PARAMBATH KANARAN Vs. CRVASUDEVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent put in an application in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate purporting to be under Section 552 of the Criminal P. C. alleging that he was lawfully married to the third petitioner here on the 22nd September, 1940, that the nuptials took place, and that on the following day, the 23 day of September, 1940, the parents, the first and second petitioners Here, took away the third petitioner against her wishes to her home and detained her there with the intention of getting her married to somebody else.

(2.) The Magistrate issued a notice under Section 552 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to produce the girl. On the date to which the case had been adjourned an advocate appeared on behalf of the petitioners and represented that it would be a great hardship to bring the girl all the way from Tellicherry in North Malabar to Madras to answer to a petition that could not in any case be granted, because the girl was more than 16 years of age and no offence had been committed within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. The Magistrate overruled that objection and ordered a non-bailable warrant to issue. Upon the representation of the advocate appearing for the petitioners here that it was illegal to have the girl arrested and that, in any case, it would be a very harsh method of procuring : her attendance in Court, the order was cancelled after the advocate gave an undertaking that he would produce the girl on the adjourned date. In the meanwhile, he got a stay order from this Court. The question that arises is whether the order of the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate calls for any interference from this Court.

(3.) There can be no doubt that it would be very hard on the petitioners if without strong ground they were required to come from Tellicherry in North Malabar to Madras for the purpose of this petition unless the Magistrate was satisfied that their attendance was necessary. The petition was a very short one and the only statements on which the learned Magistrate could act were that there was a legal marriage on the 22nd September, 1940, and that on the 23 September, 1940, the girl was taken away. When he issued his second order he had heard the story of the other side, which was that they had come to Madras to answer an advertisement in which the respondent was seeking for a bride and that finding that the respondent would not make a suitable husband they took the girl back again. With these two stories in front of him, I think the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate should have required from the respondent some further evidence that a lawful marriage had taken place; for unless he was satisfied that the marriage had taken place, the respondent clearly had no right to ask the Magistrate to have the girl brought back to Madras.