[ad_1]
Patna High Court
Mrs. Garima Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 22 April, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20583 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2021 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
1. MRS. GARIMA SINGH Wife of Yatendra Nath Singh R/o Pandit Deen
Dayal Upadhyay Nagar Arjuganj, Distt.- Lucknow, P.O. and P.S.- Arjunganj,
Uttar Pradesh, Pin Code - 226002.
2. Rahul @ Shakti Bhan Singh @ Rahul Singh Son of Late Rana Pratap Singh
R/o 285/241, Karehata, P.O.- Aishbagh, P.S.- Rajendra Nagar, Distt.-
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, Pin Code - 226004.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Mrs. Gayan Bharti @ Nikki Singh Wife of Himalaya Singh D/o Narendra
Kumar Singh, R/o Village - Akodi, P.O. and P.S.- Ramgardh, Bhabua
(Kaimur), P.S.- Kaimur, Bihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 20638 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2021 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
1. Himalya Singh S/o Rana Pratap Singh R/o Vill.- Khesara No. 884, Sai Data
Road Pushp Sadan, P.S. Sushant Golf city (Arjunganj), PO Arjunganj, Dist.-
Lucknow (Uttar Pradesh).
2. Pushpa Singh W/o Late Rana Pratap Singh R/o Vill.- Khesara No. 884, Sai
Data Road Pushp Sadan, P.S. Sushant Golf city (Arjunganj), PO Arjunganj,
Dist.- Lucknow (Uttar Pradesh).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Mrs. Gayan Bharti @ Nikki W/o Himalaya Singh, D/o Narendra Kumar
Singh R/o -Village Akodi, P.O. and P.S. - Ramgardh, Kaimur at Bhabhua,
District- Kaimur,
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 20583 of 2023)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashutosh Nath, Adv.
Mr. Amritanshu Dangi, Adv.
Ms. Aarohi M, Adv.
Mr. Amit Bhaskar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, APP
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 20638 of 2025)
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20583 of 2023 dt.22-04-2025
2/18
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashutosh Nath, Adv.
Mr. Amritanshu Dangi, Adv.
Ms. Aarohi M, Adv.
Mr. Amit Bhaskar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Nirala, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 22-04-2025
CR. MISC. No. 20583 of 2023
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the parties.
2. Present petition is being filed on behalf of
the petitioners for quashing of order dated 04.01.2023,
as passed by learned Addl. Distt & Session Judge - I Cum
Special Judge, Kaimur at Bhabhua in Sessions Trial No.
258/2022, Mahila P.S. Case No. 20 of 2021, where the
learned court below rejected the discharge petition of the
petitioners, preferred under section 227 of the Cr.P.C.
3. As per case of prosecution, the marriage of
the brother of the petitioners with respondent no. 2 was
solemnized on 08.03.2019 at Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
Thereafter, within two years, the said marriage entered
into rough waters and the tensions in the family escalated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20583 of 2023 dt.22-04-2025
3/18
to such a level that, the mother-in-law of the O.P. no. 2
lodged an FIR no. 81 of2021 dated 21.02.2021 in P.S.
Sushant Golf City, Lucknow, against the O.P. no. 2.
Thereafter, the brother of the petitioners filed a
matrimonial case seeking divorce from O.P. no. 2, vide
matrimonial case number 768 of 2021, filed under
section 13(1)(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, before the
court of learned Principal Judge Family Courts, Lucknow,
Uttar Pradesh on 02.03.2021. That O.P. no. 2, in
retaliation and counter blast to the aforeesaid divorce
petition, filed a written complaint before the Mahila
Thana, Kaimur at Bhabhua.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioners that matter appears compromised between the
parties against the permanent alimony of Rs.
