IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.193 of 2009 MOTI KUMAR SINGH @ MOTI SINGH son of Lal Babu Singh, resident of village Koylakund,P.S. Kalyanpur, District Samasitpur … … … Petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Superintendent of Police,Samastipur, District Samastipur 3. Madan Lal Agrawal son of late Chhedilal Agtrawal, resident of Mohalla Shankar Ward, Bhatapara, P.S.Bhatapara(Town), District Raipur(Chhattisgarh) 4. Vinita Kumari alias Goldy, wife of Moti Kumar Singh @ Moti Singh, daughter of Madanlal Agrawal, resident of village Koylakund, P.S. Kalyanpur, District Samastipur, at present residing at Shankar Ward, Bhatapara, P.S.Bhatapara(Town), District Raipur(Chhattisgarh) … … Respondents For the petitioner: Sshri Basant Kumar Choudhary, Sr.Adv. For the State: Shri Ritesh Kumar, A.C. to A.A.G.I - - - - 9. 30.7.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. The petitioner claims himself to be the husband of respondent no.4 Vinita Kumari alias Goldy with whom he solemnized the marriage at Deoghar and subsequently registered the marriage before the Marriage Registrar. The petitioner was working as a contractor at Chhattisgarh, fell in love with respondent no. 4 and against the wishes of her family members married with her and sworn an affidavit to that effect. Subsequently, the petitioner and respondent no.4 started residing at the village home of the petitioner Koylakund, P.S. Kalyanpur in the district of Samastipur. The parents of respondent no.4 also came at the place of the petitioner and with the consent of the 2 petitioner took away respondent no.4 for sometime with a promise that she would come back. The petitioner’s grievance is that respondent no.4 was taken by her father on 10.11.2008 and thereafter there is no contact or communication in between the petitioner and his wife except on two occasions when through mobile phone number of some other persons respondent no.4 informed the petitioner regarding the intention of her parents to terminate her pregnancy and also the planning of killing him. This Habeas Corpus application has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to respondent no.3 to produce respondent no.4 who happens to be the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. In the writ application itself the petitioner has disclosed that he has already taken legal recourse before the Family Court by filing Matrimonial Case No.174 of 2008 for restitution of his conjugal life in which notices have been issued to his wife but till date she has not appeared therein. We do not feel inclined to interfere in the matter Since the facts of the case indicate that instead of being a case of illegal confinement, it is a case of matrimonial disputes and the petitioner has already approached the appropriate forum by filing a Matrimonial case for restitution of conjugal rights. In case the notices are not received by the wife of the petitioner, who is defendant in the Matrimonial case, the petitioner can take all recourse for service of notice to respondent no.4, as provided under law. The Family Court can also pass ex parte order in 3 favour of the petitioner considering the facts and the circumstances of the case. Petitioner has remedy available for execution of decree, in case a decree being passed in his favour. In view of the aforesaid facts, we do not find any reason to interfere in the matter. The writ application is dismissed. Kanth ( Mridula Mishra, J.) ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)