Bapna, J.—This is a reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Jhalawar, and is a typical instance where the powers granted to a Magistrate can be abused in the grossest from.

2. One Mohanlal made an application to the S. D. M., Jhalawar, on the 8th of November, 1956, that he was married to one Sunder Bai about 2-1/2 years ago. She was the daughter of Basanti Bai. It was alleged that Sunder lived with him after the marriage, but she was being prevented by Basanti Bai from coming to the petitioner. It was stated that Basanti Bai also did not allow the petitioner Mohanlal or his relations to meet Sunder Bai. It was mentioned that the above facts showed that Sunder was being kept in wrongful confinement. Her age was stated to be 14 years. It was mentioned that under the Hindu Law the petitioner was her guardian. It was prayed that a warrant of search of Sunder Bai be issued, and she may be handed over to the petitioner or set at liberty.

3. