TULSIDAS JANGLYADAS Vs. CHETANDAS DOMADAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The facts giving rise to this reference are shortly these: The applicant, Tulsidas filed a complaint before Mr. Nehru, the District Magistrate of Chhindwara, under Section 552, Criminal P. C., and claimed restoration of his minor wife, Mt. Gaura, to his custody on the allegations that the first and second non-applicants, who are respectively her father and brother were unlawfully detaining her contrary to his and her own wish and had threatened to perform her second marriage unless the applicant lived separate from his father after enforcing a partition of the ancestral estate. After a perfunctory examination of the applicant, on oath, the learned District Magistrate, on 16th May 1933, made the following endorsement on the face of the application: Complainant examined. Subdivisional Magistrate to hold a preliminary inquiry and report. I am not satisfied from the complainant's statement that a case is made out for action under Section 552, Criminal P. C.

(2.) THE Subdivisional Magistrate started the inquiry on 16th May 1933. After first satisfying himself that Mt. Gaura was under 16 years of age at the date of the application, he issued processes for the attendance of six witnesses including Mt. Gaura whom the applicant wished to examine in support of his complaint. On 20th June 1933 out of the four witnesses present two were examined and two given up. Mt. Gaura was not served and a fresh summons was ordered to be issued for her attendance on 30th June 1933, to which date the inquiry was adjourned.

(3.) ON a rule being issued to show cause why the reference be not accepted, the learned District Magistrate submitted a lengthy statement in justification of the procedure adopted by him in the disposal of the case and of the merits of his order. The following is the material portion of the statement: Before the inquiry was completed I got back the record from the lower Court and passed orders in the case. My grounds for not allowing the inquiry to proceed further were two fold:: (a) I was satisfied that the evidence recorded did not support the applicant's case; (b) I noticed that he was taking advantage of the inquiry to get his wife in Court and I considered this a somewhat disingenuous method of securing his end; besides I did not consider that the wife's evidence was necessary; (c) I do not think the complainant has the right to get any witness summoned: whether any witness should or should not be summoned is for the Court to decide. Whether my procedure was corrector otherwise may be open to question, but I do not think it can be denied that in substance my order is correct. Section 552 does not apply to cases in which a father refuses to let his daughter go back to her husband and threatens to remarry her. I do not think it can be claimed that this is a ease of detention for an lawful purpose. I therefore think that the application should be dismissed.