Patna High Court
Kastub Sourabh vs The State Of Bihar Through The Principal … on 7 July, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.895 of 2025
In
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.548 of 2024
======================================================
1. Rekha Bihar @ Rekha Bihari wife of Saket Bihari resident of Dighra House,
Club Road, Pani Tanki Chowk, Musahri, Police Station - Mithanpura,
District - Muzaffarpur - 842002
2. Saket Bihari son of Late Lakshman Jha resident of Dighra House, Club
Road, Pani Tanki Chowk, Musahri, Police Station - Mithanpura, District -
Muzaffarpur -842002
3. Ms. Katyani daughter of Saket Bihari resident of Dighra House, Club Road,
Pani Tanki Chowk, Musahri, Police Station Mithanpura, District -
Muzaffarpur - 842002
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Home Department, Government of Bihar,
Old Secretariat, Patna - 800 001.
2. Mr. Arvind Kumar Chaudhary, The Additional Chief Secretary, the Home
Department, Government of Bihar. Old Secretariat, Patna-800 001.
3. Mr. Vinay Kumar, The Director General of Police, Government of Bihar,
Patna-800 001.
4. Mr. Sushil Kumar, The Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur
5. Mr. Asmit Kumar, The Station House Officer, Sadar Police Station, District -
Muzaffarpur
6. Aditi Kumari, The Sub Inspector, Mahila Thana, Muzaffarpur.
7. Nancy Kashyap daughter of Sanjay Singh resident of Pani Tanki Chowk,
Police Station - - Mithanpura, District - Muzaffarpur.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 365 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-0 Thana- District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Kastub Sourabh Son of Saket Bihari Resident of Dighra House, Club Road,
Pani Tanki Chowk, Musahari, Police Station- Mithanpura, Dist.- Muzaffarpur
- 842002
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Home Department
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
2/62
Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna -800001
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, the Home Department Government of
Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna-800001
3. The Director General of Police, Government of Bihar Patna - 800001
4. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur Bihar
5. The Station House Officer, Sadar Police Station, Dist.- Muzaffarpur Bihar
6. Nancy Kashyap Daughter of Sanjay Singh Resident of Pani Tanki Chowk,
P.S.- Mithanpura, Dist.- Muzaffarpur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 548 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-0 Thana- District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
1. Smt. Rekha Bihar wife of Saket Bihari R/o- Dighra House, Club Road Pani
Tanki chowk Musahari Ps- Mithanpura Dist- Muzaffarpur
2. Shri. Saket Bihari son of Late Kameshwar Prasad Singh R/o- Dighra House,
Club Road Pani Tanki chowk Musahari Ps- Mithanpura Dist- Muzaffarpur
3. Smt. Katyaini D/o- Saket Bihari R/o- Dighra House, Club Road Pani Tanki
chowk Musahari Ps- Mithanpura Dist- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Home Dept. Govt. of
Bihar, Patna Bihar
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, the Home Department, Bihar, Patna Bihar
3. The Director General of Police, Govt. of Bihar, Patna Bihar
4. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur Bihar
5. The Station House officer, Sadar Muzaffarpur Bihar
6. The Sub Inspector, Mahila Thana Muzaffarpur Bihar
7. Nancy Kashyap D/o- Sanjay Singh R/o- Pani Tanki Chowk Ps- Mithanpura
Dist- Muzaffarpur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 482 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-27 Year-2024 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Nancy Kashyap W/o Kastub Saurabh R/o Didhra House, Pani Tanki Chowk
Mithanpura, P.s.- Mithanpura, Distt.- Muzaffarpur, Bihar, Currently Residing
at vill - Dighra, P.S.- Sadar, Distt.- Muzaffarpur
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
3/62
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Home Deptt., Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat,
Patna Bihar
2. Kastub Saurabh S/o Saket Bihari R/o Dighra House, Pani Tanki Chowk,
Club Road, Musahri, P.s.- Mithanpura, Distt.- Muzaffarpur, Bihar
3. Saket Bihari S/o Late Kameshwar Prasad Singh R/o Dighra House, Pani
Tanki Chowk, Club Road, Musahri, P.s.- Mithanpura, Distt.- Muzaffarpur,
Bihar
4. Rekha Bihari W/o Saket Bihari R/o Dighra House, Pani Tanki Chowk, Club
Road, Musahri, P.s.- Mithanpura, Distt.- Muzaffarpur, Bihar
5. Sneha Sonam D/o Saket Bihari R/o Dighra House, Pani Tanki Chowk, Club
Road, Musahri, P.s.- Mithanpura, Distt.- Muzaffarpur, Bihar
6. Katyaini D/o Saket Bihari R/o Dighra House, Pani Tanki Chowk, Club
Road, Musahri, P.s.- Mithanpura, Distt.- Muzaffarpur, Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 895 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Avanish Tripathi, Advocate
Mrs. Tanu Kumari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party No. 7: Mr. Yashvardhan, Advocate
Mr. Avanish Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Piyush Singh, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Kumari Anita, GP 3
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, AC to GP 3
(In Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 365 of 2024)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.C.21
(In Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 548 of 2024)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Abhishek Kumar
For the Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Yashvardhan, Advocate
Mr. Avanish Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Piyush Singh, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Kumari Anita, GP 3
(In CRIMINAL REVISION No. 482 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Yashvardhan, Advocate
Mr. Avanish Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Piyush Singh, Advocate
Mr. Mukul Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party No. 2: Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Tanu Kumari, Advocate
Mr. Abhiskek Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Asha Kumari, APP
======================================================
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
4/62
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
CAV JUDGMENT
Date: 18-07-2025
It is not an uncommon experience not only of the
Court and the people associated with legal fraternity but society at
large that how matrimonial dispute and discord make lives of both
husband and wife, nay, almost all the members of both the family
miserable. Time has come to revisit certain provisions of laws
relating to matrimonial dispute and other related disputes by the
legislature to rewrite certain provisions of the statute.
2. The Protection of Women from the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was enacted by the
Central legislature and published in the Official Gazette of
Extraordinary Part 2 on 17th October 2006. Thus, the said Act
came into force with effect from 17th October 2006.
3. Section 3 of the said Act defines domestic violence in
the following words: -
"3. Definition of domestic violence. --For
the purposes of this Act, any act, omission or
commission or conduct of the respondent shall
constitute domestic violence in case it--
(a) harms or injures or endangers the
health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether
mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
5/62
to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual
abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic
abuse; or
(b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers
the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or
any other person related to her to meet any unlawful
demand for any dowry or other property or valuable
security; or
(c) has the effect of threatening the
aggrieved person or any person related to her by any
conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b); or
(d) otherwise injures or causes harm,
whether physical or mental, to the aggrieved person.
Explanation I.--For the purposes of this
section, --
(i) "physical abuse" means any act or
conduct which is of such a nature as to cause bodily
pain, harm, or danger to life, limb, or health or
impair the health or development of the aggrieved
person and includes assault, criminal intimidation
and criminal force;
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
6/62
(ii) "sexual abuse" includes any conduct
of a sexual nature that abuses, humiliates, degrades
or otherwise violates the dignity of woman;
(iii) "verbal and emotional abuse"
includes-- (a) insults, ridicule, humiliation, name
calling and insults or ridicule specially with regard
to not having a child or a male child; and (b)
repeated threats to cause physical pain to any person
in whom the aggrieved person is interested;
(iv) "economic abuse" includes--
(a) deprivation of all or any economic or
financial resources to which the aggrieved person is
entitled under any law or custom whether payable
under an order of a court or otherwise or which the
aggrieved person requires out of necessity including,
but not limited to, house hold necessities for the
aggrieved person and her children, if any, stridhan,
property, jointly or separately owned by the
aggrieved person, payment of rental related to the
shared house hold and maintenance;
(b) disposal of household effects, any
alienation of assets whether movable or immovable,
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
7/62
valuables, shares, securities, bonds and the like or
other property in which the aggrieved person has an
interest or is entitled to use by virtue of the domestic
relationship or which may be reasonably required by
the aggrieved person or her children or her stridhan
or any other property jointly or separately held by
the aggrieved person; and
(c) prohibition or restriction to continued
access to resources or facilities which the aggrieved
person is entitled to use or enjoy by virtue of the
domestic relationship including access to the shared
household.
