The court asserts the paramountcy of child welfare in custody disputes and favors mediation for resolving matrimonial conflicts.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER

4 21-01-2026 Heard Mr. Rajani Kant Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Rabindra Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant and Mr. Satyendra Prasad, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Baddi P.S. Case No. 47 of 2024 registered for the offence(s) punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 85, 352, 3(5) of the BNS and Sections 3 /4 of the D.P. Act .

3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the marriage of the O.P. No. 2 was solemnized with the petitioner in the year 2021 as per Hindu Rites and Custom and they have been blessed with a child out of the said wedlock, who is aged about 11 months. After some time of marriage, petitioner along with other family members, had started demanding rupees five lakh as dowry and due to non-fulfillment of the same, they had subjected the O.P. no. 2 to various sorts of torture and ousted her from her matrimonial house along with her 11 months old child.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submitted that petitioner always tries to lead a peaceful married life with the informant but she never co-operates with him on the instigation of her family members. Learned counsel further submitted that marriage is a sacred ceremony but little matrimonial skirmish suddenly erupts into hatred and the parties ponder to reconcile their dispute outside the court.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposing the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail submitted that an opportunity may be given to the parties to resolve their dispute amicably outside the Court. He further submitted that the petitioner and O.P. No.2 have 11 months old male child and petitioner should bear all the expenses incurred upon his nourishment and physical and mental growth. 6. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State submitted that a chance be given to the parties for amicable settlement outside the court.

7. However, at this stage, learned counsel for the respective parties, on instruction, submitted that the parties have agreed to appear before the learned District Court at 10:30 A.M.

on 19.02.2026 for resolving the dispute by way of mediation.

8. Heard the parties.

9. The matrimonial dispute is not an offense against the society rather a matrimonial dispute is a private conflict between spouses and does not inherently constitute an offence against society. However, a false case can have a disastrous consequence in absence of any criminal content. The personal dispute cannot call for a criminal offence. In such situation, continuation of the proceeding would amount to abuse of process of law leading to vexatious proceeding against the petitioner.

10. In this regard, the Apex Court in the case of B.S.

Joshi v. State of Haryana, reported in, (2003) 4 SCC 675 , in paragraph nos. 12 and 13 has held as under:- “12. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.

13. The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad [(2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733] are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in a matrimonial dispute by the courts. It was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crime