IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.337 of 2010 GITA DEVI Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 15 20.9.2010 The petitioner, who is an old lady aged about 75 years, command the respondents to allow free excess to her husband, her deserted daughter living at Patna and other well wishers without any obstruction from any persons including respondent nos.9 and 10 who happens to be her own son and daughter-in-law. She alleges that respondent nos.9 and 10 are threatening that they would stop her maintenance and eve life savings drugs. The petitioner states that she was married to Kasi Prasad Modi, father of respondent no.9 in 1946-47. She states that respondent nos.9 and 10 are not allowing free excess to her choice and they planted some gazette to monitor the visitors. The petitioner has even lodged a complaint with Human Rights Commission who after hearing the parties directed the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Patna to take immediate steps either himself or through a responsible person preferably a lady officer to enquire into the matter if the allegations are true and to take an appropriate action for protecting and violating the human rights. A bench of this court by order dated 22.4.2010 issued notice to respondent nos.9 and 10 and further gave liberty to the petitioner to file a petition about ill treatment before the Dy. Superintendent of Police (Town) who will forward his findings to the State counsel for filing counter affidavit. The Dy. Superintendent of Police (Town) was further directed to make necessary arrangement for meeting her relatives. On 13.7.2010 an Interlocutory Application bearing I.A. No.1050 of 2010 2 has been filed on behalf of Kasi Prasad Modi, the husband of the petitioner, to be impleaded as party respondent which was allowed by order dated 13.7.2010 and Kasi Prasad Modi was arrayed as respondent no.11. Counsel for respondent nos.9 and 10 submits that Kasi Prasad Modi does not want to meet his wife, the petitioner whereupon counsel for the petitioner submits that this court may ascertain his view of while hearing him in person in chamber. On 15.7.2010 Kasi Prasad Modi, who seemed to be aged around 80 years appeared in person. The petitioner too also suo moto appeared in person. Kasi Prasad Modi denied the allegation that his son and daughter-in-law are not allowing him to meet the petitioner and others. He states that he does not want to interact with his wife. Kasi Prasad Modi also made similar statements in his application. On the other hand, the petitioner states that she wants to live with her husband and she is being deprived of medical facilities, visit of Doctors and Compounders. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos.9 and 10 wherein it has been stated that the petitioner is playing in the hands of her youngest daughter Rekha Modi who could not settle with her husband. In paragraph 8 it has been stated that his younger sister Rekha Modi could not settle with her husband and she was even divorced twice. In paragraph 10 it has been stated that respondent no.9 purchased tow flats in Saraswati Apartment at S.P. Verma Road, Patna in the year 1988 in the name of Rekha Modi and requested them to reside in the same. In paragraph 21 it has been stated that they have not 3 KHAN obstructed the meeting between mother and daughter or the persons of their choice. The respondent nos.9 and 10 in their supplementary affidavit have annexed report of Sr. Superintendent of Police, Patna wherein it has been stated that in course of enquiry the allegation of confining or causing any short of obstruction to the petitioner is false. They submitted that no gazette has been installed in petitioner’s room. They even questioned the maintainability of this writ application. After hearing counsel for the parties at length, this court observes as follows: The petitioner will have free excess to the medical facilities and she would be entitled to meet her relatives and friends. No gazette would be permissible in the room of the petitioner or around it. As the husband of the petitioner Kasi Prasad Modi has stated both on affidavit and in person before this court that he does not want to meet his wife, this court do not intend to pass any positive order in this regard. However, in case respondent no.11 Kasi Prasad Modi would desire any time to meet his wife, he would be at liberty to meet his wife, the petitioner. To ascertain such view of respondent no.11, an officer may at times ascertain the view of respondent no.11. It would be open to the parties to take other remedy, if so advised, in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. (S.P.Singh,J)