PURUSHOTTAM LAL Vs. PUSHPALATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD.

(2.) IT is not being disputed that non-applicant is wedded wile of petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 is born out of this wedlock. As per photostat copy of certified copy of order-sheets recorded in unregistered Cr. Case No. Section 98 of Cr. PC, pending in the Court of S. D. M. , Waraseoni, non-applicant filed a petition under Section 98 of the Cr. PC. The copy of the petition is not filed on behalf of the petitioners. The learned S. D. M. ordered issuance of summons to non-applicant. This order of issuance of summons to non-applicant is found to have been challenged by these petitioners in Cr. R. No. 107/2001, which is pending in the Court of A. S. J. , Waraseoni. The perusal of order-sheets dictated by learned A. S. J. , Waraseoni in aforesaid Criminal Revision reveals that Shri Vasant Shukla, Advocate, registered his attendance on behalf of non-applicant in aforesaid Cr. R. No. 107/2001. Then on 18th of September, 2001 Shri Narswani, Adv. appearing for the petitioners moved an application seeking this prayer that the civil suit may also be ordered to be heard alongwith this criminal revision. The aforesaid revision is being fixed for final arguments, but on 31st of October, 2001 the learned A. S. J. ordered both the parties to remain present in the Court. Thereafter, on 23rd of November, 2001 the learned A. S. J. issued specific direction that petitioner No. 2 Ku. Purna Bai, who is the minor daughter of the petitioner and non-applicant, be also kept in attendance. Feeling aggrieved by this order the petitioners had approached this Court apprehending that the applicant No. 2 may be taken away by force by non-applicant.

(3.) IT is submitted by Shri Mishra that since the petition under Section 6 of Hindu Guardianship and Wards Act is already filed seeking custody of minor daughter Ku. Purna Bai, she could not have been ordered to be kept present in the Court.