Patna High Court
Prashant Kumar @ Prasant Kumar vs Priyanka Kumari on 22 January, 2024
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1291 of 2017
======================================================
Prashant Kumar @ Prasant Kumar, Son of Raj Kapoor Prasad, Resident of
Mohalla- Ratanpura near Dharmnath Temple, Police Station- Bhagwan Bazar,
District Saran Chapra.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
Priyanka Kumari, Wife of Prashant Kumar @ Prasant Kumar, Daughter of
Sushil Jee, Resident of Mohalla- Hardan Basu Lane, P.S. Bhagwa Bazar,
District- SaranChapra
... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Rai, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 22-01-2024
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner on the point
of admission and I intend to dispose of the present petition at the
stage of admission itself.
02. The petitioner has filed the present petition against
the order dated 22.04.2017 passed by the learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Saran at Chapra in Matrimonial Case No.
13 of 2015 instituted for restitution of conjugal rights, whereby
and whereunder the learned Family Court rejected the petition
dated 02.02.2016 filed by the petitioner for direction to the
father of opposite party/respondent to make arrangement for
treatment of opposite party with co-operation of the family
members of the petitioner.
03. The case of the petitioner is that the
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1291 of 2017 dt.22-01-2024
respondent/opposite party is his wife and their marriage was
solemnized on 04.12.2013 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals.
The opposite party/respondent came to the house of the
petitioner on 05.12.2013 and her behaviour was abnormal as she
was under treatment for some mental ailment. The petitioner
and his father got her treated at Sadar Hospital, Chapra and also
at PMCH. Birth of a child also took place place out of the
wedlock. On 25.01.2015, the mother of the opposite
party/respondent came to the house of the petitioner and took
the opposite party with her minor child to her maternal home.
When the petitioner went to maternal house of the opposite
party on 05.02.2015 to bring her back, the same was refused by
the mother of the opposite party. Thereafter, the petitioner has
filed a case for restitution of conjugal rights before the court of
learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Saran at Chapra. The
opposite party appeared and filed her written statement denying
all the claims made by the petitioner and also made certain
allegations against the petitioner and his family members. The
opposite party also filed a criminal case against the petitioner
and his family members under Section 498(A), 323, 307, 378 of
the Indian Penal Code and Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act
before the court of learned SDJM, Chapra. Thereafter, some sort
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1291 of 2017 dt.22-01-2024
of compromise took place and the opposite party again went to
live with the petitioner. She again suffered from bouts of mental
illness and became aggressive. Thereafter, the petitioner filed
the petition dated 02.02.2016 for direction to the father of
opposite party/respondent to make arrangement for treatment of
opposite party with co-operation of the family members of the
petitioner. The opposite party filed rejoinder on 22.03.2016 to
the petition filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, after hearing both
the parties, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Saran at
Chapra rejected the petition dated 02.02.2016 filed on behalf of
the petitioner.
04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
learned Family Court has wrongly appreciated the facts and
circumstances of the case. The learned Family Court has not
taken into consideration the facts about earlier treatment of the
opposite party who is afflicted with mental ailment. The learned
Family Court has also not considered that the opposite party
used to flee away at her maternal home though the petitioner
always wants to keep her with honour and dignity. For this
reason, the petitioner could not fulfill his duty to maintain the
opposite party and arrange for her proper treatment. Learned
Family Court also failed to take into consideration the fact that
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1291 of 2017 dt.22-01-2024
due to hopeless behaviour of opposite party and her family
members, the petitioner was compelled to file the petition before
the learned Family Court. Hence, the order dated 22.04.2017
passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Saran at
Chapra suffers from infirmity and the same may be set aside.
05. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
material on record and the submission made on behalf of the
petitioner. Evidently, the petitioner has filed the case before the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Saran at Chapra for
restitution of conjugal rights. If the same is allowed, the
petitioner can always take the opposite party for treatment and
being the husband of the opposite party he does not need the
permission or co-operation from father of the opposite party.
Moreover, from the averments made in the petition, it appears
that some sort of compromise has taken place and the opposite
party went to stay with the petitioner. If the petitioner was so
concerned with the treatment of the opposite party, when the
opposite party has been staying at his place, he could have
arranged for the treatment of opposite party. It also appears from
the impugned order that the opposite party is ready to go with
the petitioner. So, the petitioner has every opportunity to take
care of his wife/respondent herein. The learned Family Court
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1291 of 2017 dt.22-01-2024
has considered all the aspect of the matter and by a reasoned
order rejected the petition of the petitioner while also making a
comment that intention of the petitioner was not good and he
failed to perform his conjugal duties. If the petitioner wants to
create evidence in this manner, such tendency should be
severely deprecated.
06. Therefore, in the facts before this Court, I am of
the considered opinion that there is no infirmity in the impugned
order and the same has been passed with due consideration
which does not require any interference by this Court.
07. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed
at the stage of admission itself.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Ashish/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 23.01.2024
Transmission Date N/A
