JUDGMENT Ghulam Hasan, J. - The learned Sessions judge of Rae Bireli recommends to this Court that the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Salon issuing a war- rant u/s 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the arrest of Mst. Khaliqan be set aside. It appears that Mst. Khaliqan filed a suit for dissolution of marriage against her husband Mohammad Shaft but thi3 was dismissed. Thereupon Mohammad Shaft made an application to the Magistrate in which he wrongly asserted that he had obtained a decree from the Civil Court for the recovery of his wife and that he went to fetch her but was prevented by her father and brother from taking her. He further stated that he apprehended that the father would remove her elsewhere in order to marry her to some other man. No copy of the Civil Court decree was filed before the Magistrate, although it was presented by Counsel that it would be filed at the next hearing of the application. Upon these facts the Magistrate issued a warrant u/s 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as prayed for by Mohammad Shafi, for the arrest of his wife from the house of her parents. The learned Sessions Judge rightly remarks that there was nothing to show in the application or in the statement made on the back thereof that Khaliqan was being detained at her parent's house against her will in such a way as to amount to an offence within the meaning of Section 1,00 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, in the absence of any such allegation, there was no jurisdiction in the Magistrate to issue a warrant u/s 100. The Magistrate in his explanation admits that he was misled by the statement of Mohammad Shafi made before him in pursuance of the application regarding the nature of the civil suit and construed that statement to mean by implication that his wife was being confined by her parents against her will. The Magistrate concedes that had he known the true facts, he would not have issued the search warrant. It is obvious, upon the allegations made in the application and the statement of the husband made on the back of it, that they did not constitute an offence so as to entitle the Magistrate to issue the warrant. Section 100 is perfectly clear on the point. It is obvious, upon the allegations made in the application and the statement of the husband made on the back of it, that they did not constitute an offence so as to entitle the Magistrate to issue the warrant. Section 100 is perfectly clear on the point. It requires that the Magistrate must have reason to believe, before issuing the warrant, that the woman was confined under circumstances which would amount to an evidence. The circum- stances of the present case afforded no grounds for any such belief. The order of arrest was, therefore, illegal, It is hoped that Magistrates would exercise more caution and circumspection in taking action u/s 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on applications made by husbands who may wish to abuse the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure to obtain redress which can only be had in appropriate proceedings warranted by law. 2. I accept the reference and set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Let the papers be returned.