Explanation II. --For the purpose of
determining whether any act, omission, commission
or conduct of the respondent constitutes "domestic
violence" under this section, the overall facts and
circumstances of the case shall be taken into
consideration."
4. Section 2(a) of the said Act defines aggrieved person
as "......any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic
relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been
subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent."
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
8/62
5. Further, Section 2(f) of the said Act defines domestic
relationship in the following words:
"2(f)."domestic relationship" means a
relationship between two persons who live or have,
at any point of time, lived together in a shared
household, when they are related by consanguinity,
marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of
marriage, adoption or are family members living
together as a joint family;"
6. Section 2(s) defines "shared household" as hereunder:
"2(s). "shared household" means a
household where the person aggrieved lives or at any
stage has lived in a domestic relationship either
singly or along with the respondent and includes
such a house hold whether owned or tenanted either
jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent,
or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of
which either the aggrieved person or the respondent
or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest
or equity and includes such a household which may
belong to the joint family of which the respondent is
a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
9/62
the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in
the shared household;"
7. This happens time and again that an aggrieved person
files application under Section 19 of the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter described as "the
said Act") for residence order with a prayer in the nature of
injunction, restraining the respondent from dispossessing or in any
other manner disturbing the possession of the aggrieved person
from the shared household whether or not the respondent has the
legal or equitable interest in the shared household.
8. Therefore, if a lady, after her marriage comes to her
matrimonial home to stay with her husband though, the husband
has no legal or equitable interest in the said household, being
exclusively owned by either the father-in-law, mother-in-law or
any other person of the family, in case of domestic violence, the
wife is entitled to a residence order in the manner provided under
Section 19(a) to 19(e) of the said Act.
9. Alternatively, the court may under Section 19(1)(f)
direct the respondent to secure same level of alternative
accommodation for the aggrieved person as enjoyed by her in the
shared household or to pay rent for the same, if the circumstances
so required.
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
10/62
10. In most of the cases, the trial court passes order
restraining the respondent from dispossessing or in any manner
disturbing the possession of the aggrieved person from the shared
household. Clause (f) of Section 19(1) of the said Act is considered
as an exception when there is no shared household where the
parties used to reside. The trial court seldom considers that in a
shared household there may be old-aged parents of the respondents
and other family members having various physical and mental
problems which necessitate their privacy also in the shared
household but other members of the shared household are
unnecessarily put to marital turmoil as a result of failed domestic
relationship between two persons and they are also subsequently
dragged in various criminal cases, as being members of shared
household.
11. In many cases, it has been observed that the owner
and other members of the shared household are ultimately
compelled to vacate the premises, effectively resulting in the
forced transfer of possession of the entire house in favour of the
aggrieved person.
12. The statement of objects and reasons of enactment of
the said Act is stated herein-below:
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
11/62
"3. It is, therefore, proposed to enact a law
keeping in view the rights guaranteed under articles
14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution to provide for a
remedy under the civil law which is intended to
protect the woman from being victims of domestic
violence and to prevent the occurrence of domestic
violence in the society.
4. The Bill, inter alia, seeks to provide for
the following:-
(i) It covers those women who are or have
been in a relationship with the abuser where both
parties have lived together in a shared household
and are related by consanguinity, marriage or
through a relationship in the nature of marriage or
adoption. In addition, relationships with family
members living together as a joint family are also
included. Even those women who are sisters, widows,
mothers, single women, or living with the abuser are
entitled to legal protection under the proposed
legislation. However, whereas the Bill enables the
wife or the female living in a relationship in the
nature of marriage to file a complaint under the
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
12/62
proposed enactment against any relative of the
husband or the male partner, it does not enable any
female relative of the husband or the make partner to
file a complaint against the wife or the female
partner.
(ii) It defines the expression "domestic
violence" to include actual abuse or threat or abuse
that is physical, sexual, verbal, emotional or
economic. Harassment by way of unlawful dowry
demands to the woman or her relatives would also be
covered under this definition.
(iii) It provides for the rights of women to
secure housing. It also provides for the right of a
woman to reside in her matrimonial home or shared
household, whether or not she has any title or rights
in such home or household. This right is secured by a
residence order, which is passed by the Magistrate.
(iv) It empowers the Magistrate to pass
protection orders in favour of the aggrieved person
to prevent the respondent from aiding or committing
an act of domestic violence or any other specified
act, entering a workplace or any other place
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
13/62
frequented by the aggrieved person, attempting to
communicate with her, isolating any assets used by
both the parties and causing violence to the
aggrieved person, her relatives or others who
provide her assistance from the domestic violence.
(v) It provides for appointment of
Protection Officers and registration of non-
governmental organisations as service providers for
providing assistance to the aggrieved person with
respect to her medical examination, obtaining legal
aid, safe shelter, etc."
13. Bearing in mind the forgoing paragraphs, let me now
decide the factual matrix of the dispute between the parties:
Factual Matrix
14. There are four legal proceedings instituted in this
Court, following an incident of taking possession of shared
household by the aggrieved person. One Shrimati Rekha Bihari
filed the Cr. WJC No. 548/2024 praying for the following reliefs:
"1(a). For issuing a writ, direction or
order in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ,
order or direction directing the Respondent no. 3,
Director General of Police, for conducting a proper
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
14/62
enquiry into the incident occurred on 02.02.2014 and
03.02.2024
at the residence of the Petitioner where
the Respondent No. 5 & 6 alongwith other Police
Officials in connivance with the Respondent no. 7
and her parents broke into the house of the
Petitioners;
b. For issuance of a writ, direction or
order in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ,
order or direction directing the Respondents to
restore the possession of the property back to the
Petitioner and prohibit the Respondents for
unlawfully accessing the property of the Petitioner by
use of force and fear;
c. For issuance a writ, direction or order
in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ, order
or direction directing the Respondent No. 1 to 6 from
taking any coercive action against the Petitioners
during the pendency of the present proceedings;
d. For issuance of writ in the nature of
mandamus, restraining the respondents mainly police
officials from acting unlawfully who, in connivance
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
15/62
with respondent no. 6 and her parents are behaving
in a manner forbidden by the law;
e. For issuance of writ in the nature of
mandamus, restraining the respondents from
interfering in the life of the petitioners and/or for any
other relief[s] for which the Petitioner may be found
entitled to in the facts & circumstances of the present
case.”
15. The petitioner of the above referred writ petition is
the mother-in-law of the aggrieved person.
16. The husband of the aggrieved person has filed
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 365 of 2024 (Cr.W.J.C.
