IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.46225 of 2008 SUNIL SINGH Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Suman Devi ----------- 2. 18.12.2008 Heard Mr. Sanat Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dashrath Mehta, learned A.P.P. The petitioner is the husband of the informant and the informant was married to the petitioner on 31.5.2004 and after about a week the petitioner started torturing the lady. There was intervention from the side of the parents of the lady. The parties sat together on 3.6. 2007 but there could not be any solution to the aggravated problem. Ultimately the F.I.R. was lodged just a week after the parents of the lady had failed. I could bring about one circumstance which has been highlighted by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, in para-4 of his order that the lady was tortured to the extent that she was being branded as having no female traits of being a female. A Medical Board was formed and the lady was examined by the Board which ultimately certified her to be bestowed with all features and characters of being a lady. If a husband could go to this extent of making unfounded allegation about the very physiological traits of a lady and force her to appear before a Medical Board so that her privacy is encroached by many persons, there could not be a worse torture than that. Now that the petitioner is in custody and he appears having a bleeding heart. He says that he is ready to take back the lady. I am - 2 - not inclined to give any direction as the ultimate proposal is coming from the petitioner only because he wants getting out of jail. I am not fascinated by that proposal. The petition is dismissed. The doors of the Magistrate’s courts shall always be open for any husband of such cases to approach the Magistrate with any prayer, may be of reunion also and the Court believes that no Magistrate is insensitive and unreasonable to refuse such prayer, but if he could repose him faith in such a husband. sudip ( Dharnidhar Jha,J )