The Patna High Court has held that the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, have no application to proceedings under the Family Courts Act, 1984, due to the overriding effect of Section 20 of the latter statute.

The Court dismissed an appeal filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act challenging a Family Court order declaring a marriage null and void.

It rejected the contention that the suit was barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, observing that objections based on that statute are unsustainable in family court proceedings.

The High Court upheld the Family Court’s order and dismissed the appeal.

[Anjani Kumar @ Pappu Kumar v. Mamta Bharti & Anr.]

The Supreme Court stayed a Kerala High Court order directing EY India Chairman Rajiv Memani and Byju’s Resolution Professional Shailendra Ajmera to appear in a contempt case linked to the attempted sale of Byju’s US subsidiaries.

The Bench asked how contempt could survive when the injunction allegedly violated was in force only between May 21 and May 27, before the Supreme Court varied it.

The Court noted that any breach had to fall within that limited period.

The High Court proceedings arose from a plea alleging violation of orders passed in an ongoing commercial dispute over the assets of Epic and Tangible Play.

[Sunil Thomas v. Voizzit Technology]

The Patna High Court has ruled that external rubbing without penetration does not constitute "penetrative sexual assault" under the POCSO Act, though it may amount to "sexual harassment".

The Court held that when medical evidence rules out penetration, a conviction cannot rest solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a child witness.

It also noted material discrepancies between the statements of the victim and her parents, which cast doubt on the prosecution's version.

The court emphasized that different forms of physical contact carry distinct legal consequences under the POCSO, requiring precise judicial classification. The High Court eventually acquitted the Appellant ordered his release forthwith.

[Jai Krishna Yadav v. State of Bihar]

The Patna High Court has reaffirmed that a wife cannot be denied maintenance under Section 125 CrPC on the ground of desertion unless the allegation is judicially established in matrimonial proceedings. 

The Court dismissed the husband’s challenge to a Family Court order directing him to pay ₹22,000 per month, noting that revisional jurisdiction cannot reappreciate facts without illegality. 

Justice Arun Kumar Jha observed that any modification can only follow a competent court finding the wife’s desertion unjustifiable.

The husband’s plea, citing a pending Section 9 HMA case seeking restitution of conjugal rights, was insufficient to defeat her claim.

[Vivek Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar]

The Patna High Court held that the determination of age in a POCSO prosecution must be based on reliable documentary evidence, including school admission records and birth certificates, rather than oral assertions or secondary age-estimation methods.

The Court heard a criminal appeal challenging a Trial Court order that had acquitted the accused of offences under the Indian Penal Code and the POCSO Act.

The Court ruled that documentary proof of the victim’s actual age constitutes the most dependable basis for assessing the minority at the time of the alleged offence. The Court reiterated that such records prevail when evaluating whether POCSO provisions are attracted.

The Patna High Court has quashed an FIR against M/s Siddhi Enterprises and its staff for allegedly selling beer disguised as energy drinks.

Justice Alok Kumar Pandey held that the beverages fell within the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) definition of non-alcoholic drinks, allowing up to 0.5% v/v ethyl alcohol. 

The case originates from a 2017 raid after a newspaper report alleged products like “Thunder Bolt” and “Kingfermer” contained 4–5% alcohol. However, test results submitted by the petitioners showed 0.2–0.4% v/v ethanol, backed by a valid food license.

The Court held that the Bihar Prohibition Act prohibits only truly intoxicating alcoholic substances, not drinks compliant with BIS non-alcoholic norms.

[Kumari Punam, Proprietor of M/s Siddhi Enterprises v. The State Of Bihar]

Lawyers at Patna High Court, through the Coordination Committee of three bar associations, have resolved to boycott the courtroom of Acting Chief Justice P.B. Bajanthri indefinitely, starting September 18. 

This comes after an incident in which two advocates Ansul Aryan and his wife Manogya Singh were allegedly assaulted on their way to court by staff, bus driver and conductor of Delhi Public School, including verbal abuse, intimidating behaviour, and destruction of the phone. 