25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakh). In this context,
it is submitted that marriage of parties also stands
dissolved by way of mutual divorce through Matrimonial
Suit No. 30 of 2025 dated 27.01.2025, where by the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20583 of 2023 dt.22-04-2025
4/18
judgment of learned Principal Judge cum, Family Court,
Kaimur (Bhabhua), the marriage between the parties
declared dissolved. It is submitted that from the said
judgment it transpires that O.P. No. 2 already received
permanent alimony of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty
Five Lakh) and in aforesaid fact, continuing of the present
proceedings before court below would only amount to
abuse of the process of the Court of law and, therefore,
same be quashed/set aside. In support of his submission
learned counsel relied upon the legal report of Hon'ble
Supreme Court as available through Abhishek vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh as reported in 2023 SCC OnLine
SC 1083.
5. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 also
supported the submission as advanced by learned counsel
for petitioner that the parties resolved their dispute and
differences, amicably.
6. In view of aforesaid, it would be apposite to
reproduce Paragraph Nos. 12, 13, 14 ,15, 16 & 17 of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20583 of 2023 dt.22-04-2025
5/18
Abhishek case (supra), which read as:-
12. The contours of the power to quash
criminal proceedings under Section 482
Cr.P.C. are well defined. In V. Ravi Kumar v.
State represented by Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch, Salem, Tamil Nadu
[(2019) 14 SCC 568], this Court affirmed that
where an accused seeks quashing of the FIR,
invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High
Court, it is wholly impermissible for the High
Court to enter into the factual arena to
adjudge the correctness of the allegations in
the complaint. In Neeharika Infrastructure (P).
Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Appeal
No. 330 of 2021, decided on 13.04.2021], a
3-Judge Bench of this Court elaborately
considered the scope and extent of the power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was observed
that the power of quashing should be exercised
sparingly, with circumspection and in the
rarest of rare cases, such standard not being
confused with the norm formulated in the
context of the death penalty. It was further
observed that while examining the
FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought,
the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to
the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of
the allegations made therein, but if the Court
thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters
of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by
law, and more particularly, the parameters laid
down by this Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of
Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866) and State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [(1992) Supp (1) SCC
335], the Court would have jurisdiction to
quash the FIR/complaint.
13. Instances of a husband's family members
filing a petition to quash criminal proceedings
launched against them by his wife in the midst
of matrimonial disputes are neither a rarity nor
of recent origin. Precedents aplenty abound on
this score. We may now take note of some
decisions of particular relevance. Recently, in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20583 of 2023 dt.22-04-2025
6/18
Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State of
Bihar [(2022) 6 SCC 599], this Court had
occasion to deal with a similar situation where
the High Court had refused to quash a FIR
registered for various offences, including
Section 498A IPC. Noting that the foremost
issue that required determination was whether
allegations made against the in-laws were
general omnibus allegations which would be
liable to be quashed, this Court referred to
earlier decisions wherein concern was
expressed over the misuse of Section 498A
IPC and the increased tendency to implicate
relatives of the husband in matrimonial
disputes. This Court observed that false
implications by way of general omnibus
allegations made in the course of matrimonial
disputes, if left unchecked, would result in
misuse of the process of law. On the facts of
that case, it was found that no specific
allegations were made against the in-laws by
the wife and it was held that allowing their
prosecution in the absence of clear allegations
against the in-laws would result in an abuse of
the process of law. It was also noted that a
criminal trial, leading to an eventual acquittal,
would inflict severe scars upon the accused
and such an exercise ought to be discouraged.
14. In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand
[(2010) 7 SCC 667], this Court noted that the
tendency to implicate the husband and all his
immediate relations is also not uncommon in
complaints filed under Section 498A IPC. It
was observed that the Courts have to be
extremely careful and cautious in dealing with
these complaints and must take pragmatic
realities into consideration while dealing with
matrimonial cases, as allegations of
harassment by husband's close relations, who
were living in different cities and never visited
or rarely visited the place where the
complainant resided, would add an entirely
different complexion and such allegations
would have to be scrutinised with great care
and circumspection.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20583 of 2023 dt.22-04-2025
7/18
15. Earlier, in Neelu Chopra v. Bharti [(2009)
10 SCC 184], this Court observed that the
mere mention of statutory provisions and the
language thereof, for lodging a complaint, is
not the 'be all and end all' of the matter, as
what is required to be brought to the notice of
the Court is the particulars of the offence
committed by each and every accused and the
role played by each and every accused in the
commission of that offence. These
observations were made in the context of a
matrimonial dispute involving Section 498A
IPC.
