#Review: The Courtroom Drama Where the Husband Is More Convincing Than the Plot

Patna Shukla introduces us to Tanvi Shukla (Raveena Tandon), a small-town lawyer whose courtroom career is apparently built around cases that make you wonder, “Was this really the best legal drama you could come up with?” Her first case involves an underwear stitched too tightly. Yes, that is the opening we are given. It is mildly amusing, but unfortunately, the film seems to mistake mildly amusing for genuinely funny.

At home, Tanvi is constantly reminded that she is excellent in the kitchen, because apparently being a lawyer is impressive, but making excellent food is the real achievement. Then comes Siddharth (Manav Vij), her husband—and suddenly, the film gives us one character worth rooting for.

Siddharth believes in his wife, supports her ambitions and never treats her career as a threat to his masculinity. When he loses his job and becomes a house husband, he doesn’t have an existential crisis about it. He simply does what needs to be done. Honestly, Siddharth is so well-written that he feels like he accidentally wandered into the wrong film.

The actual plot begins when Rinky Kumari, a university student wrongly failed in her exams, approaches Tanvi. What should have been an intriguing legal mystery quickly turns into a masterclass in How to Solve a Case Without Actually Investigating It.

The screenplay practically delivers evidence to Tanvi’s doorstep. A peon conveniently provides information. Corruption conveniently appears in front of her. Important revelations conveniently arrive whenever the story needs them. At this point, all Tanvi really needs is a narrator saying, “And here is your next clue, ma’am.”

There is very little suspense, very little legal strategy and almost no sense that our protagonist has actually had to fight for the case.

Then, because apparently the screenplay had one more emotional card hidden under the table, a late twist makes the case personally significant for Tanvi. It adds some emotion, certainly, but the eventual resolution is so convenient that you half expect the universe itself to file an affidavit on her behalf.

And the runtime? Over two hours. For a story that could comfortably have made its point in about 90 minutes. The additional time is filled with comedy that isn’t particularly funny and courtroom drama that isn’t particularly dramatic. A bold commitment to making sure the audience checks the time.

Comparisons with Jolly LLB are inevitable, but they aren’t exactly flattering. Those films had sharp writing, memorable courtroom exchanges, strong opponents and an energy that kept things moving. Patna Shukla has… white saris, Raveena Tandon looking elegant and a screenplay that seems determined to test your patience.

Even the opposing lawyer, Mishraji, fails to become the formidable courtroom adversary the film desperately needs. He is there, he argues, he exists—and somehow still leaves almost no impression.

And then there is Siddharth.

Ironically, the most convincing relationship in the film has almost nothing to do with the courtroom. Siddharth never competes with Tanvi, never feels threatened by her success and never needs to be the hero of her story. He simply supports her. Even when life turns his own plans upside down, his ego doesn’t suddenly demand a starring role.

So, should you watch Patna Shukla?

If you’re looking for a gripping courtroom drama, absolutely not. Unless watching a legal case solve itself while you wait for the next convenient clue counts as gripping.

If you’re a Raveena Tandon fan, you may find something to appreciate in her performance and screen presence.

But Siddharth? Siddharth is the exception.

In fact, if the entire film had been about Tanvi being a lawyer and Siddharth quietly supporting her while occasionally making sensible decisions, I might have enjoyed it considerably more.

The film loses the case.

Siddharth wins the husband-of-the-year award.