365/2024), with almost similar reliefs:
17. In both the writ petitions, it is alleged by the
petitioners that the marriage of one Kastub Sourabh was
solemnized with Nancy Kashyap, aggrieved person herein, on 06th
December 2020, as per Hindu Rites and Customs. It is also stated
that the said marriage was never consummated. The aggrieved
person/wife seldom stays at her matrimonial home. In the month
of November 2022, she left her matrimonial home on her own
accord and volition. Therefore, the petitioner was compelled to file
a suit for divorce on 25th April, 2023 under Section 13(1)(i-a) of
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
16/62
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the learned Principal Judge,
Family Court at Muzaffarpur which was registered as matrimonial
(Divorce) Case No. 189/2023. After her departure from her
matrimonial home, the aggrieved person and her family members
constantly harassed and intimidated the family members of the
petitioner. The mother of the petitioner made complaints against
the aggrieved person before the SHO, Mithanpura, P.S. and
subsequently, on 6th July 2023 to the Director General of Police,
Government of Bihar but police did not take any action against the
aggrieved persons and her family members. On 3rd November
2023, the petitioner/husband filed an informatory petition before
the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, East Muzaffarpur. The learned
Magistrate forwarded the copy of the said application to the
concerned SHO, but police did not take any action against the
aggrieved person. On 2nd February 2024, when the petitioner was
alone at his residence, the aggrieved person arrived at the house
accompanied by a police party and approximately fifteen to twenty
unknown individuals, and they surrounded the entire house. The
petitioner out of fear of life, left the house scaling and jumping
from the boundary wall. The aggrieved person took possession of
the household and started living there with the help of local police
party. She entered into the house by breaking upon the lock of the
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
17/62
entrance door with the help of three police constables. The
petitioner has annexed CCTV footage dated 02nd February 2024
and 3rd February 2024 to show that the aggrieved person came to
her matrimonial home with two police vehicles full of police
personnel and she was provided with active help by the three lady
constables. The petitioner/husband informed about the matter on
05.02.2024 to the Superintendent of Police. He also sent his
complaint by e-mail to the Director General of Police, but the
police authority did not take any action on his complaint. So, is the
instant writ petition. The mother and other family members of the
Kastub Sourabh filed Cr. WJC No. 548/2024, stating, almost the
same fact and mentioning different dates of lodging complaint to
the police authority, alleging the act of trespassing by the
aggrieved person but police did not take any action, therefore, she
also has prayed for the following reliefs in the instant writ petition.
“1(a). For issuing a writ, direction or
order in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ,
order or direction directing the Respondent no. 3,
Director General of Police, for conducting a proper
enquiry into the incident occurred on 02.02.2014 and
03.02.2024 at the residence of the Petitioner where
the Respondent No. 5 & 6 alongwith other Police
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
18/62Officials in connivance with the Respondent no. 7
and her parents broke into the house of the
Petitioners;
b. For issuance of a writ, direction or
order in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ,
order or direction directing the Respondents to
restore the possession of the property back to the
Petitioner and prohibit the Respondents for
unlawfully accessing the property of the Petitioner by
use of force and fear;
c. For issuance a writ, direction or order
in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ, order
or direction directing the Respondent No. 1 to 6 from
taking any coercive action against the Petitioners
during the pendency of the present proceedings;
d. For issuance of writ in the nature of
mandamus, restraining the respondents mainly police
officials from acting unlawfully who, in connivance
with respondent no. 6 and her parents are behaving
in a manner forbidden by the law;
e. For issuance of writ in the nature of
mandamus, restraining the respondents from
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
19/62interfering in the life of the petitioners and/or for any
other relief[s] for which the Petitioner may be found
entitled to in the facts & circumstances of the present
case.”
18. In Cr. WJC No. 548 of 2024, the aggrieved person is
arrayed as the respondent no. 7. She has filed a counter-affidavit
denying all the allegations made against her in the writ petition. In
the counter affidavit, she also had dealt with Cr. WJC No. 365 of
2024, filed by her husband. In her counter affidavit, she denied
each and every allegation made by the petitioners.
19. It is specifically stated by her that her marriage was
solemnized with Kastub Sourabh on 06.12.2020 at Mithanpura,
Muzaffarpur as per Hindu rites and rituals. In the said marriage,
her father spent about 80 lakhs as per the demand of the
petitioners. After marriage, she went to her matrimonial home
where she was ill-treated from the very first day. Her mother-in-
law used to taunt on her average look and the quality of bridal
gifts. She demanded that her son would have been gifted a four-
wheeler at the time of marriage and failure to give a four-wheeler
to her husband was an insult to their zamindari status. The
respondent no. 7 became perplexed, experiencing the behaviour of
respondent nos. 1 to 3 (In Cr. Rev. No. 482 of 2025). After 15/20
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
20/62
days of marriage, the husband of the respondent informed her that
he would have to go to Kolkata and then to Delhi for some urgent
work. Then, he left respondent no. 7 and did not establish any
contact. His mobile was found constantly switched off. Being a
newly wedded lady, the respondent was facing an unwelcoming
environment in her matrimonial home. The husband of the
respondent came to meet the deponent in the month of April. As
there was a matrimonial discord arising between the parties, the
father of the respondent no. 7 and her husband had a talk in the
month of June and they were asked to come to the matrimonial
home of the respondent for discussion to sort out the matter. In the
month of June, 2021, the parents of the respondent/wife and her
brother went to Dighra house owned by the petitioners. The
respondent’s father asked them the reason for the strange and cold
behaviour towards the respondent and as to why she was not being
allowed to return to her matrimonial home and to live with her
husband. At this, the petitioner no. 1 disclosed that they were not
satisfied with the reception given to the Baraat and bridal gifts
given by the girl’s parents. Sometimes in July 2021, the deponent’s
father gave Rs. 25 lakhs in cash to the petitioners to purchase a car
in the name of the husband of the respondent on 19 th July 2021.
The respondent was allowed to come back to her matrimonial
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
21/62
home at Muzaffarpur. Thereafter, her husband went to Kolkata for
some fixed programme in the month of September and returned
back only in the month of November 2021. On being asked, her
husband did not respond to his wife about the nature of his
business which he allegedly started in Silliguri and Kalimpong. In
her matrimonial home, the respondent used to stay like a maid,
performing all sorts of household works. The petitioners did not
allow the maid/ servants to enter into the kitchen. Respondent used
to inform the matter to her parents. In the month of December
2021, the husband of the respondent told her that he would take
her parents and sisters to Delhi, and asked the respondent to go
back to her paternal home during the period when they would be in
Delhi. The respondent came back to her paternal home on 10 th
December 2021. During their stay in Delhi for about 8 months, the
husband of the respondent did not respond even for a single time
of her calls. In the month of August 2022, her husband again took
her to her matrimonial home but after a week, he left away the
respondent. The respondent mentions the incidents of ill-
treatments happened with her to her brother and parents on 7 th
October 2022, 7th November 2022 and also on subsequent dates.
During the period between the last quarter of 2022 till 26 th January
2023, the husband of the respondent did not maintain any
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
22/62
relationship with the respondent. The entire incident was reported
to the Officer-in-charge Sadar Thana Muzaffarpur on 1st February
2024. On 2nd February 2024, she went to her matrimonial home
with her brother and relatives at Dighra, seeing them, her husband
was totally aback and immediately instructed his servants to lock
the gate of the house. The husband urged him with folded hands
that she should be allowed to enter into her matrimonial home but
the husband and other matrimonial relations of the respondents
fled away through another door leaving the house locked. The
respondent refused to return to her paternal home and was sitting
continuously for about 36 hours in front of the said house. She
spent the chilling winter night sitting in the open courtyard waiting
for her husband to come. But on 3 rd February 2024, she made a
distress call to the local police for help, thereafter, the Officer-in-
charge of Women P.S. Muzaffarpur sent a patrolling team to
inquire into the matter and in presence of the police party, the
deponent broke the lock and the gate and entered into her
matrimonial home. It is also stated by the respondent that she came
to know from “Negotiation Agreement” that her husband is
practically married to one Mamta Rai, daughter of Dev Kumar Rai
and their marriage was solemnized on 23rd November 2018 at
Silliguri. Her husband concealed the said fact of his first marriage
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
23/62
from the respondent and her family members. The copy of the
“Negotiation Agreement” is marked as Annexure C series. The
respondent no. 4, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur
and the respondent no. 5, namely, the SHO of Mahila P.S.
