IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.677 of 2009 SUNDERIA DEVI Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, HOME, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR 3. THE DGP, BIHAR 4. DIG, BMP 14, BIHAR 5. THE COMMANDANT, BMP 14 AND 6. SRI MADHUSUDAN RAI, HAVALDAR, BMP 14, PATNA. ----------- 2. 25.06.2010. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has come to this Court for a direction to respondents to initiate departmental proceeding against respondent no.6, who being posted as a Havildar in BMP 14, Bihar, Patna married her in 1985, suppressing the fact that he had already married one Shanti Devi, having a son and a daughter out of the said wedlock. The petitioner submits that subsequently she came to learn that respondent no.6 was married earlier and was having 3 children from the wedlock. The first wife of the petitioner is still alive and as such respondent no.6 is liable to be prosecuted for contracting second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage. The petitioner submits that she has 8 children from the marriage. The State has filed counter affidavit. It is submitted that petitioner had made a complaint before the Commandant of the B.M.P. earlier in this regard. The state counsel further submits that when the petitioner was asked to justify her version, she filed another petition stating that the allegations against respondent no.6 - 2 - are false and she does not have any relationship with him. Copy of the representation filed by her has been annexed as annexure A to the counter affidavit. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was married in the year 1985. In between she had filed different applications which are divergent of each other. Furthermore the petitioner was aware of the earlier marriage long before. She has filed this writ petition after 24 years of marriage. In view of the above, no positive direction can be given to respondents in respect of petitioner’s grievances. However, if advised, she would be at liberty to file maintenance case for herself and the children. It is expected that the learned Principal judge, Family Court, Patna would expedite the hearing of Maintenance case without giving undue adjournments and pass orders at the earliest. The petitioner is also at liberty to pursue any other remedy available to her in law. The writ petition stands disposed of. Shashi. (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J.)