VISHWANATH BHIMASHANKAR PETHAKAR Vs. MADHAV DATTATRAYA SANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is purported to have been filed under section 476 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this application are briefly these: The petitioner is an Advocate practising at Poona. Kanchan is his daughter. After graduating in Ayurvedic medicine in 1970-, Kanchan took up an appointment as a Houseman in the Sion Ayurvedic Hospital on 22nd October, 1971. It appears that her Services were discontinued from 31st January, 1972. The respondent No. 1 is a Lecturer in Ayurvedic medicine and the other respondents are also Medical Practitioners and friends of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 is also the uncle of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 had married one Mohana, an Ayurvedic Medical Practitioner in 1964. A child was born of that marriage. The relations between the couple being strained, respondent 1 filed M.J. Petition No. 8658 of 1969 for a declaration for dissolution of marriage and judicial separation on the ground of cruelty. That petition was resisted by Mohana. After a long drawn out litigation that petition came to be dismissed by a contested judgment on 5th October, 1971. Thereafter Mohana herself filed a second M.J. Petition No. 3502 of 1972 alleging ill-treatment by respondent No. 12. Respondent No. 1 who had unsuccessfully filed the earlier marriage petition was only too glad not to contest that petition and that is why when he appeared he did not choose to cross-examine Mohana with the result the Court passed a decree on the unchallenged sworn testimony of Mohana. As regards the alimony part of the decree, the same was drawn on the consent of the parties. That decree for divorce was passed on 25th April, 1972.

(3.) It appears that respondent No. 1 and Kanchan, the daughter of the petitioner, fell in love with each other and with the result they were married on the 7th December, 1972 in the house of respondent No. 2 in the presence of among others all the other respondents. It is evident that the petitioner who is an Advocate was not consulted in the matter and he felt hurt when his doctor daughter went through the marriage without his knowledge and consent. He would not therefore allow Kanchan to leave the house, albeit Kanchan had a married respondent No. 1 . That is why respondent No. 1 was obliged to file an application under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, being Criminal Application No. 1022 of 1972 for getting the release of Kanchan from the hold of the petitioner by contending, inter alia, that the respondent No. 1 who was the petitioner therein being a divorcee had married Kanchan on the 7th December, 1972 and that the petitioner who was respondent therein having prevented Kanchan from leaving his house and confined her, respondent No. 1---the petitioner therein was obliged to approach this Court for relief under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.