Muzaffarpur filed separate counter affidavit against the writ
petition bearing no. Cr. WJC No. 548/2024 stating that the SHO,
Muzaffarpur P.S. was directed to show cause as to why no action
was taken for registration of FIR in the light of the application
submitted by the petitioner on 05.07.2023. Thereafter, he was
further directed to explain as to why disciplinary action shall not
be taken against him. It is also stated by the respondent no. 4 that
the SHO, Mahila P.S. vide letter dated 07th May 2024 submitted a
report stating the circumstances under which the wife entered into
the house of the petitioner.
20. It appears from the counter affidavit filed by the
respondent no. 5, SHO, Mahila P.S. Muzaffarpur that on 3 rd
February 2024, she received a call from the respondent no. 7 who
disclosed to her that she had been staying in the verandah of the
matrimonial house for last three days and her in-laws had locked
the door and she was not allowed to enter into the house. The
SHO, Mahila P.S. informed the matter to her superior officer and
on the direction of the superior authority, she reached the house of
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
24/62
the petitioner along with the patrolling party. Seeing the police
party, some local people gathered. They came to know about the
condition of respondent no. 7 from the local villagers. Then, the
respondent no. 7 broke the lock of the house and entered into the
house in presence of the SHO and other police personnel on 3 rd
February 2024. Thus, the SHO, Mahila P.S. Muzaffarpur denied
the allegation that the respondent entered into the house of the
petitioner breaking upon the lock of the entrance door on 02 nd
February 2024.
21. The wife of the Kastub Sourabh, namely, Nancy
Kashyap also filed Criminal Revision No. 482/2025 challenging
the legality, validity and propriety of an order dated 11th April 2025
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge- XI, Muzaffarpur
in D.V. Appeal No. 06 of 2024, whereby and whereunder the
appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order dated
25th November 2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Muzaffarpur in D.V. Case No. 2 of 2024, directing the
opposite party/husband of the petitioner to provide alternative
accommodation to the petitioner was upheld.
22. The petitioner claims herself to be a married wife of
the O.P. No. 2. She referred to different incidents which has been
described herein before in the counter affidavit filed by her in Cr.
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
25/62
WJC No. 548/2024. It is also stated by her that she went to her
matrimonial home on 2nd February 2024 along with her brother,
and on seeing them, her husband and other matrimonial relations
fled away from the house from another door, keeping the house
under lock and key. The petitioner/wife waited in front of the said
house for more than 36 hours and thereafter, she made a distress
call to the local police for help. The police authority came to the
spot and then, she opened the lock of the house on 03 rd February
2024 and entered into the house. It is not in dispute that she is in
possession of the said house. The petitioner/wife further filed a
complaint against the O.P.s on the basis of which Mahila P.S. Case
No. 27 of 2024 under Section 323/ 341/ 504/506/438A/494/420/34
and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act was registered. The
petitioner and her family members tried to settle the matter
amicably with her husband and other matrimonial relations but
they refused to settle the dispute out of court. Moreover, they
illegally retained her streedhan properties and bridal gifts. As she
was subjected to domestic violence, mental cruelty, dowry
demands and emotional and economic abuse, she filed an
application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act before the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Muzaffarpur which was registered as D. V. Case No.
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
26/62
02/24. In the said proceeding, the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate passed an order on 25th November 2024, holding, inter
alia, that the petitioner has been illegally occupying the house in
the village Dighra, Muzaffarpur and the said house is not a shared
household and finally passed an order directing the respondent
/opposite party to provide same level of alternative
accommodation for the aggrieved person as enjoyed by her in the
shared household. The said order was affirmed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge XI Court at Muzaffarpur. The petitioner
has challenged the said order in the Criminal Revision No. 482 of
2025.
Proceedings in the Court
23. Cr. WJC 548 of 2024 and Cr.WJC No. 365 of 2024
were taken up for hearing together by this Court on 19 th April
2024. This Court upon hearing the parties at the stage of admission
passed an order directing the respondent to submit counter
affidavit against the writ petitions and also restrained the police
authority from taking any coercive steps against the petitioners till
the next date of hearing. Respondents no. 4 to 6 were also directed
to allow the petitioners to take away the agricultural equipment
and livestock from the house of the petitioners situated at village
Dighra.
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
27/62
24. The petitioners filed a contempt petition, registered
as MJC No. 895 of 2025 in Cr. WJC No. 548 of 2024, alleging that
the police authority/state respondents did not allow them to
take/receive agricultural equipment and livestock stored in the said
house of Dighra vide order dated 19th April 2024.
25. On the other hand, the state respondents contend that
in view of the order passed on 19th April, 2024 in Cr.WJC No.
548/2024, the police seized 8 items of agricultural articles from the
said house on 25th March 2025 and the said articles were received
by the petitioners. Subsequently, vide order dated 20th June 2025,
the contempt petition is directed to be taken with the above-
mentioned writ petitions and criminal revision filed by the
contesting parties.
Submission at the Bar
26. Learned Advocate for the petitioner of the
proceeding under the Domestic Violence Act, who is arrayed as
respondent no. 7 in the writ petition, submits at the outset that the
writ petitions filed by the husband and other matrimonial relations
of the petitioner is not at all maintainable in view of the decision
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir Bhaskar Rao
Tambe Vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and Others reported in 2016
(6) SCC 277. In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had taken
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
28/62
into account the settled principles in Sakiri Vasu’s Case reported
in (2008) 2 SCC 409 and held that the impugned judgment of the
High Court cannot be sustained and therefore, the said judgment
was set aside. The Judicial Magistrate was directed to ensure
proper investigation into the alleged offence under Section 156(3)
of the CrPC and if he deems it necessary, he can also recommend
to the SSP/SP concerned, a change of Investigating Officer, so that
a proper investigation is done. The Magistrate can also monitor the
investigation, though he cannot himself investigate as investigation
is job of the police. In the aforesaid case, Sudhir Bhaskar Rao
Tambe as an appellant filed two appeals against the common
judgment of the High Court of Bombay dated 08th September
2009, by virtue of which the Bombay High Court has changed the
investigating officer and appointed special investigating officer to
investigate into the alleged offence, applying its power under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that the High Court cannot pass such order when the
criminal case was registered under Section 156(3) of the CrPC and
the power is in the hands of the Magistrate to pass necessary order
for proper investigation.
27. The learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioner of
the above numbered criminal revision further refers to a 3- Judges
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
29/62
Bench’s decision in the case of M. Subramaniam and Anr. Vs. S.
Janaki and Anr. reported in (2020) 16 SC 728. In this case, the
appellants challenged an order dated 06th November 2010 passed
by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in Criminal O.P.
(MD) No. 1162 of 2009, on an application under Article 26 of the
Constitution filed by the first respondent, directing the Inspector of
Police City Crime Branch, K.K. Nagar, Trichy to register a case,
i.e., first information report, on the basis of the complaint dated
08th September 2008, after investigation, they filed the final report
in accordance with law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased
to hold that writ petition cannot be the first recourse seeking
direction from the High Court for filing of the FIR unless above
remedies are first exhausted. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court that when efficacious relief is available under Section 156(3)
of the CrPC, exclusive jurisdiction lies upon the Judicial
Magistrate to direct the SHO of the concerned police station to
treat a complaint as an FIR. The power vested upon the High Court
cannot be exercised without taking recourse to the provisions
contained in Section 156(3) of the CrPC.
28. The learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioner also
refers to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sakiri
Vasu’s Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in (2008) 2
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
30/62
SCC 409. Paragraphs no. 24 to 28 of the aforesaid judgment is
relevant and are quoted below: –
“24. In view of the above-mentioned legal
position, we are of the view that although Section
156(3) is very briefly worded, there is an implied
power in the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
to order registration of a criminal offence and /or to
direct the officer in charge of the concerned police
station to hold a proper investigation and take all
such necessary steps that may be necessary for
ensuring a proper investigation including monitoring
the same. Even though these powers have not been
expressly mentioned in Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., we
are of the opinion that they are implied in the above
provision.
