IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.1010 of 2008 DINESH DAS Son of Bino Das,resident of village Godhiyari, P.S. Bakhtiyarpur, District Saharsa. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Koshi Range, Saharsa. 5. The Superintendent of Police Saharsa. 6. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Saharsa. 7. Officer-in-charge, Saharsa Police Station, District Saharsa. 8. Officer-in-charge, Simri Bakhtiyarpur Police Station District Saharsa. 9. The District Magistrate, Saharsa. 10. The Sub Divisional Officer, Saharsa. 11. Kedar Das @ Kailu Das Son of Late Subhag Das, resident of Mohalla Pashupalan Colony, Ward No. 1, P.S. & District Saharsa. 12. Smt. Amla Devi, wife of Kedar Das, resident of Mohalla Pashupalan Colony, Ward No. 1, P.S. & District Saharsa. 13. Smt. Punita Devi, Daughter of Kedar Das and Wife of Dinesh Das, resident of Village Godhiyari, P.S. Bakhtiyarpur, District Saharsa, presently residing with her father Kedar Das, resident of Mohalla Pashupalan Colony, Ward no. 1, P.S. & District Saharsa. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr Arbind Kumar. For the Respondents 1 to 10 : Mr. Amitabh Bhardwaj, J.C. to S.C. XXI ------------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------------ Dated, the 07th November, 2008. - 2 - The petitioner claims to be the husband of Punita Devi (respondent no. 13). Kedar Das and Amla Devi (respondent nos. 11 and 12) are father and mother respectively of Punita Devi. According to the petitioner, Punita Devi has been kept in wrongful confinement by their parents. He has, therefore, prayed that respondent nos. 11 and 12 be directed to hand over respondent no. 13- Punita Devi to him. 2. From the material that has been placed by the petitioner on record, it transpires that the petitioner has already filed a matrimonial case being Matrimonial Case No. 4 of 2007 before the Family Court, Saharsa for restitution of conjugal rights. 3. Since a civil dispute is already pending before the Family Court, we do not find any justification in entertaining this writ petition. 4. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J AMIN/-