Patna High Court
Pappu Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 14 October, 2025
Author: Purnendu Singh
Bench: Purnendu Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46593 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-308 Year-2020 Thana- DIGHA District- Patna
======================================================
Pappu Singh aged about 30 years, male, Son of Shailendra Singh, Resident of
Jaiprakash Nagar, Digha Ashiyana Road, Near Don Basco School, P.S.-
Digha, District - Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Shikha Prakash Wife of Pappu Singh Daughter of Sanjay Kumar, Resident
of Mohalla - Saketpuri, Bahadurpur Near Bazar Samiti, P.S.- Bahadurpur,
District - Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Advocate
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Apurv Harsh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Choubey Jawahar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 14-10-2025
Heard Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Apurv Harsh, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 and Mr.
Choubey Jawahar, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The present present quashing application was filed
in the year 2021 under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking
following reliefs:
"That, this is an application for quashing of the
condition no. 1 of bail order dated 16.06.2021 passed by
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46593 of 2021 dt.14-10-2025
learned 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna in
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 3643 of 2020 arising out
of Digha P.S. Case No. 308 of 2020 instituted for the
offences punishable under Sections 341, 498(A), 504, 506,
34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act whereby the learned court below has
allowed the anticipatory bail of the petitioner and directed
him to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month to O.P. no. 2."
3. An urgent mentioning was made on behalf of the
opposite party no. 2 on 13.10.2025 that she is faced with
violence having been caused by the petitioner and in spite of
specific order dated 19.09.2020, by which, the learned District
Court had directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/-
per month to the opposite party no. 2, not even a penny has been
given to opposite party no. 2. By lapse of time, she has given
birth to a male child. However, the petitioner has admitted the
child in one of the premium institutions, but, recently, for the
past two months, the petitioner has subjected her (opposite party
no. 2) and his only son to various sorts of cruelty and torture, at
the same time, the petitioner has stopped making payment of
school fee of the child.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner informs that the allegations are false which is similar
in nature to those contained in the FIR dated 12.06.2020. The
parties have already settled their dispute amicably and opposite
party no. 2 has not denied that she is not residing with the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46593 of 2021 dt.14-10-2025
petitioner. He informs that due to some financial constraint, the
petitioner could not make payment of school fee of his child and
before it could be paid, the present application has been posted
for urgent hearing on the said ground. Learned counsel further
submitted that once the petitioner is taking care of his wife
along with his child, who are residing along with him, there is
no question of the petitioner having tortured and subjecting the
opposite party no. 2 to cruelty. Learned counsel further
submitted that petitioner undertakes that in future, he will ensure
to make payment of school fee on time. As on date, he is also
taking care of the opposite party no. 2 with full honour and
dignity.
5. Heard the parties.
6. This Court finds that the situation, which is faced
between the husband and wife as would appear from the rival
submissions made on behalf of the parties and allegation made
in the FIR, as well as, from the pleadings made in the present
application, the couple, who have already compromised and are
living together, their personal ego may have dominated their
prudent decision leading to allegation made before this Court
orally. The conduct of the petitioner cannot be said to be very
convincing to the extent that it is admitted position that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46593 of 2021 dt.14-10-2025
school fee of the child has not been paid till date, which
according to the petitioner, is due only for one month.
7. The parties, who are adult, if they want to live their
own life separately, then they can avail appropriate remedy
before appropriate forum. The Apex Court in the case of B.S.
Joshi v. State of Haryana, reported in, (2003) 4 SCC 675 held
that instead of encouraging matrimonial dispute, the parties may
ponder over their default and resolve their dispute. I find it
gainful to reproduce paragraphs no. 12 and 13 of the said
judgment, which inter alia are as follows:
" 12. The special features in
such matrimonial matters are evident. It
becomes the duty of the court to encourage
genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.
