ANJALI ANIL RANGARI Vs. ANIL KRIPASAGAR RANGARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material produced before us. This writ petition is filed by Mrs Anjali Anil Rangari, the mother of two minor children, namely, Miss Yutika Rangari (daughter) and Master Shankar Rangari (son) aged 9 and 5 years respectively. This petition arises out of an order dated 10/3/1997 passed by the Chief Judicial magistrate, Nagpur on an application dated 10/3/1997 moved by Anil kripasagar Rangari, the respondent and father of the minor children, under section 97 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On the very same day the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate issued a warrant to produce the children before the court in order to decide "about their future custody". It was averred in the application by the father that the mother, the petitioner herein left the matrimonial home on 4/3/1997 along with two children for Delhi where her parents reside, without informing him as well as his parents. The children were in illegal custody and were in wrongful confinement of the mother. Since their exams were approaching some time in the last week of march 1997, the father, the respondent prayed that warrant be issued urgently to produce the children before the court. Accordingly, the learned chief Judicial Magistrate issued the warrant returnable on 20/3/1997. The nagpur Police came to Delhi and after fetching the children from the custody of the mother, produced them before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 17/3/1997. On 17/3/1997 itself the Magistrate passed the impugned order directing that the custody of the minor children be given to the father, the respondent.

(2.) Many rival contentions were raised before us. It is the admitted position that the respondent father has filed an application under Section 25of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 before the Family court, Nagpur for appropriate reliefs in respect of the two minor children against the petitioner, the mother, and the same is pending.

(3.) The only question that needs to be considered in the context of the facts and circumstances of the present case is as to whether provisions of section 97 Criminal Procedure Code could be invoked. It cannot be disputed that the mother is also a natural guardian under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and guardianship Act, 1956. If it is so, could it be said that the custody of the two minor children with the mother was illegal and they were under her wrongful confinement In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are unable to hold that the custody of the children with the mother was either unlawful or they were wrongfully confined by the mother at Delhi. If this be so the very basis of the impugned order cannot be sustained and consequently the impugned order is required to be set aside. We accordingly do so.