25. We have elaborated on the above matter
because we often find that when someone has a
grievance that his FIR has not been registered at the
police station and/or a proper investigation is not
being done by the police, he rushes to the High Court
to file a writ petition or a petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C. We are of the opinion that the High Court
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
31/62should not encourage this practice and should
ordinarily refuse to interfere in such matters, and
relegate the petitioner to his alternating remedy,
firstly under Section 154(3) and Section 36 Cr.P.C.
before the concerned police officers, and if that is of
no avail, by approaching the concerned Magistrate
under Section 156(3).
26. If a person has a grievance that his FIR
has not been registered by the police station his first
remedy is to approach the Superintendent of Police
under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. or other police officer
referred to in Section 36 Cr.P.C. If despite
approaching the Superintendent of Police or the
officer referred to in Section 36 his grievance still
persists, then he can approach a Magistrate
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. instead of rushing to
the High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Moreover he has a further
remedy of filing a criminal complaint under Section
200 Cr.P.C. Why then should writ petitions or Section
482 petitions be entertained when there are so many
alternative remedies?
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
32/62
27. As we have already observed above, the
Magistrate has very wide powers to direct
registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper
investigation, and for this purpose he can monitor
the investigation to ensure that the investigation is
done properly (though he cannot investigate himself).
The High Court should discourage the practice of
filing a writ petition or petition under Section
482 Cr.P.C. simply because a person has a grievance
that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or
after being registered, proper investigation has not
been done by the police. For this grievance, the
remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3) before the
concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail,
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate
or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200
Cr.P.C. and not by filing a writ petition or a petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
28. It is true that alternative remedy is not an
absolute bar to a writ petition, but it is equally well
settled that if there is an alternative remedy the High
Court should not ordinarily interfere.”
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
33/62
29. Thus, it is contended by the learned Advocate on behalf
of the petitioner/wife that the writ petitions filed by the husband
and the matrimonial relations of the petitioner are not
maintainable because of the fact that the opposite parties could
have approached the trial court for appropriate relief.
30. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners, namely,
Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, in Cr. WJC No. 548 of 2024 and Cr.
WJC No. 365 of 2024 submits that in all the judgments referred to
by the learned Advocate for the respondent/wife, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court discouraged institution and registration of FIR by
the concerned police station and consequent direction by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court to register FIR.
31. In the instant case, the petitioner never approached this
Court for registration of any FIR. On the other hand, the
petitioners (In Cr. WJC No. 548 of 2024 and Cr. WJC No. 365
of 2024) moved before this Court in Criminal writ jurisdiction for
excess of police action amounting to police atrocities.
32. In order to substantiate his condition, it is submitted by
the learned Advocate for the respondents/wife that according to
the petitioners, she was sitting in the open verandah of her
matrimonial home for 36 hours, since 02nd February 2024. In the
evening of 3rd February 2024, she informed the local Mahila P.S.
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
34/62
about the incident and sought for help. Accordingly, the police
went there and in presence of police, she opened the lock of the
door of her matrimonial home and entered into the said house in
the absence of the residents of the said house.
33. The case of the opposite parties/writ petitioners, on the
other hand, is that the respondent no.7/wife by taking help of the
police authority, illegally entered into her matrimonial home,
breaking upon the lock of the entrance door on 02 nd February
2024.
34. Be that as it may, series of CCTV footages, annexed
with the writ petition as annexure P/7A, prima facie show that two
police vehicles went to the matrimonial house of the petitioner
and a group of police personnel were present in front of the said
house to render police help to the petitioner/wife. As a writ court,
it is not possible for this Court to decide the disputed question of
fact as to whether the petitioner took possession of her
matrimonial home with the help of police on 02 nd February 2024
or 03rd February 2024. But admittedly, she took possession of the
said house with the help of police either on 02 nd February or on
03rd February 2024, when the residents of the house were absent.
35. Now, comes the question as to whether police authority
can render any such help without a case being instituted by the
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
35/62
petitioner/wife? It is found from the record that except a case
under Section 323/341/504/494/420B/506/498A and 34 of the IPC
along with Sections ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act dated 15 th
April 2024, the petitioner/wife did not register any FIR against the
petitioners of the writ petitions. Thus, it is found that police
authority extended police help to the petitioner/wife without any
criminal case being registered in the local police station.
36. The petitioners approached this Court under Article 226
of the Constitution for a direction to the Director General of
Police for conducting a proper inquiry into the incident dated 02 nd
February 2024 and 03rd February 2024 at the residence of the
petitioners of the Cr. WJC No. 548/2024, where respondents no. 5
and 6 along with other police personnel in connivance with
respondent no. 7/wife and her parents broke upon the lock of the
house of the petitioners and other incidental reliefs including
restoration of possession of the said house in favour of the
petitioners. Thus, the said writ petitions contain allegations of
police atrocities and exercise of police force illegally to deliver
possession of the matrimonial home in favour of the respondent
no. 7/wife by breaking open the lock of the entrance door. The
question involved in these writ petitions is as to whether police
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
36/62
have the power to render such help without having a case
registered against the petitioners.
37. Common law relief suggests that if a person is illegally
dispossessed from his/her house, efficacious relief exists in filing
a suit for recovery of possession. Can such possession be
recovered through the muscle power of the police authority?
38. With regard to the revisional application filed by the
petitioner/wife against her husband, it is submitted by the learned
Advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner is the legally
wedded wife of the opposite party. The petitioner elaborately
stated the incidents of domestic violence purported upon her by
her husband and other matrimonial relations from the very
beginning of her marriage. She was harassed and humiliated on
the ground of average look, quality of bridal gifts and failure on
the part of her father to give a four-wheeler car to her husband at
the time of her marriage. After the marriage, the husband seldom
used to stay with her and on the pretext of business, he used to
spend months together in Delhi, Kolkata, Silliguri and Kalimpong.
It is alleged by the petitioner that her husband did not maintain
even talking tongue with her over phone when he was away from
her home.
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
37/62
39. Therefore, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that
the petitioner portrayed series of domestic violence purported
upon her and being an aggrieved person, she filed an application
under Section 12 of the D.V. Act before the jurisdictional court of
the learned Magistrate. In the said application, she prayed for her
possession in the shared household.
40. Both the courts below, without considering the case of
the petitioner/wife and her primary right to stay in the shared
household, directed her to take shelter in an alternative
accommodation settled by her husband on rent.
41. The learned Advocate for the petitioner further submits
that there is reasonable apprehension that her husband may not
pay rent to the landlord in respect of the alternative
accommodation where the petitioner/wife was proposed to stay.
When the parties are at loggerhead and both the criminal cases at
the instance of the petitioner and suit for divorce at the instance of
the opposite party are pending, there is every apprehension that
domestic violence would be purported upon the petitioner by her
husband and other matrimonial relations.
42. Considering such aspect of the matter, the learned
Advocate for the petitioner has called upon this Court to revise the
order passed by both the courts below.
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
38/62
43. In support of his argument, he refers to a decision of the
High Court at Delhi, in the case of Ritu Chernalia Vs. Amar
Chernalia and Others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3102:
(2023)2 CCC 389. Paragraphs no. 9 to 11 of the said judgment are
relevant and quoted below:
“9. Heard. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in its judgement dated 15th October, 2020 in
CA No. 2483/2020 titled Satish Chander Ahuja v.
