IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.1093 of 2009 MANISH KUMAR BHANDARI S/O SRI PRABHAT BHANDARI, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- JANGLI MAI COLONY, MITHANPURA, POST OFFICE RAMANA POLICE STATION- MITHANPURA, NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, TOWN AND DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR, STATE-BIHAR ---- PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. PRINCIPAL HOME SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA. 5. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MUZAFFARPUR. 6. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SITAMARHI. 7. OFFICER-INCHARGE, MITHANPURA POLICE STATION, TOWN AND DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR. 8. SMT. NITU MEHTA @ GURIYA, WIFE OF MANISH KUMAR BHANDARI ( THE PETITIONER), DAUGHTER OF SHRI ARUN KUMAR MEHTA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- LOHAPATTI, INFRONT OF BALTI FACTORY, POST OFFICE, G.P.O. SITAMARHI, POLICE STATION-SITAMARHI TOWN, TOWN AND DISTRICT SITAMARHI. 9. SHRI ARUN KUMAR MEHTA, SON OF NAME NOT KNOWN, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- LOHAPATTI, INFRONT OF BALTI FACTORY, POST OFFICE- G.P.O., SITAMARHI, POLICE STATION- SITAMARHI TOWN, TOWN AND DISTRICT- SITAMARHI. AT PRESENT, HE IS WORKING IN THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, MAIN/ MEHPOL ROAD, TOWN AND DISTRICT- SITAMARHI. ---- RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02 11.01.2010 Heard Mr. Shyam Kishore Sinha for the petitioner, Mr. Sashi Shekhar, Assitant Counsel to Standing Counsel no.20. The writ petition has been preferred for a writ of Habeas Corpus for production of respondent no.8, alleging that she is his legally wedded wife who has returned to her father’s place. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that for reasons not discernible from the limited 2 materials before us, respondent no.8, the allegedly wife of the petitioner, has deserted her matrimonial home, and has gone back to her father’s place. It is further alleged that she is not returning to her matrimonial home in spite of repeated approaches and persuasion. It appears that the petitioner has rushed to this Court without exhausting the remedy available to him under the Family Courts Act. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed on the ground of its maintainability. It goes without saying that it will be open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievances. The present order should not be treated to be an expression or the views of this Court at all on the merits of the matter. Sym/ (S.K.Katriar,J.) (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)