IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.31633 of 2008 JANARDAN VISHWAKARMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02/ 20.08.2008 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the informant and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The case comes through the brother of the lady, who was undisputedly married to the petitioner and there is no dispute in it also that the lady was mentally sick. The allegation is that for not bringing Rs.1,00,000/- as additional dowry, the lady was ill-treated and tortured. Ultimately, she was turned out of the matrimonial house. The petition of complaint appears filed sometimes in 2008 and it appears that the complaint was sent under Section 156(3) and accordingly, the FIR was drawn up by the police. There is some dispute on the filing of the complaint petition and any court could gather from perusal of the copies of the complaint petition, which is one of the annexures to the petition that prior to the presentation of the complaint petition for bringing the petitioner into dock, of course, right in the year, 2008, the same was drafted in 2006, inasmuch as, the number - 2 - of complaint petition bears 2006. That apart the predicament of the petitioner appears very serious, a petition was filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the petitioner seeking a decree of restitution of his conjugal rights from the Family Court. The lady appeared in that petition and filed a petition in Family Court (Annexure–2). The Family court has recorded that the lady appeared on 11.7.2006 before it and made a statement that she was not at all ready to live with the petitioner, not because the petitioner was ill-treating or torturing her, but because she did not find any reason for that and further that the petitioner had been very kind and respectful to her by taking her to different doctors as also to hospitals and institutions for treatment of her psychiatric ailment and she recovered a lot but she did not establish any physical relationship with the petitioner. The mother of the lady was also present on that date in the Family Court and she, time and again, pointed out to the learned Principal Judge that she was not ready to take back her daughter to her house. Lastly, it was the petitioner who was directed by the Family Court to take the lady back, get her treated by a psychiatric doctor and submit a report on the next date and accordingly, the petitioner - 3 - appeared and filed a report and took the lady again back to his house as it appears from the order of the next date, i.e., 10.8.2006. This could be the conduct of the petitioner, whereas complaint petition alleges allegations against the petitioner. Fact of the matter is that the petitioner got her treated and the lady refused in court to live with the petitioner, as may appear from the order of the learned Principal Judge. The court thinks that by not releasing the petitioner the court will be putting a spanner in the order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court. In the light of the above facts, let petitioner Janardan Vishwakarma be released from custody on furnishing a personal recognition bond of Rs. 500/- (five thousand) only without any surety to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in connection with Belaganj P.S. Case No. 79 of 2008. A copy of this order shall also be transmitted to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gaya so that he could try making efforts as he has done earlier in the matter, so that the lady is rehabilitated and the man has also the peace of mind. DKS/ (Dharnidhar Jha,J)