Sneha Ahuja while discussing the concept of ‘shared
household’ held as under:
“83. Before we close our discussion on Section
2(s), we need to observe that the right to residence
under Section 19 is not an indefeasible right of
residence in shared household especially when the
daughter-in-law is pitted against aged father-in-law
and mother-in-law. The senior citizens in the evening
of their life are also entitled to live peacefully not
haunted by marital discord between their son and
daughter- in-law. While granting relief both in
application under Section 12 of Act, 2005 or in any
civil proceedings, the Court has to balance the rights
of both the parties. The directions issued by High
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
39/62court in paragraph 56 adequately balances the rights
of both the parties.”
10. Thus, the concept of ‘shared household’
clearly provides that the right of the daughter-in-law
in a shared household is not an indefeasible right
and cannot be to the exclusion of the in-laws. The
stand of the Petitioner that the in-laws should not be
allowed to live in their own property is completely
contrary to the settled understanding on the subject.
The daughter-in-law, while claiming rights to live in
her matrimonial home or shared household, cannot
be seen to argue that the in-laws ought not to live
with her in the shared household. If circumstances
exist which demonstrate that they cannot live
together, alternate accommodation may also have to
be explored for the daughter-in-law.
11. In the present case, the DC has merely held
that the Respondent No. 1 and 2 have a right to stay
in the suit property, which obviously cannot be
questioned because the property belongs to them.
The Petitioner is currently in occupation of the entire
property consisting of one floor. The Petitioner is not
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
40/62
willing to considering shifting to any alternate
premises, though the same is offered by the
Respondents 1 and 2. Considering the impugned
order passed by the DC, in the above factual
background, the following directions are issued:
(i) The Petitioner and her son shall occupy one
room in the suit property. The Respondent Nos. 1 and
2 together shall also occupy one bedroom.
(ii) The grandson, i.e., Petitioner no. 2 shall be
permitted to use the third bedroom for his studies,
tuitions, etc., However, the said room shall be
accessible to all the parties.
(iii) The common areas such as the kitchen, the
drawing and the dining room and staircase, etc.,
shall be used by all the occupants.
(iv) The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are permitted
to put up CCTV cameras and the recordings of the
same shall be accessible to the Petitioner.”
44. The learned Advocate for the petitioner/wife also refers
to a Co-ordinate Bench’s decision of Delhi High Court in the case
of Sneha Ahuja Vs. Satish Chander Ahuja reported in 2021 SCC
OnLine Del 4984. It is relevant to mention here that the above-
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
41/62
mentioned judgment was delivered on 15th November 2021, after
the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Satish
Chander Ahuja Vs. Sneha Ahuja reported in (2021) 1 SCC 414.
In the aforesaid proceeding before the Delhi High Court, Sneha
Ahuja filed a petition under Section 227 of the Constitution for
setting aside of the order dated 19th April 2024 passed by the
learned Additional District Judge, South-East District Saket, New
Delhi in CS No. 792/2017 filed by the respondent No. 1 against
the petitioner.
45. It is pertinent to mention here the facts involved in the
aforesaid case; the respondent no. 1 is the father-in-law of the
petitioner. He filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner and her
husband, i.e., respondent no. 2, who happens to be the son of the
respondent no. 1. The said suit was decreed under the provision of
ordered XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The
petitioner preferred an appeal before the Delhi High Court against
the said judgment and decree. A Co-ordinate Bench of Delhi High
Court vide a judgment dated 18th December, 2019 was pleased to
set aside the decree dated 08th April 2019 and remanded back the
matter to the learned trial court for fresh adjudication. The
respondent no. 1 filed an appeal against the judgment passed by
the High Court at Delhi before the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
42/62
as Satish Chander Ahuja Vs. Sneha Ahuja reported in (2021) 1
SCC 414. The said appeal being Civil Appeal No. 3483 of 2020
was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 15th October,
2020.
46. In view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Satish Chander Ahuja (supra) at paragraph no. 167, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court remanded the matter to the trial court for
fresh adjudication.
47. On 19th April, 2021, the trial court passed the following
order:-
“6. The learned Trial Court vide the
impugned order dated 19th April, 2021
allowed the application of the respondents and
issued the following directions:
“38. In the light of aforesaid discussion,
the present application under Section 19(1)
(f) of the D.V. Act filed on behalf of plaintiff is
allowed with following directions:
(i) The Plaintiff and defendant no.2
shall jointly or severally pay a total sum of
Rs.1,60,000 as an advance amount of the two
months rental value to the defendant no.1 in
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
43/62her bank account before 10th May, 2021 in
order to enable her to take on rent a suitable
accommodation for herself.
(ii) There the plaintiff and defendant
no.2 jointly or severally pay next monthly
payment of Rs.80,000 within 30 days i.e. by
10th June, 2021 and after that on the
succeeding month by tenth day of every month
directly into her bank account
(iii) Upon the said payment being
commenced, the daughter-in-law (Defendant
no.1) shall vacate the suit property within 40
days from the date of first payment or counting
from 01.05.2021 whichever is later e.g. if the
payment of Rs.1,60,000 is received on
05.05.2021, she will vacate by 15.06.2021
after receiving the next instalment of Rs.80,000
by 10.06.2021
(iv) The advance amount of Rs.1,60,000
shall not be adjusted in next monthly
instalment till further orders.
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
44/62
(v) This order is subject to final decision
of the present suit.”
48. Aggrieved by the above-mentioned impugned order,
Sneha Ahuja filed an application under Section 227 of the
Constitution of India before the High Court at Delhi. After a
detailed discussion, the Delhi High Court passed the following
order in paragraph 42 of the said judgment which reads as under:
“42. In light of the special
circumstances in the present case that: (a)
since marriage, the petitioner has been in
occupation of the first floor;
(b) the premises in her occupation was
separate from the premises in occupation of
the respondents;
(c) the subsistence of an injunction
order in this very suit, restraining the
petitioner from disturbing the possession of the
respondents of the ground floor;
(d) the fact that this order has not been
violated by the petitioner;
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
45/62
(e) the petitioner being pushed to file
Execution Petitions to obtain the maintenance
awarded to her;
(f) the application moved by the
petitioner for payment of the electricity
charges in respect of the first floor of the
premises where the petitioner is residing and
the claim of the respondent No.2 that he did
not have the means to do so;
(g) the uncertainty, in these
circumstances of the respondents meeting their
obligation of paying rent regularly, and
(h) finally, the prevailing circumstances
of the pandemic when such an order was
passed, all reflect the perversity and
unreasonableness of the impugned order. The
directions issued to the petitioner to shift out
to a rented accommodation were most
unwarranted.”
49. Learned advocate on behalf of the opposite parties, on
the other hand relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court’s decision in Satish Chander Ahuja (supra). It is submitted
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
46/62
by him that Sneha Ahuja was the daughter-in-law of Satish
Chander Ahuja. She and her husband used to stay in the house of
Satish Chander Ahuja after their marriage. As a result of
matrimonial discord, and number of litigation between the parties,
Satish Chander Ahuja filed a suit for mandatory and permanent
injunction of the property occupied by Sneha and her husband.
The Hon’ble Supreme has held that the said suit is maintainable. It
is observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the appellant
being the father-in-law has the right to stay peacefully in his house
during the evening of his life. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
decided the issue regarding maintainability of Civil Suit by the
appellant holding, inter alia:
“166. From the above discussions, we
arrive at following conclusions:-
(166.1) The pendency of proceedings
under Act, 2005 or any order interim or final
passed under D.V. Act under Section 19
regarding right of residence is not an embargo
for initiating or continuing any civil
proceedings, which relate to the subject matter
of order interim or final passed in proceedings
under D.V. Act, 2005
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
47/62(166.2) The judgment or order of
criminal court granting an interim or final
relief under Section 19 of D.V. Act, 2005 are
relevant within the meaning of Section 43 of
the Evi- dence Act and can be referred to and
looked into by the civil court.
