Patna High Court
Abhishek Kumar Chandan vs The State Of Bihar on 5 August, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46935 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4 Year-2023 Thana- DOMESTIC VIOLENACE District- Patna
======================================================
1. Abhishek Kumar Chandan, Son of Kamta Prasad R/o- House No.- 15, New
Bypass Road Jhumari Tilaiya, P.S.-Jhumari Tilaiya, District - Koderma.
2. Kamta Prasad, Son of Late Awadhesh Kumar, R/o- House No.- 13, New
Bypass Road Jhumari Tilaiya, P.S-Jhumari Tilaiya, District - Koderma.
3. Gayatri Devi, Wife of Kamta Prasad Singh, R/o- House No.- 13, New
Bypass Road Jhumari Tilaiya, P.S-Jhumari Tilaiya, District - Koderma.
4. Kiran Kumari, Wife of Kumar Prabhat Ranjan, R/o- At Purnanagar Road,
P.O.- Koderma, P.S.- Koderma, District - Koderma.
5. Roshani Singh, Wife of Sidhnath Singh, R/o- First Floor, 2nd Cross, C/O-
U.V. Kalyal Ayappa Laout, Bengaluru, Karnatka - 560037.
6. Sidhnath Singh, Son of Arjun Singh, R/o- First Floor, 2nd Cross, C/O- U.V.
Kalyan Ayappa Layout, Bengaluru, Karnatka - 560037.
7. Jyotsana Kumari, Wife of Navneet Kumar R/o- Department of Medical
Laboratory Technology, Ganpat University, Village - Kherva, District -
Messina, Gujrat - 384012.
8. Navneet Kumar, Son of Ram Dayal Singh, R/o- Department of Medical
Laboratory Technology, Ganpat University, Village - Kherwa, District -
Messina, Gujrat - 384012.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Nivedita Nischal, Wife of Abhishek Kumar Chandan, D/o Jitendra Prasad,
R/o at present House No. 603A, Mundeshwari Baily Greens Apartment,
Kaliket Nagar, P.S.- Rupaspur Danapur, District - Patna.
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Narain, Senior Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For the State : Md. Mushtaque Alam, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Senior Advocate
Mr. Ranjan Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Ms. Seema Kumari, Advocate
Ms. Jyoti Kumari, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 05-08-2025
Heard Mr. Rajendra Narain, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners, Md. Mushtaque Alam, learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46935 of 2024 dt.05-08-2025
2/15
APP for the State and Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned senior
counsel appearing for the O.P. No.2.
2. The present application preferred under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'CrPC') to
quash the entire proceedings of Domestic Violence Case No.4
of 2023 filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short 'D.V. Act 2005')
dated 13.02.2023 against the petitioners, which was filed by
opposite party no.2, namely, Nivedita Nishchal, wife of
petitioner no.1.
3. Admittedly, there is no impugned order
including any interim order in view of Section 23(2) of the Act
of 2005, passed in aforesaid proceeding.
4. Case of complainant/O.P. No.2, in brief, speaks
that her marriage was solemnized with petitioner no.1 on
07.12.2009
as per Hindu rites and rituals at Patna. Out of
the said wedlock, a daughter was born to them on
24.12.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner no.1 started to commit
physical and mental harassment by demanding money from
her parents for purchasing a house at Bengaluru and due to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46935 of 2024 dt.05-08-2025
3/15
non-fulfillment of his aforesaid demand, the husband ousted
her from their shared household at Bengaluru. She has no
personal income, whereas her husband is earning about Rs. 5
lacs per month and spending a luxurious life ignoring
complainant and her daughter, as he is not extending any
monetary support.
5. Mr. Rajendra Narain, learned senior counsel
while arguing on behalf of petitioners submitted that the
present case was filed almost with a delay of eight years from
the alleged date of incident and, therefore, same is barred
under Section 468 of the CrPC. It is further submitted that
aforesaid case was lodged against the distant relative i.e.
married daughters, who were married long before the
marriage of complainant/O.P. No.2 with petitioner no.1. They
are living separately and having no connection with daily and
domestic affairs of complainant and her husband.
