Order.- The petitioner before this Court is the mother of the child Arifa. The respondent is the father. The respondent has divorced the wife, and the custody of this child has been in dispute. A civil suit filed by the petitioner herein for the custody of this child Arifa went against her, while the father, the respondent herein, thus got the decree in his favour for the custody of the child. Arifa was therefore left with the father till 27th May, 1958, when she and her two brothers went to the house of the mother having been sent by the father. After the vacation the two boys were sent to the father, but not Arifa. According to the mother, Arifa has refused to go to the father alleging that she is not able to bear the treatment given by her step-mother and is inconvenienced by the conduct of her aunt’s son who is with her father. This information was conveyed by the mother to the father in a letter written on 9th June, 1958: and it is now alleged that the father did not send any reply thereto. Therein it is stated that the three children came away on 27th May, 1958, having been sent away by the father in order to avoid inconvenience to them caused by quarrels in the father’s house. As already stated, the unwillingness of Arifa to go back to the father’s house is for two reasons, viz., the ill-treatment by the step-mother and aunt, and the pranks of her aunt’s son. Nevertheless the father conceived the idea of filing this application under section 552, Criminal Procedure Code, on 18th June, 1958, before the Chief City Magistrate, Hyderabad, and obtain an order in his favour. The mother thereafter filed this Revision Case and obtained a stay in regard to the execution of the lower Court’s order. Mr. Ataur Rahman, for the petitioner, contends that even on the allegations of the respondent, it is not proved that there was unlawful purpose, and that an order made under section 552, Criminal Procedure Code, is not sustainable having regard to the facts of this case. Mr. Mr. Ataur Rahman, for the petitioner, contends that even on the allegations of the respondent, it is not proved that there was unlawful purpose, and that an order made under section 552, Criminal Procedure Code, is not sustainable having regard to the facts of this case. Mr. Hassan, for the respondent, contends that whatever might be the circumstances leading to the sending of the girl Arifa to the mother, the letter dated 9th June, 1958, written by the mother in which she alleged false things against the respondent and his family makes the detention and purpose unlawful. It is also contended by him that as a matter of fact, the children including Arifa, were sent only at the request of the mother during the time when the school had vacation. The question that arises for consideration is whether this petition under section 552, Criminal Procedure Code, alleging unlawful detention in the circumstances of this case, is maintainable, and whether any unlawful purpose has been proved to have been the motive of this detention. The father who is the petitioner (in the lower Court) has alleged in his application that he sent Arifa and two male children to the mother at the request of the latter and though the two sons were sent back, Arifa alone was detained, and though he attempted to personally contact his daughter he was not allowed to do so. According to the petitioner, the detention of the girl without being sent to the school is unlawful. He also avers that most of the members of the family of his divorced wife migrated to Pakistan and that he apprehends that his daughter is likely to be kidnapped to Pakistan and that, also for this reason, the detention is for an unlawful purpose. These allegations are countered by the wife as false. She stated in her counter-affidavit that the custody of the girl Arifa was given to the father by the civil Court as the girl, when she was 8 years old, expressed a wish to stay with the father, and that on the 27th May, 1958, Arifa and her two brothers unexpectedly dropped into her house at 9 O’clock in the night, having been sent by the father in order to keep them away from being involved in the quarrels among the members of the family of the father. She stated that Arifa bluntly refused to go to her father and therefore she could not but allow this child to remain with her. According to her the father was allowed to see the child whenever he came to her house. She stated that her refusal to comply with the request of the father to send back Arifa is because Arifa’s stay with her father any longer is against the interest and welfare of the girl, and that the refusal is justified as the girl herself is against this proposal. The Chief City Magistrate, Hyderabad, had examined Arifa in Court. Arifa stated that her father did not look after her satisfactorily and that she complained to her father about the trouble given by her aunt’s son. She also complained that she was not in a position to attend the school for the fear of her father taking her away from that school. The mother examined herself as a witness in those proceedings, but the father did not go into the box. Though the Court found that the girl refused to go back to the father, it however came to the conclusion that as the earlier order of the City Civil Court, dated 17th January, 1955, is sought to be violated by this detention of the girl by the mother, an order under section 552, Criminal Procedure Code, in favour of the father is called for. Mr. Hassan, relying upon the decision in Tulasidas Jangiliyadas v. Chelandas Damodas1, contended that since the detention of Arifa by the mother is prohibited by the civil Court decree the mother is legally prohibited from refusing to restore the child when demanded by the father. It is further contended that since the meaning to be given to the word ‘unlawful’ occurring in section 552, Criminal Procedure Code, bears the same meaning as ‘illegal’ in section 43 of the Indian Penal Code, any detention in violation of the decree of the civil Court should constitute itself into an ‘unlawful’ one. For this purpose he cites the decision of Yahya Ali, J., in Subbammal v. Alamelu Ammal2. As for the dictum laid down in those two decisions, there can be no two opinions. Retention of custody of a person or detention in violation of an order of a Court would be illegal so as to render the detention ‘unlawful’. For this purpose he cites the decision of Yahya Ali, J., in Subbammal v. Alamelu Ammal2. As for the dictum laid down in those two decisions, there can be no two opinions. Retention of custody of a person or detention in violation of an order of a Court would be illegal so as to render the detention ‘unlawful’. But in each of these cases it is to be observed that the detention of the girl was against the will of the child herself. These decisions cannot therefore be regarded as authorities governing the situation which arises when an unmarried girl had to be retained by the mother in her custody having been sent by the father to avoid an awkward situation for himself, and where the girl realising her own peculiar position refuses to go back but seeks an asylum with the mother. In such circumstances, it would rather be inhuman for anybody to say that the girl should not have her own way and that the mother must: be so hard as to set face against this unfortunate daughter and drive her out of the house. Custody in such circumstances will not be unlawful, and it cannot be construed as detention going against the very order of the civil Court, but on the other hand as a helpful act of the mother towards a child who would be otherwise forlorn. Such detention cannot in any sense be relieved against by resort to proceedings under section 552, Criminal Procedure Code. As for the future of the child Arifa, the mother too had been anxious to send her to school; but as these disputes did not permit the child to be admitted in the school in time and as the school authorities wrote saying that her admission will be made in November, it cannot be said in this case that the education of the child has been neglected. The apprehension that the child will be sent away to Pakistan, seems to be also unfounded. The petitioner has not chosen to speak to them in the Court though certain averments are wildly made in his petition. In these circumstances, I am of the view that there has been no unlawful detention; nor could it be said that unlawful purpose has been made out as the cause for any such detention. The petitioner has not chosen to speak to them in the Court though certain averments are wildly made in his petition. In these circumstances, I am of the view that there has been no unlawful detention; nor could it be said that unlawful purpose has been made out as the cause for any such detention. The application under section 552, Criminal Procedure Code, could therefore be held as misconceived. The revision petition, in the result, is allowed. S.C.V. ----- Revision allowed.