13. The observations made by
this Court, though in a slightly different
context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad
[(2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733]
are very apt for determining the approach
required to be kept in view in a matrimonial
dispute by the courts. It was said that there
has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes
in recent times. Marriage is a sacred
ceremony, the main purpose of which is to
enable the young couple to settle down in life
and live peacefully. But little matrimonial
skirmishes suddenly erupt which often
assume serious proportions resulting in
commission of heinous crimes in which
elders of the family are also involved with
the result that those who could have
counselled and brought about
rapprochement are rendered helpless on
their being arrayed as accused in the
criminal case. There are many other reasons
which need not be mentioned here for not
encouraging matrimonial litigation so that
the parties may ponder over their defaults
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46593 of 2021 dt.14-10-2025
and terminate their disputes amicably by
mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in
a court of law where it takes years and years
to conclude and in that process the parties
lose their "young" days in chasing their
"cases" in different courts.
8. In absence of any information regarding allegation
against the petitioner of having subjected the opposite party no.
2 to cruelty and, at the same time, considering that petitioner
and opposite party no. 2, who are husband and wife and are
adult and are living together with child, they can bethe best
judge about their own interest and the interest of their child. In
such situation, this Court finds that keeping the criminal
prosecution pending against the petitioner can lead tectonic drift
in marriage leading to separation, at the same time, the interest
of child becomes paramount. I am of the view that the best
interest of the child is to have the parental care of both the
parents. In the present case, the husband and wife having
strained matrimonial relationship and the innocent child has to
bear the burnt of parental disharmony affecting the overall
development of the child. It seems to be not possible to provide
complete peaceful environment to the child.
9. In peculiar facts of the case and considering the
background circumstances of the welfare of the child on the
touchstone of principle of parens patriae jurisdiction as the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46593 of 2021 dt.14-10-2025
minor is within the jurisdiction of the Court, the Apex Court
found it in the case of Howarth v. Northcott, 152 Conn 460 that
the welfare of the child is of paramount consideration of the
Court. I find it apt to reproduce the observations made by the
Apex Court in the aforesaid case, which is as under:
"In habeas corpus proceedings to determine
child custody, the jurisdiction exercise by the Court rests in
such cases on its inherent equitable powers and exerts
theforce of the State, as parens patrie, for the protection of
its infant ward, and the very nature and scope of the inquiry
and the result sought to be accomplished call for the
exercise of the jurisdiction of a court of equity." (emphasis
supplied)
It was further observed;
"The employment of the forms of habeas corpus
in a child custody case is not for the purpose of testing the
legality of a confinement or restraint as contemplated by
the ancient common law writ, or by statute, but the primary
purpose is to furnish a means by which the court, in the
exercise of its judicial discretion, may determine what is
best for the welfare of the child, and the decision is reached
by a consideration of the equities involved in the welfare of
the child, against which the legal rights of no one, including
the parents, are allowed to militate. It was also indicated
that ordinarily, the basis for issuance of a writ of habeas
corpus is an illegal detention; but in the case of such a writ
sued out for the detention of a child, the law is concerned
not so much with the illegality of the detention as with the
welfare of the child."
10. In this regard, it would be also gainful to
reproduce the observation made by the Apex Court in Mausami
Moita Ganguli V. Jayant Ganguli reported in (2008)7 SCC 673
in paragraph nos. 19 to 21 and 23 to 26:
"19. The principle of law in relation to the
custody of a minor child are well settled. It is trite that
while determining the question as to which parent the care
and control of a child should be committed, the first and the
paramount consideration is the welfare and interest of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46593 of 2021 dt.14-10-2025
child and not the rights of the parents under a statute.
Indubitably, the provisions of the law pertaining to the
custody of a child contained in either the Guardians and
Wards Act, 1890(Section 17) or the Hindu Minority and
Guardianship Act, 1956 (Section 13) also hold out the
welfare of the child as a predominant consideration. In fact,
no statute, on the subject, can ignore, eschew or obliterate
the vital factor of the welfare of the minor."