6. It is further submitted by Mr. Narain that the
present complaint under D.V. Act has been filed in retaliation
of divorce case filed by the petitioner no.1/husband being
Matrimonial Case (MC) No.1335 of 2015/renumbered as 168
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46935 of 2024 dt.05-08-2025
4/15
of 2024 before learned Principal Family Judge at Bengaluru,
Karnataka, which now transferred to the Principal Judge,
Family Court, Patna as per the direction of the Hon’ble Apex
Court. It is submitted by Mr. Narain that after the filing of the
said divorce case in retaliation, the complainant/O.P. No.2
also filed a Complaint Case No.1684 of 2016 before the court
of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna for the offences
punishable under Sections 323, 324, 354, 498-A read with
34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC‘) as well as
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, alleging therein
almost similar and identical allegations for which the learned
trial court has taken cognizance only against petitioner no.1
for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC,
where the allegation raised against other members were
found false. In this context, it is further pointed out that O.P.
No.2 has also filed a maintenance case bearing No. 280(M) of
2015 pending before the court of learned Additional Principal
Judge, Family Court, Patna, where vide order dated
26.02.2018, the O.P. No.2 is getting maintenance amount of
Rs.4,000/- per month. It is pointed out that the present case
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46935 of 2024 dt.05-08-2025
5/15
under D.V. Act, 2005 was lodged out of vengeance to harass
the innocent family members of petitioner no.1 as no
cognizance was taken against them in Complaint Case
No.1684 of 2016 and furthermore, the O.P. No.2 is not happy
with the maintenance amount of Rs.4,000/-. It is submitted
that having all such pending litigation in hand, the O.P. No.2
kept silence for long seven years and, thereafter, all of a
sudden, without having no cause of action, the present
domestic violence case was filed in the year 2023 without
explaining the delay and, therefore, the entire proceedings of
present domestic violence case, as mentioned aforesaid, is
liable to be quashed/set aside as same appears to be filed only
with oblique and ulterior motive.
7. Mr. Narain further pointed out that there is no
bar to quash the domestic violence proceedings by exercising
power under Section 482 of the CrPC in view of the legal
report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through
Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi vs. Vidhi Rawal [2025 SCC
OnLine SC 1158].
8. Per contra, Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46935 of 2024 dt.05-08-2025
6/15
senior counsel while arguing on behalf of O.P. No.2 submitted
that the whole argument of petitioners is roaming around the
maintainability of the complaint case lodged under D.V. Act,
2005 on the ground of limitation as available under Section
468 of the CrPC that same was filed after a lapse of eight
years of the alleged incident. It is submitted that the
argument is misconceived and unfounded as per the legal
provisions available under the D.V. Act, 2005 itself.
9. Explaining his submission, Mr. Sharma submitted
that only the breach of any order passed for any protection
under Section 12 of the D.V. Act constitute an offence, as it is
clear from Section 31 of the D.V. Act. It is submitted that the
limitation prescribed under Section 468 of the CrPC would
apply from the date of commission of such offence. In support
of his submissions, Mr. Sharma has relied upon the legal
report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through
Kamatchi vs. Lakshmi Narayanan [(2022) 15 SCC 50].
10. It is submitted by Mr. Sharma that petitioner
no.1 raised an issue qua legitimacy of female child born out of
their wedlock and asked for a DNA test, which was rejected by
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46935 of 2024 dt.05-08-2025
7/15
the learned trial court vide its order dated 23.03.2024. It is
pointed out that the divorce case is pending between the
parties before learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna. It
is further submitted by Mr. Sharma that there is no protection
order in this matter and the parties represented themselves
before learned trial court directed to take all endeavours for
early disposal of the case for protection as sought for. It is
submitted that the petitioner no.1 is a software engineer and
earning in lacs, drawing monthly salary about Rs. 5 lacs,
whereas daughter of O.P. No.2 is living with her, who is a
student of Class-X and also suffering from different ailments
were completely ignored by petitioner no.1 to forced them to
lead their life in destitution, and, therefore, as meager
amount of Rs. 4000/-is not sufficient to protect monetary
requirements/interest of O.P. No.2 and her daughter.
11. It would be apposite to reproduce the order
dated 31.10.2023 passed by learned A.C.J.M.-II, Danapur in
Domestic Violence Act Case No.4 of 2023, which is as under:-
“Record is fixed for order for grant of
interim maintenance of application filed on behalf
of the applicant dated 20-06-23 and its reply
dated 02-09-23 and additional reply dated 13-10-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46935 of 2024 dt.05-08-2025
8/1523.
2. It is submitted on behalf of the
petitioner that the petitioner’s marriage was
solemnized with Opposite Party No. I. Abhishek
Kumar Chandan on 07-12-2009 according to
Hindu rites and rituals at Patna, and a daughter
was born to them of this wedlock. The husband of
petitioner committed physical and mental
harassment and ousted the petitioner from their
shared household located at Bangalore. It is
further submitted that the petitioner has got no
personal income whereas, the husband of the
petitioner has got an income of at least Five lakhs
per month and is spending a luxurious life but he is
not giving even a single penny for the maintenance
of the petitioner and her daughter. Thus, it is
prayed on behalf of the petitioner to pass interim
order as the court deems just and proper.
