Sanjeev Kumar v. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary, Government Of Bihar, Patna.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.366 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-277 Year-2021 Thana- PHULWARISHARIF District- Patna ====================================================== Sanjeev Kumar S/O Banshidhar Singh Resident of village/Mohalla - Birla Colony, Police station -Phulwarisharif, District -Patna. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Chief secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. BIHAR 2.

The Principal Judge, Family Court Patna. Bihar 3.

The S.H.O Phulwarisarif Police station, Patna. Bihar 4.

Juhi Chaudhari Wife off Sanjiv Kumar ,Daughter of let Lakshman Chaudhari Resident of village- Belaur, Police Station Udwant Nagar, District Bhojpur. presently residing at Prachi parlour quarter number C/ 96, Birla Colony, P.S- Phulwarisarif, Distt. - Patna.

... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Prafull Chandra Thakur, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mrs. Archana Meenakshi, GP-6 Mr. Rana Veer Prawar, AC to GP-6 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 16-07-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The present petition has been filed seeking direction to learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna to expedite the Matrimonial Case No. 1205 of 2024.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a petition for divorce with mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act has been filed by the parties but the respondent no. 4 has been adopting delaying tactics. One time permanent alimony of Rs. 8,50,000/- has been agreed upon between parties and out of which, Rs. 4,25,000/- has already

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.366 of 2026(2) dt.16-07-2026 2/2 been given to the respondent no. 4 and rest of the amount would be given after the final orders. But after taking the money, the respondent no. 4 has not been coming forward and the learned Family Court has been granting adjournments.

4. Having regard to the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of record, I find that the filing of criminal writ with relief as mentioned hereinbefore is completely misconceived. This Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot issue such direction to a judicial forum of a nature of Family Court. Hence, the present petition could not be entertained by this Court.

5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be given liberty to approach the court concerned with his grievance.

6. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of with liberty as aforesaid.

(Arun Kumar Jha, J) Ashish/- U T