Patna High CourtCR. WJC/949/2016dismissed

Bashistha Kumar Mishra v. The State Of Bihar Through The Director General Of Police, Sachiwalaya, Bihar, Patna And ORS

2016-09-22Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.949 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -12 Year- 2013 Thana -Sadar Mahila District- DARBHANGA =========================================================== Bashistha Kumar Mishra, S/o Late Laxaman Mishra, Resident of MohallaRajkumarganj, P.S.- Town, District- Darbhanga. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Director General of Police, Sachiwalaya, Bihar, Patna.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Darbhanga.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur.

4. The Officer-in-charge, Madhusudanpur P.S. Bhagalpur.

5. Krishnakant Jha, S/o Ugramohan Jha, resident of Village- Nathnagar, Nayatola, Dudhaila, P.S.- Madhusudanpur, District- Bhagalpur. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Das, Advocate. For the Respondent/s :

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 22-09-2016

1. The petitioner is father of Mamta Devi who married Krishna Kant Jha on 26th of June, 2011. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the husband of his daughter has undertaken to take care of his wife as per the orders passed in Cr. Misc. No. 22215 of 2014 on 11th of August, 2014, but even after filing of personal bond, the husband has now married another woman and is not taking care of his daughter.

2. It is also pointed out that daughter of the petitioner and her husband have given a false declaration before the learned S.D..J.M., Darbhanga on 7th of June, 2016.

Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.949 of 2016 dt.22-09-2016 2/2

3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that the present petition is wholly misconceived. The daughter of the petitioner is major. She has a right to stay at the place of her choice. Even if, her husband has married again, it is she who alone can make a grievance and not the father.

4. I do not find that the present Criminal Writ Application at the instance of the father has any merit. The same is, thus, dismissed.

(Hemant Gupta, J) P.K.P.

AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.

CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 27.09.2016 Transmission Date 27.09.2016