinement warranting a writ of habeas corpus?
- Can the High Court intervene in a matrimonial dispute through its extraordinary writ jurisdiction?
Subjects
- habeas corpus
- illegal confinement
- matrimonial dispute
- family law
- writ jurisdiction
- panchayati
- personal law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1379 of 2026
======================================================
Chandan Kumar Pandit S/o Sri Ram Nath Pandit Resident of village-
Tejpurwa, P.S.- Marhorwara, District- Saran Chapra
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Superintendent of Police, Saran (Chapra).
3. The Officer-in-Charge, Marhorwara Police Station, Saran(Chapra).
4. Baleshwar Pandit, S/o Late Dev Nath Pandit Resident of Village- Tejpurwa,
P.S.- Marhorwara, District- Saran at Chapra, At present Resident of Village -
Patil Wasti, Yewlewadi, P.S.- Kundwa, District- Pune (Maharashtra)
5. Smt. Radhika, W/o Baleshwar Pandit Resident of Village- Tejpurwa, P.S.-
Marhorwara, District- Saran at Chapra, At present Resident of Village - Patil
Wasti, Yewlewadi, P.S.- Kundwa, District- Pune (Maharashtra)
6. Swati Baleshwar Pandit, D/o Baleshwar Pandit Resident of Village-
Tejpurwa, P.S.- Marhorwara, District- Saran at Chapra, At present Resident
of Village - Patil Wasti, Yewlewadi, P.S.- Kundwa, District- Pune
(Maharashtra)
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Dharmveer, Advocate
For the State : Mr. S.D. Sanjay, AG
Mrs. Priya Gupta, 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 09-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
AG for the State of Bihar.
2. The petitioner in this writ application is seeking a
writ in the nature of writ of Habeas Corpus for direction upon
the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 for release of the Respondent No. 6
who is wife of the petitioner.
3. The petitioner alleges that his wife has been kept in
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1379 of 2026(2) dt.09-07-2026
2/3
illegal confinement by her parents who are Respondent Nos. 4
and 5 respectively in the writ application.
4. It is submitted that respondent no. 6 is a major lady
who has solemnized marriage with the petitioner on 21.03.2026
at Arya Samaj, Jorge Town, Prayagraj according to Arya Samaj
customs and rituals. The petitioner has tried to explain that there
was a panchayati for establishing cordial relationship between
the family and it was agreed that respondent no. 6 would be sent
with the petitioner to her sasural but instead of sending her to
her sasural, she was taken to Pune and now, it is alleged that
respondent nos. 4 and 5 have kept her in illegal confinement.
5. Learned AG submits that this case seems to be a
case of matrimonial dispute wherein perhaps the wife of the
petitioner is not willing to come back.
6. We have considered the rival submissions at the
Bar. Without going into the merit of the contentions, prima-
facie, it appears to this Court that the facts of the case do not
warrant issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus.
Petitioner is well aware of the fact that his wife is with her
parents. He himself talks of panchayati on the point of return of
his wife. We, therefore, decline to interfere in a matter in our
extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1379 of 2026(2) dt.09-07-2026
3/3
7. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to seek his
remedy before appropriate forum in accordance with law.
8. This writ application stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Kumar Manish, J)
Lekhi/- barkha/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.