IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.29103 of 2008 SHIV KUMAR YATTI Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 4.8.2008 Heard. After having been married for about l5 years the petitioner has separated from his wife, who alleged that the petitioner repeatedly tortured and assaulted her merely for the reasons that she could not fulfill demand of Maruti car to be brought from her parents. Another important feature of the case is that the couple have two sons: one son in 1992 and other in 1995. The above event could convince any one even a person not literate in law and logic that the relationship could not have been bad so as to begetting children. Now the lady had filed a complaint petition and the husband had approached the Principal Judge, Family court, Motihari with various allegations. Some of the admitted facts arising out from the rejection order are that the lady is getting monthly alimony at Rs 4200/- in addition to getting the cost of litigation at the rate of Rs 1000/ month filed by the petitioner before the Family court. The counter affidavit filed by the complainant to resist some of the issues raised by the petitioner indicated - 2 - that the petitioner had approached this court for an order under section 438 Cr.P.C. in his favour so that he could enjoy his liberty and a Bench of this court granted him provisional bail while issuing notice to the complainant for striking reconciliation between the parties. The record of the order passed in Cr. Misc. no. 36360/07 indicated as if the petitioner was not ready to keep opposite party no.2, i.e., the complainant with him and as such provisional bail granted to the petitioner in the above petition was cancelled and the petitioner was directed to surrender himself to the court below. Now the petitioner is in custody since 20th June,2008. The additional ground for resisting present prayer contended by the learned counsel for the complainant is that her husband has married another lady and that the fact has been recorded by the Principal Judge, Family court, Motihari. Besides, the court of competent jurisdiction has also summoned the petitioner for the offence under section 494 IPC. It is contended that the petitioner is hellbent to get rid of the lady so as to enjoy the new company which the petitioner has of another lady. - 3 - These are facts. The spouses are throwing allegations on each other so as to make out their own case. This court could not controvert those facts inasmuch as the matter is pending consideration by the competent court. As regards some of the admitted facts I have already enumerated at the very outset that (1) after 15 years of being married the petitioner is at cross roads faced with different litigations brought by his wife. In spite of getting two sons the couple could not learn how to live together and probably they are pushed by their behavior to different litigations. They are living separately, as per petitioner since nine long years and the lady also does not appear disputing this situation. The petitioner is in custody in spite of paying maintenance and cost of litigation to the lady. The facts above go to show as indicated above that a man could not be confined in custody as long a period as trial could not be concluded, let the petitioner Shiv Kumar Yatti, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Motihari in Complaint Case no. 2120/06. shahid (Dharnidhar Jha,J) - 4 -