3. Reply dated 02-09-23 and
additional reply dated 13-10-23 were filed on
behalf of the opposite parties opposing and
denying the above allegations and averments
made by the petitioner while also submitting that
the instant petitioner has also filed a maintenance
case before the Ld. Family Court, Patna in which
she has already been granted relief of
maintenance. So, it was submitted that no
question of maintenance will arise in the present
case. It was also submitted that in times of
medical as well as physical needs, when Opposite
Party No. 1 required petitioner the most, the
petitioner was not with the opposite party No. 1. It
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46935 of 2024 dt.05-08-2025
9/15was also submitted that the petitioner has tortured
the opposite parties. It was also submitted that
OP-1 has filed a divorce case before the Bangalore
court which is pending for disposal. It was also
submitted that the petitioner has filed multiple
cases in different forum, harassing the opposite
parties. It was further submitted that petitioner is
well educated and is capable of earning for her and
her daughter. It is submitted by the opposite party
that the instant petition is not maintainable and is
liable to be rejected
4. I have carefully perused the case
record along with the instant petition, rejoinder
filed by the opposing party. Domestic Incident
Report by the protection officer as well as the
declaration of assets and liabilities on affidavit in
the form of enclosure I submitted by the petitioner
and heard both parties on point of grant of interim
maintenance. On perusal it transpires that the
application was preferred by the applicant
petitioner under Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It was registered on
14-02-2023. It was received on transfer to this
court on July 02-07-2023. The Domestic Incident
Report was put on record on 25-04-2023 which
mentions that verbal and emotional misbehavior,
use of economic strength, harassment by demand
for dowry was allegedly committed upon the
petitioner. From perusal, it reveals that:
a) The petitioner and Opposite Party
No. 1 are married to each other.
b) The petitioner and respondent no. 1
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46935 of 2024 dt.05-08-2025
10/15had a daughter from this wedlock who is a minor.
c) The petitioner is currently
unemployed.
d) The petitioner along with her
daughter, is currently residing within the
jurisdiction of this court when she was not allowed
to reside at her matrimonial house.
e) The opposite parties in the rejoinder
has not made any submissions regarding giving
financial support to maintaining the petitioner
or/and her daughter since the day the petitioner is
living apart from her husband and in-laws. It was
only submitted that the petitioner is getting Rs.
4,000/- maintenance vide order of Family Court in
Maintenance case.
f) The Opposite Parties have not filed
any affidavit in support of income, rather, has not
disclosed the income of Opposite Party No. 1 in
their entire rejoinder. Under the circumstance, the
court ought to believe the income as has been filed
through affidavit by the petitioner as directed by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh V. Neha &
Anr.
g) The law regarding grant of
maintenance under different Acts has been settled
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Rajnesh V.
Neha.’ The Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajnesh V. Neha
& Anr. / Cri Appeal No. 730 of 2020 arising out of
SLP (Crl.) No. 9503 of 2018 formulated guidelines
for grant of maintenance and directed the
appellant to pay interim maintenance along with
debts to his wife and their minor child. As per the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46935 of 2024 dt.05-08-2025
11/15
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Neha Tyagi V.
Lt. Colonel Deepak Taygi [Civil Appeal No. 6332 of
2021]. Husband cannot be absolved from his
liability and responsibility to maintain his minor
child. Whatever be the dispute between the
husband and the wife, a child should not be made
to suffer. It has also been observed that the child
has the right to be maintained as per the status of
the father.
5. Thus, in light of the above facts,
circumstances, case law of Rajnesh V. Neha, and
the discussions made above, the instant petition is
allowed. It is hereby ordered that:
i. Opposite Party No. 1 will pay to the
petition an interim maintenance of Rs. 35,000/-
(thirty-five thousand rupees only) monthly to the
petitioner under all the heads cumulatively for
petitioner and their minor daughter.
ii. The petitioner is directed to provide
her bank account details to the court for
communication to the Opposite Party No. 1 for
making such payment.
iii. In light of the directions of the
Honorable Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha,
this order for interim maintenance shall be
applicable from the date on which the application
for the same was filed and shall continue till the
disposal of the instant case.
iv. The petitioner is directed to disclose
the interim maintenance granted in the instant
petition, in any subsequent proceeding of
maintenance for the adjustment of set-off.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46935 of 2024 dt.05-08-2025
12/15
6. Both parties are directed to
represent themselves properly on each and every
date and take all endeavours for early disposal of
this case and no deviations from the same would
be allowed otherwise proper order may be passed.