16. Of more recent origin is the decision of
this Court in Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P.
(Criminal Appeal No. 2341 of 2023, decided
on 08.08.2023) on the legal principles
applicable apropos Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Therein, it was observed that when an accused
comes before the High Court, invoking either
the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
or the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution, to get the FIR or the
criminal proceedings quashed, essentially on
the ground that such proceedings are
manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted
with the ulterior motive of wreaking
vengeance, then in such circumstances, the
High Court owes a duty to look into the FIR
with care and a little more closely. It was
further observed that it will not be enough for
the Court to look into the averments made in
the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of
ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients
to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed
or not as, in frivolous or vexatious
proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into
many other attending circumstances emerging
from the record of the case over and above the
averments and, if need be, with due care and
circumspection, to try and read between the
lines.
17. In Bhajan Lal (supra), this Court had set
out, by way of illustration, the broad categories
of cases in which the inherent power under
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20583 of 2023 dt.22-04-2025
8/18
Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised. Para
102 of the decision reads as follows:
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of
the various relevant provisions of the Code
under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law
enunciated by this Court in a series of
decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power under Article 226 or the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the
Code which we have extracted and reproduced
above, we give the following categories of
cases by way of illustration wherein such
power could be exercised either to prevent
abuse of the process of any court or otherwise
to secure the ends of justice, though it may not
be possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelised and
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to
give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases
wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if
they are taken at their face value and accepted
in their entirety do not prima facie constitute
any offence or make out a case against the
accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first informant
report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the FIR do not disclose a
cognizable offence, justifying an investigation
by police officers under Section 156(1) of the
Code except under an order of a Magistrate
within the purview of Section 155(2) of the
Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations
made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence
collected in support of the same do not
disclose the commission of any offence and
make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute
only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation
is permitted by a police officer without an order
of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section
155(2) of the Code.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20583 of 2023 dt.22-04-2025
9/18
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
persons can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code
or the concerned Act (under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where
there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress
for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge."
7. In view of aforesaid factual and legal submissions
as parties resolved their disputes and differences amicably,
where their marriage stands dissolved under mutual consent,
in view of Section 13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 against
the permanent alimony of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Five Lakh), which already appears received by
O.P. No. 2, accordingly, by taking a guiding legal note of
Abhishek case (supra), order dated 04.01.2023 as
passed in Sessions Trial No. 258/2022, Mahila P.S. Case
No. 20 of 2021 by learned Addl. Distt & Session Judge -
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20583 of 2023 dt.22-04-2025
10/18
I Cum Special Judge, Kaimur at Bhabhua is hereby
quashed/set aside qua petitioners, with all its consequential
proceedings.
8. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed.
9. Let a copy of the judgment be sent to the
learned trial court forthwith.
CR. MISC. No. 20638 of 2025
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the parties.
2. Present petition is being filed on behalf of
the petitioner for quashing of order dated 26.04.2022 as
passed in Mahila P.S. Case No. 20 of 2021 by learned
SDJM, Kaimur at Bhabhua, through which cognizance
against petitioner was taken for offence permissible under
Section 498A, 313, 406/34 of IPC and ¾ of the Dowry
Act.
3. As per case of prosecution, the marriage of
the petitioner no. 1 with respondent no. 2 was solemnized
on 08.03.2019 at Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. Thereafter,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20583 of 2023 dt.22-04-2025
11/18
within two years, the said marriage entered into rough
waters and the tensions in the family escalated to such a
level that, the mother-in-law of the O.P. no. 2 lodged an
FIR no. 81 of2021 dated 21.02.2021 in P.S. Sushant
Golf City, Lucknow, against the O.P. no. 2. Thereafter,
petitioner no. 1 filed a matrimonial case seeking divorce
from O.P. no. 2, vide matrimonial case number 768 of
2021, filed under section 13(1)(i)(a) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, before the court of learned Principal Judge
Family Courts, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh on 02.03.2021.
