Sakharam s/o. Chimanappa Waghmare v. Bhagirathibai w/o. Kishanrao Raut
2013-03-04
K.U.CHANDIWAL
body2013
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT Heard. 2. The writ petitioner, father of the then minor Shivanand, moved application in terms of Section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to learned Judicial Magistrate F.C. for custody of child from respondent no.2 Shantabai. Learned Judicial Magistrate F.C. directed such custody of child precisely on the ground that respondent no.2 did not object for the same. Matter was carried by respondent no.2 in Criminal Revision No.153 of 2001 and the same was allowed. Consequently, petitioner - father is before this Court. 3. Rule was issued in Writ Petition on 5th December, 2012 with interim relief. 4. There is no quarrel about the status of petitioner to be father of the then minor Shivanand and also that Santoshibai, wife of petitioner, expired in a motor accident. Respondent no. 2 - Shantabai is sister of mother-in-law of petitioner. In the said motor accident, in fact, Shivanand had also suffered injuries. The right of the petitioner for custody of the child is unbridled when Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 comes into operation. However, the exercise carried by the petitioner in terms of Section 97 of Cr. P.C. is a novel way, as there was no criminal attitude on the part of respondent no.2 to carry Shivanand with her without consent or knowledge of the petitioner. In fact, Shivanand was also injured and to take his care, respondent no. 2 was showered with his custody. The record illustrates, respondent no. 2, pursuant to the warrant, produced Shivanand and without any demur, handed over custody to the petitioner. As there was no evidence to show that respondent no.2 has forcibly taken the minor Shivanand from the house of petitioner, there could not be application in terms of Section 97 of Cr. P.C. Section 97 comes into play only if a person is confined and such confinement amounts to an offence. There should be such a strong belief to the confinement. No such situation emerged in the present case. 5. Consequently, order impugned does not call for interference. Writ Petition dismissed. Rule discharged. Petition dismissed.