DEOKISHEN Vs. ASARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. As this appeal involves the decision of an important point of law which is not covered by any direct precedent it is necessary to state the facts of the case at some length. On 30th April 1931 the respondent Asaram, who is a distant cousin of a minor girl Godawari Bai, aged 14, applied to the District Judge, Akola, for his own appointment as guardian of the person of the said minor on the allegation that her parents, the first two appellants Deokisan and Mt. Amritabai, in collusion with appellants 3 and 4 Sunkerlal and Tarachand, had agreed to give the said minor in marriage to appellant 5, Ramgopal, aged 50, in consideration of receiving Rupees 12,000 from the latter and that the proposed marriage was unsuitable and injurious to the minor's welfare. It was alleged that the marriage was to be celebrated the next day and therefore Asaram also applied for the issue of injunctions which were accordingly issued prohibiting the appellants from celebrating the contemplated marriage of the minor and for producing her before the Court the next day. As the appellants refused to accept service of the injunctions they were affixed to their houses. On 4th May the appellants, Deokisan, Tarachand and Sundarlal, personally appeared before the District Judge and give an express undertaking that they would not celebrate the marriage of the minor with the appellant Ramgopal, and thereupon the Court passed the following order: Till further orders the minor shall remain in the custody of Deokisan, non-applicant, who has been enjoined not to get her married to Ramgopal without further orders from this Court.

(2.) IN spite of the aforesaid injunctions and the express undertakings given by some of the appellants the minor was married to the appellant Ramgopal on 20th May. The respondent Asaram then moved the Court to take the necessary action against the appellant for wilfully disobeying its lawful orders. In the inquiry that followed the appellants, Deokisan and Tarachand, denied having refused acceptance of the injunctions, the appellants Tarachand and Sunderlal further denied having taken part in the celebration of the marriage of the minor with Ramgopal and Tall the appellants pleaded that they did not wilfully disobey the injunctions. On a careful consideration of the evidence on record the learned District Judge held that all the appellants were guilty of wilful disobedience of the injunctions issued under Section 12, Guardians and Wards Act. On the question of the penalty to be imposed for such disobedience the learned Judge made the following observations in para. 9 of his order: Rule 2, Order 39, Schedule 1, Civil P. C., is in its terms limited to an injunction granted during the pendency of a suit such as is referred to therein. The present proceedings cannot be described as such a suit. It is admitted by the learned pleader for the applicant that the injunctions that were granted in the present case were granted under Section 12, Guardians and Wards Act. With this view I agree, but there is no authority for the proposition that Sub-rule 3 of the aforesaid Rule 2, Order 39, applies to an injunction granted under the aforesaid Section 12. But though no action can be taken under Order 39, Civil P. C., I am of opinion that the injunctions granted in this case must be enforced in the same way as a decree for an injunction can be executed under Rule 32, Order 21, Schedule 1, Civil P. C. It is a general principle of law that a Court having power to pass an order has inherent power to enforce it, and since there is no method of enforcement provided for a case like this in the Guardians and Wards Act, the enforcement must in my opinion be made in the same mode in which a decree for an injunction can be executed under the Civil P. C., Sub-rule 1, Rule 32, Order 21 Schedule 1, Civil P. C., provides for an execution of a decree for an injunction by the detention of the judgment-debtor in the civil prison or by the attachment of his property, or by both. He accordingly directed: that moveable property belonging to the non-applicants of a value not exceeding Rs. 500 shall be attached and the non-applicants 1, 3, 4 and 5 shall be arrested and detained in the civil prison for a period of six weeks.

(3.) RAO Bahadur Kinkhede for the respondent conceded that the procedure adopted by the lower Court was inapplicable as the proceedings spoken of in Section 141, Civil P. C., refer to original matters in the nature of suits such as proceedings in probate, guardianship and so forth and do not include execution: Thakur Prasad v. Fakir Utah (1895) 17 All 106. But he supported the order under appeal by arguing that the Guardians and Wards Act was not exhaustive or self-contained and that so far as it was deficient in procedure it had to be supplemented by the Civil Procedure Code because Section 141 of the latter Code expressly permits such a course: Thakur Prasad v. Fakir Ulah (1895) 17 All 106. He there-fore contended that the injunctions in; the present case must be deemed to have been issued under Order 39, Rule 2(1), Civil P. C., and that their disobedience was punishable under Sub-rule (3) ibid. In my opinion the contention of the respondent's learned Counsel is perfectly correct.