IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.379 of 2009 ABHAY KUMAR, son of Rajeshwar Prasad Gupta, Resident of Village – Bahadurpur, Ward no.14, PS Gobindganj, Distt. East Champaran, Motihari, at present Graphics Institute, 203-4, New M C Market, Distt. Sirsa at Haryana ……… Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Secretary, Deptt. of Home, Government of Bihar, Patna 2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari 4. The Superintendent of Police, East Champaran at Motihari 5. The Marriage Officer, Sub-Registry Office, Chakia, District East Champaran at Motihari 6. Sri Rama Shankar Prasad son of Late Raj Banshi Prasad, Raj Studio, Arya Samaj Chowk, PS Chhatauni, Dist. East Champaran, Motihari 7. Neha Raj @ Kumari Neha Raj wife of Abhay Kumar D/o Rama Shankar Prasad, R/o Raj Studio, Arya Samaj Chowk, Chhatauni, PS Chhatauni, Dist. East Champaran, Motihari 8. Deepak Kumar 9. Neeraj Kumar Both sons of Rama Shankar Prasad and R/o Raj Studio, Arya Samaj Chowk, Chhatauni, PS Chhatauni, Distt. East Champaran, Motihari ……… Respondents ----------- 04- 10.7.2009 Heard Mr. Kali Prasan Dubey for the petitioner, learned Assistant Counsel to Government Advocate no.VI for respondent nos.1, 2 and 5, and Mr. D K Tandon for respondent nos. 6 to 9. In compliance of the order dated 3.7.2009, the petitioner, respondent no. 6, and respondent no.7, are personally present. Respondent no. 5 as well as respondent no.6 have placed on record their separate counter affidavits. 2. The petitioner claims to have married respondent no.7 under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act on 19.12.2008, before respondent no.5. It is further stated that respondent no.6, the father of respondent no.7, has confined her in his own house and is not allowing her to go to her matrimonial home. - 2 - 3. We have interviewed respondent no.7 and the petitioner, as also respondent no.5, separately and in camera. Respondent no.7 submits that she is not under illegal confinement at the instance of respondent no.6, and she is free to move about freely, though it is a fact that she is currently living with her parents at Motihari. She further states that she is currently pursuing her studies at Motihari and she wishes to pursue it further. She does not want to go with the petitioner for a different reason which we do not wish to disclose in view of the nature of the order that we are going to pass. 4. Respondent no.6 informed us that the boy is not educated, less than respondent no.7, and has criminal bent of mind. He has further stated that respondent no.7 has attained majority, is free to take her decision, and is free to move about, there being no compulsion to remain in the house, though she is currently living with him. The petitioner has stated that he is married to respondent no.7 and, therefore, respondent no.6 should be directed to permit respondent no.7 to go to her matrimonial home. 5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and also the conversation with the parties. We are not inclined to direct respondent no.7 to go with the petitioner. The parties are left to their own remedies as available to them in law including those under the Family Court Act. In view of the stand taken by respondent no.6, we wish to forewarn the petitioner not to engage himself in any unhappy or illegal step so as to rupture the peace and tranquillity of respondent - 3 - nos. 6 to 9, failing which this Court shall view it seriously. 6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) ( Jyoti Saran ) mrl