Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Rakesh Kumar Vs. the State of Jharkhand and Another

Rakesh Kumar vs The State of Jharkhand and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Jharkhand Decided Aug 27, 2013
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1024762

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Jharkhand High Court
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rakesh Kumar

Respondent

The State of Jharkhand and Another

Excerpt

in the high court of jharkhand at ranchi cr.m.p. no.1485 of 2012 rakesh kumar................................petitioner versus state of jharkhand and another ......opposite parties coram: honble mr. justice r.r.prasad for the petitioner: mr.rajan raj for the state : a.p.p for the o.p.no.2 : mr. gautam kumar 15/ 27.8.13. the grievance which the opposite party no.2 does have is that in terms of the order granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner, the husband though took her to lar and kept her in a rented house but the husband started living at mau with his parents and therefore, she would like to reside either at mou or at dewaria. however, leaned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is wrong on the part of the opposite party no.2 to say that the petitioner by keeping his wife at lar in a rented house started to live with the parents. right from the beginning, the petitioner was desirous to keep his wife at lar as his work place would be nearer from that place and the other reason was that she may not have any occasion to raise any grievance against other family members. on account of this controversy, the matter needs to be sent before the conciliator for having conciliation in the matter for arriving out to a consensus. accordingly, the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 may remain present before the conciliator on 7.9.2013 let this matter be listed on 17.9.2013 in anticipation of receipt of the report of the conciliator. till then, interim order passed on 29.11.2012 shall continue. (r.r.prasad, j.) nd/

Full Judgment

In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Cr.M.P. No.1485 of 2012 Rakesh Kumar................................Petitioner VERSUS State of Jharkhand and another ......Opposite Parties CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD For the Petitioner: Mr.Rajan Raj For the State : A.P.P For the O.P.No.2 : Mr. Gautam Kumar 15/ 27.8.13. The grievance which the opposite party no.2 does have is that in terms of the order granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner, the husband though took her to Lar and kept her in a rented house but the husband started living at Mau with his parents and therefore, she would like to reside either at Mou or at Dewaria. However, leaned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is wrong on the part of the opposite party no.2 to say that the petitioner by keeping his wife at Lar in a rented house started to live with the parents. Right from the beginning, the petitioner was desirous to keep his wife at Lar as his work place would be nearer from that place and the other reason was that she may not have any occasion to raise any grievance against other family members. On account of this controversy, the matter needs to be sent before the Conciliator for having conciliation in the matter for arriving out to a consensus. Accordingly, the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 may remain present before the Conciliator on 7.9.2013 Let this matter be listed on 17.9.2013 in anticipation of receipt of the report of the Conciliator. Till then, interim order passed on 29.11.2012 shall continue. (R.R.Prasad, J.) ND/

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial