PRAMOD V KAMBLE Vs. JYOTI P KAMBLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally.

(2.) The applicant is the husband of respondent no.1. After marriage they had been residing at their matrimonial home at Palus. Later, matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and respondent no.1 arose, and that, the respondent no.1 has been staying separately from the petitioner i.e. at her parent's house, is not in dispute, though since when, and what circumstances, they came to be separated is in dispute. Respondent no.1, some time in October 2011, made an application before JMFCMalshiras, purporting to be one under Section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, alleging that the applicant (respondent before the Magistrate) had taken away Rahulson of the applicant and respondent no.1, from the house of respondent no.1's parents to his house at Palus. It was also alleged by respondent no.1 in the said application that the applicant was contacted by her on telephone repeatedly, but the applicant was saying that respondent no.1 should bring some amount from her parents and that it is only thereafter that the said child Rahul would be given to respondent no.1.

(3.) It appears that instead of issuing a search warrant, the learned Magistrate issued a notice to the respondent before him i.e. present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "the father"). The child Rahul was also caused to be produced before the Magistrate. The learned Magistrate after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were not applicable to the case. The Magistrate was of the view that for the applicability of the provisions of Section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the 'confinement' must be such, as would amount to an offence. The learned Magistrate, therefore, rejected the application.