The Bar accuses the Acting CJ’s Bench of delaying the case by reversing an earlier order summoning the SHO and reframing issues.

At the latest hearing, the Court only listed two criminal writ applications and adjourned the matter to next week. 

The Patna High Court has directed the Congress party to immediately take down an AI-generated video featuring Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his late mother, Heeraben Modi, from all social media platforms. 

The 36-second video, posted by the Bihar Congress on September 10, shows Modi dreaming of his mother, who appears to criticise his politics in poll-bound Bihar.

The court finds the content potentially offensive and issues the removal order in response to a PIL by Vivekanand Singh, who said it dishonours the dignity of the PM’s mother. 

Besides Congress, notices have been issued to Rahul Gandhi, the Election Commission, and social media intermediaries including Meta, Google, and X (Twitter), to respond to the matter.

The Patna High Court has ruled that a divorced Muslim woman can seek maintenance under Section 125 CrPC if her husband fails to make 'reasonable and fair provisions' for her future during the iddat period.

The decision came in a case where the wife had alleged cruelty after the marriage, which forced her to return to her parents. She did not have a source of income and therefore claimed Rs. 15000 per month as maintenance. 

The husband argued that the marriage had ended mutually (mubarat), and he owed her nothing after paying 1,00,000 alimony, den mohar and iddat expenses.

Both the Family Court and High Court rejected this claim, affirming her entitlement to maintenance.

[Md Murshid Alam v. State of Bihar and Ors]

The Patna High Court set aside the conviction of Manoj Murmu under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, ruling that a mere breathalyser test without blood or urine analysis cannot establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused had been sentenced to one year of simple imprisonment under Section 37 of the Act.

Justice Alok Kumar Pandey flagged major lapses in the investigation, including the informant doubling as the investigating officer, lack of proper training to use the device, no identification marks on the machine, and contradictory witness statements.

The Court acquitted Murmu, citing the denial of a fair investigation

[Manoj Murmu v The State of Bihar]

The Patna High Court upheld a Family Court order directing fruit seller Md. Saddam Hussain to pay his wife ₹7,000 per month as maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

Justice Bibek Chaudhuri rejected the husband’s claim of earning only ₹3,000 monthly, noting his actual earning capacity is higher.

The Court stressed that maintenance depends on the husband’s capacity to earn, not actual income.

The Court observed that ₹7,000 is a meagre amount given today’s living costs, where even basic meals exceed ₹3,000 monthly. It also dismissed the husband’s plea, affirming his obligation to pay maintenance for the wife’s necessities.

The Patna High Court granted bail to a 17-year-old accused of sexually assaulting a minor, ruling that Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, applies equally to all juveniles, including those above 16 accused of heinous offences.

It held that bail is the rule unless release risks criminal association, danger, or defeats justice.

The court found the Children’s Court had ignored the Social Investigation Report, which described the boy as an obedient student with no criminal links, suggesting false implication over land disputes.

Prolonged detention was harming his studies and rehabilitation. Bail was allowed on a ₹10,000 bond with conditions.

[X v. The State of Bihar & Ors]

The Patna High Court, while hearing a contempt plea on the constitution of a permanent committee for Shri Baba Kusheshwar Nath Temple, questioned why Bihar temples lack the cleanliness and greenery seen in South Indian temples.

The Court directed the Bihar State Religious Trust Board to include hygiene, transparency, and accountability norms in temple management.

Key orders include fixed donation boxes, sealed locks, quarterly bank statements, a paginated register of minutes, and clean surroundings.

The Board must issue a corrigendum to the temple committee and file an affidavit detailing compliance by August 8.

The Patna High Court ruled that a plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage, even after conviction. The Court directed the Juvenile Justice Board, Siwan, to inquire into the age of an appellant convicted in a 1993 attempt to murder case.

The appellant submitted a matriculation certificate showing he was 17 years, 11 months, and 15 days old at the time of the offence.

Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, applies retrospectively to pending cases, emphasizing its rehabilitative purpose. 

The inquiry will determine if the appellant was a juvenile during the offence.

[Shiv Jee Singh & Ors v. State of Bihar]