(166.3) A civil court is to determine the
issues in civil proceedings on the basis of
evidence, which has been led by the parties
before the civil court.
(166.4) In the facts of the present case,
suit filed in civil court for mandatory and
permanent injunction was fully maintainable
and the issues raised by the appellant as well
as by the defendant claiming a right under
Section 19 were to be addressed and decided
on the basis of evidence, which is led by the
parties in the suit.”
50. Thus, the issue involved in the case of Satish Chander
Ahuja (Supra) was as to whether a civil suit is maintainable
praying for mandatory injunction and eviction of the petitioner.
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
48/62
The Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to decide the case in
affirmative.
51. In the instant case, both the courts, below under the
facts and circumstances, directed the petitioner/wife to live in the
alternative accommodation settle by her husband. The petitioner is
not agreeable to such order and filed the instant revision.
52. The learned senior counsel on behalf of the petitioner
refers to paragraph no. 90 of the Satish Chander Ahuja (Supra)
wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the concept of
“Shared household” and held as under: –
“90. Before we close our discussion on
Section 2(s), we need to observe that the right
to residence under Section 19 is not an
indefeasible right of residence in shared
household especially when the daughter-in-
law is pitted against aged father-in-law and
mother-in-law. The senior citizens in the
evening of their life are also entitled to live
peacefully not haunted by marital discord
between their son and daughter-in-law. While
granting relief both in application
under Section 12 of Act, 2005 or in any civil
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
49/62proceedings, the Court has to balance the
rights of both the parties. The directions issued
by High court in paragraph 56 adequately
balances the rights of both the parties.”
53. Thus, right to stay in the shared household is not an
absolute right of the wife who is involved in marital discord and
litigations with her husband. Therefore, both the courts below
correctly decided the matter and there is no reason to interfere
with the impugned orders.
Conclusion
54. At the very beginning of this judgment, I have narrated
the law on the issue, the definition of aggrieved person, Shared
household, domestic relationship, etc., which were reproduced
from the Act. Therefore, I am not going to reiterate the said
definitions at this stage.
55. One very important matter was lost sight of both the
learned counsels for the parties. In her counter affidavit against Cr.
WJC No. 548/2024, the petitioner/wife herself filed a copy of so-
called “Negotiation Agreement” executed on 25th January 2022
between the one Kastub Sourabh, the husband of the petitioner
and one Dev Kumar Rai, father of one Mamta Rai, in which
Kastub Sourabh admitted that he married to Mamta Rai on 23 rd
November 2018 at Siliguri. The said marriage was subsisting even
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
50/62
on 25th January 2022 when the so-called the “Negotiation
Agreement” was executed.
56. The marriage of the petitioner of the instant revision
was solemnized on 6th December 2020, i.e., during the subsistence
of Kastub Sourabh’s marriage with Mamta Rai. The Section 5(i)
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 says as follow:
“A marriage may be solemnized
between any two Hindus, if the following
conditions are fulfilled, namely: —
(i) neither party has a spouse living at
the time of the marriage;……..”
57. Further, Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955
reads as under:
“11. Void marriages. –Any marriage
solemnized after the commencement of this Act
shall be null and void and may, on a petition
presented by either party thereto 2[against the
other party], be so declared by a decree of
nullity if it contravenes any one of the
conditions specified in clauses (i), (iv) and (v)
of section 5.”
58. So, the marriage of Kastub Sourabh with Nancy
Kashyap was prima facie a void marriage. The said fact was
known to the petitioner, therefore, she lodged a complaint against
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
51/62
her husband under Section 494 of the IPC amongst other penal
provisions. Taking into consideration the factual background, this
Court at least can prima facie hold that by virtue of the marriage
between Nancy and Kastub Sourabh, no domestic relationship in
the nature of marriage was established and their living together in
a shared household was through a relationship in the nature of
marriage.
59. The phrase relationship in the nature come to be
considered before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
D.Velusamy vs D.Patchaiammal reported in AIR 2011 SC 479.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph no. 33 of the aforesaid
reported judgment states as under:
“33. In our opinion a `relationship in
the nature of marriage’ is akin to a common
law marriage. Common law marriages require
that although not being formally married:
(a) The couple must hold themselves out
to society as being akin to spouses.
(b) They must be of legal age to marry.
(c) They must be otherwise qualified to
enter into a legal marriage, including being
unmarried.
(d) They must have voluntarily
cohabited and held themselves out to the world
as being akin to spouses for a significant
period of time.
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
52/62
34. In our opinion not all live in
relationships will amount to a relationship in
the nature of marriage to get the benefit of the
Act of 2005. To get such benefit the conditions
mentioned by us above must be satisfied, and
this has to be proved by evidence. If a man has
a `keep’ whom he maintains financially and
uses mainly for sexual purpose and/or as a
servant it would not, in our opinion, be a
relationship in the nature of marriage’
35. No doubt the view we are taking
would exclude many women who have had a
live in relationship from the benefit of the 2005
Act, but then it is not for this Court to legislate
or amend the law. Parliament has used the
expression `relationship in the nature of
marriage’ and not `live in relationship’. The
Court in the grab of interpretation cannot
change the language of the statute.
36. In feudal society sexual relationship
between man and woman outside marriage
was totally taboo and regarded with disgust
and horror, as depicted in Leo Tolstoy’s novel
`Anna Karenina’, Gustave Flaubert’s novel
`Madame Bovary’ and the novels of the great
Bengali writer Sharat Chandra
Chattopadhyaya.
37. However, Indian society is changing,
and this change has been reflected and
recognized by Parliament by enacting The
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
53/62
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005.”
60. Now, coming back to the facts of this case, it is found
that the opposite party solemnized marriage with the petitioner in
accordance with the Hindu Rights and ceremonies in 2020, when
he had a living spouse and the said marriage is still subsistence
even up to 25th January, 2022. Considering this aspect of the
matter, the relationship between the petitioner and the opposite
party cannot be said to be better than a relationship in the nature
of marriage. Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 recognizes such relationship in the
nature of marriage as domestic relationship. The said relationship
exists even today, though the parties are not staying together.
61. Under such facts and circumstances, it is necessary to
decide as to whether the act of the petitioner to take possession of
the shared household by breaking the padlock can be said to be
legal, valid and in consonance with the provisions of law. The
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 provides
right to an aggrieved person to present an application to the
Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs, including residence order
under Section 19 of the said Act. In the instant case, the petitioner
filed an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, praying for
residence order under Section 19 of the said Act with other
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
54/62
reliefs/prayers on 7th May 2024, i.e., long after taking possession
of the shared household.
62. It is not in dispute that the petitioner/wife took over
possession of the shared household by breaking upon the lock of
the entrance door. Thus, she took the law in her own hands to have
possession over the shared household with the help of police
authority.
63. The act of the petitioner cannot be supported by any
stretch of legal principles.
64. Both the courts below passed orders directing the
respondent/opposite party to provide same level of alternative
accommodation to her as enjoyed by her in the shared household.
It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the
respondents/opposite parties that the opposite party/husband has
already arranged for an alternative accommodation as enjoyed by
her in the shared household on rent.
65. In view of the above discussion, I hold that both the
court below did not commit any illegality or irregularity in
passing the impugned orders, directing the petitioner/wife to take
possession of the alternative accommodation fixed by the
O.P./husband as enjoyed by her in the shared household.
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
55/62
66. The revisional application is accordingly dismissed on
contest. Orders passed by both the courts below in D.V. Case No.
02 of 2024 and D.V. Appeal No. 06 of 2024 are affirmed.
Petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 482 of 2025 is directed to leave the
shared household and take possession of the alternative, suitable
accommodation, so fixed by the husband within four weeks from
the date of this order.
