IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.72 of 2010 PINAKI RANJAN DUTTA, S/O SAMAR NATH DUTT, R/O 10C COLONY, QR. NO. E/2/188, BEGUSARAI, PO- BEGUSARAI, P.S BARAUNI, DISTT- BEGUSARAI (BIHAR) ----------- Appellant Versus SMT. ARUNDHATI DUTTA, W/O SHRI PINAKI RANJAN DUTTA, D/O SRI TAPAN KUMAR GHOSH, R/O RADHANAGAR ROAD, P.O- BURNPUR, P.S- HIRAPUR, DISTT- BURDWAN. ------------ Respondent ----------- For the Appellant :- Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Adv. Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Mishra, Adv. For the Respondent :- Mr. L.N. Das, Adv. Mr. Anish Chandra Singh, Adv. ----------- 3 9.2.2010 Heard the parties. By the judgment under appeal dated 4.1.2010, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna has dismissed the Matrimonial Case No. 396 of 2009 preferred by the appellant for a decree for restitution of his conjugal rights with his wife, the respondent. The ground for dismissing the appeal claimed are apparent from discussions made in paragraph no.22 of the impugned order wherefrom it is clear that prior to filing of the present matrimonial case, the respondent had filed a criminal case under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code and she has shown that she had to 2 take police help to come out of the house of the appellant where she was feeling threat. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, such allegations were not sufficient justification for the respondent not to live with the appellant and decree for restitution of conjugal rights should not have been disallowed. It was further submitted that the findings are the source of worry for the appellant and he will feel difficulty in living with such allegations and the findings may have adverse effect on the trial of the criminal case as also the divorce suit admittedly filed by the respondent in the court below and bears Matrimonial Case No. 705/2009. It is surprising for this Court to notice that the family court has proceeded to deal with differences between the husband and the wife in a piecemeal manner. It should have made efforts to consider the entire dispute between the parties and should have tried the divorce case also along with the present case because under the scheme of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 while Section-9 provides for restitution of conjugal rights, Section-10 contains provision for judicial separation which can be demanded by either 3 party to a marriage and the same is followed by Section-13 which provides for divorce at the instance of any aggrieved party. In such scheme of things, it is very difficult to consider in isolation the claim for restitution of conjugal rights while keeping in abeyance another claim for divorce. Now, we would request the court below to take the case for divorce expeditiously and decide the same in accordance with law without being affected by the issue of jurisdiction because earlier this Court has already allowed the Family Court, Patna to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. Considering all the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the matter does not require any interference. However, to allay the apprehension expressed on behalf of the appellant, we clarify that the findings given by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court for not allowing the claim for restitution of conjugal right shall not have any prejudicial effect upon the trial of the criminal case and in fact if the suit for divorce is decided as per wishes of the respondent who has preferred that suit then the criminal trial itself will loose much value. Mr. Dikshit, learned counsel for the appellant is 4 expected to convey to his client about the pendency of the divorce case so that if he chooses to contest the same, he may appear in that case within a period of four weeks from today. The appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. Rishi (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)