That O.P. no. 2, in retaliation and counter blast to the
aforesaid divorce petition, filed a written complaint before
the Mahila Thana, Kaimur at Bhabhua.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioners that matter appears compromised between the
parties against the permanent alimony of Rs.
25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakh). In this context,
it is submitted that marriage of parties also stands
dissolved by way of mutual divorce through Matrimonial
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20583 of 2023 dt.22-04-2025
12/18
Suit No. 30 of 2025 dated 27.01.2025, where by the
judgment of learned Principal Judge cum, Family Court,
Kaimur (Bhabhua), the marriage between the parties
declared dissolved. It is submitted that from the said
judgment it transpires that O.P. No. 2 already received
permanent alimony of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty
Five Lakh) and in aforesaid fact, continuing of the present
proceedings before court below would only amount to
abuse of the process of the Court of law and, therefore,
same be quashed/set aside. In support of his submission
learned counsel relied upon the legal report of Hon'ble
Supreme Court as available through Abhishek vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh as reported in 2023 SCC OnLine
SC 1083.
5. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 also
supported the submission as advanced by learned counsel
for petitioner that the parties resolved their dispute and
differences, amicably.
6. In view of aforesaid, it would be apposite to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20583 of 2023 dt.22-04-2025
13/18
reproduce Paragraph Nos. 12, 13, 14 ,15, 16 & 17 of
Abhishek case (supra), which read as:-
12. The contours of the power to quash
criminal proceedings under Section 482
Cr.P.C. are well defined. In V. Ravi Kumar v.
State represented by Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch, Salem, Tamil Nadu
[(2019) 14 SCC 568], this Court affirmed that
where an accused seeks quashing of the FIR,
invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High
Court, it is wholly impermissible for the High
Court to enter into the factual arena to
adjudge the correctness of the allegations in
the complaint. In Neeharika Infrastructure (P).
Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Appeal
No. 330 of 2021, decided on 13.04.2021], a
3-Judge Bench of this Court elaborately
considered the scope and extent of the power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was observed
that the power of quashing should be exercised
sparingly, with circumspection and in the
rarest of rare cases, such standard not being
confused with the norm formulated in the
context of the death penalty. It was further
observed that while examining the
FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought,
the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to
the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of
the allegations made therein, but if the Court
thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters
of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by
law, and more particularly, the parameters laid
down by this Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of
Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866) and State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [(1992) Supp (1) SCC
335], the Court would have jurisdiction to
quash the FIR/complaint.
13. Instances of a husband's family members
filing a petition to quash criminal proceedings
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20583 of 2023 dt.22-04-2025
14/18
launched against them by his wife in the midst
of matrimonial disputes are neither a rarity nor
of recent origin. Precedents aplenty abound on
this score. We may now take note of some
decisions of particular relevance. Recently, in
Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State of
Bihar [(2022) 6 SCC 599], this Court had
occasion to deal with a similar situation where
the High Court had refused to quash a FIR
registered for various offences, including
Section 498A IPC. Noting that the foremost
issue that required determination was whether
allegations made against the in-laws were
general omnibus allegations which would be
liable to be quashed, this Court referred to
earlier decisions wherein concern was
expressed over the misuse of Section 498A
IPC and the increased tendency to implicate
relatives of the husband in matrimonial
disputes. This Court observed that false
implications by way of general omnibus
allegations made in the course of matrimonial
disputes, if left unchecked, would result in
misuse of the process of law. On the facts of
that case, it was found that no specific
allegations were made against the in-laws by
the wife and it was held that allowing their
prosecution in the absence of clear allegations
against the in-laws would result in an abuse of
the process of law. It was also noted that a
criminal trial, leading to an eventual acquittal,
would inflict severe scars upon the accused
and such an exercise ought to be discouraged.