67. Now, coming to the writ petitions, this Court is inclined
to state that they were not filed seeking a direction to register an
FIR or any similar relief. Rather, the writ petitions were filed
alleging police excesses or atrocities. “In the case of State of West
Bengal & Others vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic
Rights, West Bengal & Others, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 571, a
Constitution Bench comprising five Judges of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court concluded in the following words:
“68. Thus, having examined the rival
contentions in the context of the Constitutional
Scheme, we conclude as follows:
(i) The fundamental rights, enshrined in
Part III of the Constitution, are inherent and
cannot be extinguished by any Constitutional
or Statutory provision. Any law that abrogates
or abridges such rights would be violative of
the basic structure doctrine. The actual effect
and impact of the law on the rights guaranteed
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
56/62under Part III has to be taken into account in
determining whether or not it destroys the
basic structure.
(ii) Article 21 of the Constitution in its
broad perspective seeks to protect the persons
of their lives and personal liberties except
according to the procedure established by law.
The said Article in its broad application not
only takes within its fold enforcement of the
rights of an accused but also the rights of the
victim. The State has a duty to enforce the
human rights of a citizen providing for fair
and impartial investigation against any person
accused of commission of a cognizable
offence, which may include its own officers. In
certain situations, even a witness to the crime
may seek for and shall be granted protection
by the State.
(iii) In view of the constitutional scheme
and the jurisdiction conferred on this Court
under Article 32 and on the High Courts
under Article 226 of the Constitution the
power of judicial review being an integral part
of the basic structure of the Constitution, no
Act of Parliament can exclude or curtail the
powers of the Constitutional Courts with
regard to the enforcement of fundamental
rights. As a matter of fact, such a power is
essential to give practicable content to the
objectives of the Constitution embodied in Part
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
57/62
III and other parts of the Constitution.
Moreover, in a federal constitution, the
distribution of legislative powers between the
Parliament and the State Legislature involves
limitation on legislative powers and, therefore,
this requires an authority other than the
Parliament to ascertain whether such
limitations are transgressed. Judicial review
acts as the final arbiter not only to give effect
to the distribution of legislative powers
between the Parliament and the State
Legislatures, it is also necessary to show any
transgression by each entity. Therefore, to
borrow the words of Lord Steyn, judicial
review is justified by combination of “the
principles of separation of powers, rule of law,
the principle of constitutionality and the reach
of judicial review”.
(iv) If the federal structure is violated by
any legislative action, the Constitution takes
care to protect the federal structure by
ensuring that Courts act as guardians and
interpreters of the Constitution and provide
remedy under Articles 32 and 226, whenever
there is an attempted violation. In the
circumstances, any direction by the Supreme
Court or the High Court in exercise of power
under Article 32 or 226 to uphold the
Constitution and maintain the rule of law
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
58/62
cannot be termed as violating the federal
structure.
(v) Restriction on the Parliament by the
Constitution and restriction on the Executive
by the Parliament under an enactment, do not
amount to restriction on the power of the
Judiciary under Article 32 and 226 of the
Constitution.
(vi) If in terms of Entry 2 of List II of
The Seventh Schedule on the one hand and
Entry 2A and Entry 80 of List I on the other, an
investigation by another agency is permissible
subject to grant of consent by the State
concerned, there is no reason as to why, in an
exceptional situation, court would be
precluded from exercising the same power
which the Union could exercise in terms of the
provisions of the Statute. In our opinion,
exercise of such power by the constitutional
courts would not violate the doctrine of
separation of powers. In fact, if in such a
situation the court fails to grant relief, it would
be failing in its constitutional duty.
(vii) When the Special Police Act itself
provides that subject to the consent by the
State, the CBI can take up investigation in
relation to the crime which was otherwise
within the jurisdiction of the State Police, the
court can also exercise its constitutional
power of judicial review and direct the CBI to
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
59/62
take up the investigation within the jurisdiction
of the State. The power of the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be
taken away, curtailed or diluted by Section 6
of the Special Police Act. Irrespective of there
being any statutory provision acting as a
restriction on the powers of the Courts, the
restriction imposed by Section 6 of the Special
Police Act on the powers of the Union, cannot
be read as restriction on the powers of the
Constitutional Courts. Therefore, exercise of
power of judicial review by the High Court, in
our opinion, would not amount to infringement
of either the doctrine of separation of power or
the federal structure.
69. In the final analysis, our answer to
the question referred is that a direction by the
High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution, to the
CBI to investigate a cognizable offence alleged
to have been committed within the territory of
a State without the consent of that State will
neither impinge upon the federal structure of
the Constitution nor violate the doctrine of
separation of power and shall be valid in law.
Being the protectors of civil liberties of the
citizens, this Court and the High Courts have
not only the power and jurisdiction but also an
obligation to protect the fundamental rights,
guaranteed by Part III in general and under
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
60/62
Article 21 of the Constitution in particular,
zealously and vigilantly.
70. Before parting with the case, we
deem it necessary to emphasise that despite
wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226
of the Constitution, while passing any order,
the Courts must bear in mind certain self-
imposed limitations on the exercise of these
Constitutional powers. The very plenitude of
the power under the said Articles requires
great caution in its exercise. In so far as the
question of issuing a direction to the CBI to
conduct investigation in a case is concerned,
although no inflexible guidelines can be laid
down to decide whether or not such power
should be exercised but time and again it has
been reiterated that such an order is not to be
passed as a matter of routine or merely
because a party has levelled some allegations
against the local police. This extra-ordinary
power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously
and in exceptional situations where it becomes
necessary to provide credibility and instil
confidence in investigations or where the
incident may have national and international
ramifications or where such an order may be
necessary for doing complete justice and
enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise,
the CBI would be flooded with a large number
of cases and with limited resources, may find it
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
61/62
difficult to properly investigate even serious
cases and in the process lose its credibility and
purpose with unsatisfactory investigations.”
68. Though, the aforementioned judgments relate to
determination of a question as to High Court’s power to give
direction to CBI to investigate into a cognizable offence without a
consent of the State or the Central Government, High Court’s
power under Article 226 of the Constitution is laid down in clear
terms to entertain an application under Article 226 of the
Constitution against police atrocities and excesses of police
power. I have already recorded reliefs sought for by the petitioners
in both the writ petitions.
69. When the police had no power to restore possession of a
particular building in favor of the respondent no. 7 without any
order of the court or superior authority, rendering police help to
break open the lock of the entrance door is per se illegal and in
excess of the power vested upon the police authority; therefore,
this Court disposes of both the writ petitions, providing relief in
respect of prayer at 1(a) and 1(e).
70. These reliefs, however, do not dis-entitle the police
authority from taking appropriate action against the petitioners for
proper investigation of Mahila P.S. Case No. 27 of 2024 under
Section 323/341/504/506/438A/494/420/34 and Section ¾ of the
Patna High Court MJC No.895 of 2025 dt.18-07-2025
62/62
Dowry Prohibition Act or any other complaint which may be filed
by the respondent no. 7 in accordance with law.
71. In view of disposal of the writ petitions by the above
order, I do find any reason for passing any further order in the
MJC No. 895 of 2025. Therefore, MJC No. 895 of 2025 is
disposed of, at this stage, without any order.
72. The petitioners are further granted liberty to file an
application for contempt, if the occasion so arises. Accordingly,
Writ Petitions bearing Cr. WJC No. 365 of 2024 and Cr. WJC No.
548 of 2024, Criminal Revision No. 482 of 2025, and MJC No.
895 of 2025 are disposed of.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
Suraj Dubey/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 07.07.2025 Uploading Date 18. 07.2025 Transmission Date 18. 07.2025
[ad_1]
Source link