"20. The question of welfare of the minor child
has again to be considered in the background of the
relevant facts and circumstances. Each case has to be
decided on its own facts and other decided cases can hardly
serve as binding precedents in so far as the factual aspects
of the case are concerned. It is, no doubt, true that father is
presumed by the statues to be better suited to look after the
welfare of the child, being normally the working member
and head of the family, yet in each case the court has to see
primarily to the welfare of the child in determining the
question of his or her custody. Better financial resources of
either of the parents or their love for the child may be one
relevant considerations but cannot be the sole determining
factor for the custody of the child. It is here that a heavy
duty is cast on the court to exercise its judicial discretion
judiciously in the background of all the relevant facts and
circumstance, bearing in mind the welfare of the child as
the paramount consideration."
21. In Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal
reported in (1973) 1 SCC 840, a three-Judge Bench of the
Apex Court in a rather curt language had observed that the
controlling factor governing the custody of the child would
be its welfare and not the rights of the parent:
"15. ... The children are not mere chattels: nor
are they mere playthings for their parents. Absolute right of
the parents over the destinies and the lives of their children
has, in the modern changed social conditions, yielded to the
considerations of their welfare as human being so that they
may grow up in a normal balanced manner to be useful
members of the society and the guardian court in case of a
dispute between the mother and the father, is expected to
strike a just and proper balance between the requirements
of welfare of the minor children and the rights of their
respective parents over them."
"23. Having bestowed our anxious
consideration to the material on record and the observation
made by the courts below, we are of the view that in the
present case there is no ground to upset the judgment and
order of the High Court. There is nothing on record to
suggest that the welfare of the child is in any way in peril in
the hands of the father. In our opinion, the stability and
security of the child is also essential ingredient for a full
development of child's talent and personality. As noted
above, the appellant is a teacher, now employed in a school
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46593 of 2021 dt.14-10-2025
at Panipat, where she had shifted from Chandigarh some
time back. Earlier, she was teaching in some school at
Calcutta.
Admittedly, she is living alone. Except for a very
short duration when he was with the appellant, Master
Satyajeet has been living and studying in Allahabad in a
good school and is stated to have his small group of friends
there. At Panipat, it would be an entirely new environment
for him as compared to Allahabad."
"25. It is also significant to note that during the
course of hearing on one of the dates, when we had not yet
interviewed Satyajeet, we had suggested that it would be
better if the child could stay with his mother for some more
time. However, upon hearing us, he started crying and
whining and, showed reluctance to go with the mother."
Watching his reaction, we dropped the proposal.
"26. Under these circumstances and bearing in
mind the paramount consideration of the welfare of the
child, we are convinced that the child's interest and welfare
will be best served if he continues to be in the custody of the
father, In our opinion, for the present, it is not desirable to
disturb the custody of master Satyajeet and, therefore, the
order of the High Court giving his exclusive custody to the
father with visitation rights to the mother deserves to be
maintained. We feel that the visitation rights to the
appellant by the High Court, as noted above, also do not
require any modification."
We, therefore, affirm the order and the afore-
extracted direction given by the High Court. It will,
however, be open to the parties to move this Court for
modification of this order or for seeking any direction
regarding the custody and well- being of the child, if there
is any change in the circumstances."
11. In the case of Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal
reported in (2009) 1 SCC 42, the Apex Court in paragraph 50
has held as follows:-
"50. When the Court is confronted with
conflicting demands made by the parents, each time it has
to justify the demands. The Court has not only to look at the
issue on legalistic basis, in such matters human angles are
relevant for deciding those issues. The Court then does not
give emphasis on what the parties say, it has to exercise a
jurisdiction which is aimed at the welfare of the minor."
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46593 of 2021 dt.14-10-2025
12. Being aware of the role of the Court becomes
parens patriae, I direct the learned District Court to see that till
the child becomes adult, the petitioner being Hindu, becomes
the natural guardian of the child, which fasten him with legal
responsibility, he must ensure to take care of his child and make
payment of Rs. 15,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2
for proper care of his child on account of education, as well as,
nutrition.
13. Accordingly, the present application stands
disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Niraj/-
AFR/NAFR A.F.R.
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 18.10.2025
Transmission Date 18.10.2025
