Anand Kumar Kamat v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83150 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-34 Year-2023 Thana- NADI District- Supaul ====================================================== Anand Kumar Kamat S/o Jibachh Kamat R/o village-Kyotapatti, Ward No.1, P.S-Supaul Nadi Thana, (Barhara), District-Supaul. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

Sushila Kumari D/o Sri Kari Kamat, W/o Anand Kumar Kamat R/o villageKyotapatti, Ward No.1, P.S-Supaul Nadi Thana (Barhara), District-Supaul. At present-R/ovillage-Lalmaniya, Ward no.12, P.O-Lalpur, P.S-Supaul Nadi Thana, District-Supaul ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pramod Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP Mr. Ranjay Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 23-04-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State along with learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No.2.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No.2 submits that despite best effort of the learned mediator to resolve the dispute, the dispute could not be settled on account of adamant attitude of the petitioner as he was neither willing to pay any maintenance nor was willing to resolve the dispute by way of one time settlement.

3. The learned counsel further submits that O.P. No.2 for the last nearly one year is residing separately from the petitioner and is residing at her parental home without any

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83150 of 2023(4) dt.23-04-2024 2/2 financial support from the petitioner, thus submits that one can well imagine the plight of the O.P. No.2 that she has to depend on her parents for each and everything, when it was the duty of the petitioner to ensure the well being of the O.P. No.2. It is also submitted that O.P. No.2 was willing to resolve the dispute and even was ready to accompany the petitioner to her matrimonial home, but then the petitioner was completely adamant not to resolve the dispute.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is not in a position to rebut the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No.2.

5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No.2, the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is rejected. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Prakash Narayan U T