7. Put up on 22-11-2023 for further
proceeding.”
12. It would be further apposite to reproduce para
Nos. 17, 18, 19, 28, 29 and 30 of the legal report as available
through Kamatchi case (supra), which are as under:-
“17. It is, thus, clear that though
Section 468 of the Code mandates that
“cognizance” ought to be taken within the specified
period from the commission of offence, by invoking
the principles of purposive construction, this Court
ruled that a complainant should not be put to
prejudice, if for reasons beyond the control of the
prosecuting agency or the complainant, the
cognizance was taken after the period of limitation.
It was observed by the Constitution Bench that if
the filing of the complaint or initiation of
proceedings was within the prescribed period from
the date of commission of an offence, the Court
would be entitled to take cognizance even after the
prescribed period was over.
18. The dictum in Sarah Mathew v.
Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases , (2014) 2
SCC 62] has to be understood in light of the
situations which were dealt with by the Constitution
Bench. If a complaint was filed within the period
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46935 of 2024 dt.05-08-2025
13/15prescribed under Section 468 of the Code from the
commission of the offence but the cognizance was
taken after the expiry of such period, the terminal
point for the prescribed period for the purposes of
Section 468, was shifted from the date of taking
cognizance to the filing of the complaint or initiation
of proceedings so that a complaint ought not to be
discarded for reasons beyond the control of the
complainant or the prosecution.
19. Let us now consider the
applicability of these principles to cases under the
Act. The provisions of the Act contemplate filing of
an application under Section 12 to initiate the
proceedings before the Magistrate concerned. After
hearing both sides and after taking into account the
material on record, the Magistrate may pass an
appropriate order under Section 12 of the Act. It is
only the breach of such order which constitutes an
offence as is clear from Section 31 of the Act.
Thus, if there be any offence committed in terms of
the provisions of the Act, the limitation prescribed
under Section 468 of the Code will apply from the
date of commission of such offence. By the time an
application is preferred under Section 12 of the
Act, there is no offence committed in terms of the
provisions of the Act and as such there would never
be a starting point for limitation from the date of
application under Section 12 of the Act. Such a
starting point for limitation would arise only and
only after there is a breach of an order passed
under Section 12 of the Act.
xxx xxx xxx
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46935 of 2024 dt.05-08-2025
14/15
28. It is thus clear that the High Court
wrongly equated filing of an application under
Section 12 of the Act to lodging of a complaint or
initiation of prosecution. In our considered view,
the High Court was in error in observing that the
application under Section 12 of the Act ought to
have been filed within a period of one year of the
alleged acts of domestic violence.
29. It is, however, true that as noted
by the Protection Officer in his domestic inspection
report dated 2-8-2018, there appears to be a
period of almost 10 years after 16-9-2008, when
nothing was alleged by the appellant against the
husband. But that is a matter which will certainly
be considered by the Magistrate after response is
received from the husband and the rival
contentions are considered. That is an exercise
which has to be undertaken by the Magistrate
after considering all the factual aspects presented
before him, including whether the allegations
constitute a continuing wrong.
30. Lastly, we deal with the
submission based on the decision in Adalat Prasad
[(2004) 7 SCC 338]. The ratio in that case applies
when a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence
and issues process, in which event instead of
going back to the Magistrate, the remedy lies in
filing petition under Section 482 of the Code. The
scope of notice under Section 12 of the Act is to
call for a response from the respondent in terms
of the statute so that after considering the rival
submissions, appropriate order can be issued.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46935 of 2024 dt.05-08-2025
15/15Thus, the matter stands on a different footing and
the dictum in Adalat Prasad [(2004) 7 SCC 338]
would not get attracted at a stage when a notice is
issued under Section 12 of the Act.”
13. Taking note of the aforesaid factual and legal
discussions, as there is no cognizance order in view of Section
31(1) of the D.V. Act, 2005 in present case, the applicability
of limitation as available under Section 468 of the CrPC is not
applicable, therefore, prayer qua quashing of present
domestic violence case on the sole ground of limitation is
unfounded.
14. Accordingly, the present petition stands
dismissed being devoid of any merit.
15. However, the learned trial court is directed to
expedite the proceeding in accordance with law.
16. Let a copy of this judgment be communicated
to the learned trial court forthwith.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Sanjeet/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE 16-07-2025 Uploading Date 05-08-2025 Transmission Date 05-08-2025