14. In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand
[(2010) 7 SCC 667], this Court noted that the
tendency to implicate the husband and all his
immediate relations is also not uncommon in
complaints filed under Section 498A IPC. It
was observed that the Courts have to be
extremely careful and cautious in dealing with
these complaints and must take pragmatic
realities into consideration while dealing with
matrimonial cases, as allegations of
harassment by husband's close relations, who
were living in different cities and never visited
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20583 of 2023 dt.22-04-2025
15/18
or rarely visited the place where the
complainant resided, would add an entirely
different complexion and such allegations
would have to be scrutinised with great care
and circumspection.
15. Earlier, in Neelu Chopra v. Bharti [(2009)
10 SCC 184], this Court observed that the
mere mention of statutory provisions and the
language thereof, for lodging a complaint, is
not the 'be all and end all' of the matter, as
what is required to be brought to the notice of
the Court is the particulars of the offence
committed by each and every accused and the
role played by each and every accused in the
commission of that offence. These
observations were made in the context of a
matrimonial dispute involving Section 498A
IPC.
16. Of more recent origin is the decision of
this Court in Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P.
(Criminal Appeal No. 2341 of 2023, decided
on 08.08.2023) on the legal principles
applicable apropos Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Therein, it was observed that when an accused
comes before the High Court, invoking either
the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
or the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution, to get the FIR or the
criminal proceedings quashed, essentially on
the ground that such proceedings are
manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted
with the ulterior motive of wreaking
vengeance, then in such circumstances, the
High Court owes a duty to look into the FIR
with care and a little more closely. It was
further observed that it will not be enough for
the Court to look into the averments made in
the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of
ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients
to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed
or not as, in frivolous or vexatious
proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into
many other attending circumstances emerging
from the record of the case over and above the
averments and, if need be, with due care and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20583 of 2023 dt.22-04-2025
16/18
circumspection, to try and read between the
lines.
17. In Bhajan Lal (supra), this Court had set
out, by way of illustration, the broad categories
of cases in which the inherent power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised. Para
102 of the decision reads as follows:
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of
the various relevant provisions of the Code
under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law
enunciated by this Court in a series of
decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power under Article 226 or the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the
Code which we have extracted and reproduced
above, we give the following categories of
cases by way of illustration wherein such
power could be exercised either to prevent
abuse of the process of any court or otherwise
to secure the ends of justice, though it may not
be possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelised and
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to
give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases
wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if
they are taken at their face value and accepted
in their entirety do not prima facie constitute
any offence or make out a case against the
accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first informant
report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the FIR do not disclose a
cognizable offence, justifying an investigation
by police officers under Section 156(1) of the
Code except under an order of a Magistrate
within the purview of Section 155(2) of the
Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations
made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence
collected in support of the same do not
disclose the commission of any offence and
make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20583 of 2023 dt.22-04-2025
17/18
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute
only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation
is permitted by a police officer without an order
of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section
155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
persons can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code
or the concerned Act (under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where
there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress
for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge."
7. In view of aforesaid factual and legal
submissions as parties resolved their disputes and differences
amicably, where their marriage stands dissolved under mutual
consent, in view of Section 13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act,
1956 against the permanent alimony of Rs. 25,00,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Lakh), which already appears
received by O.P. No. 2, accordingly, by taking a guiding
legal note of Abhishek case (supra), order dated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20583 of 2023 dt.22-04-2025
18/18
26.04.2022
as passed in Mahila P.S. Case No. 20 of
2021 by learned SDJM, Kaimur at Bhabhua is hereby
quashed/set aside qua petitioners, with all its consequential
proceedings.
8. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed.
9. Let a copy of the judgment be sent to the
learned trial court forthwith.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Sudha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 22.04.2025 Transmission Date 22.04.2025
[ad_2]
Source link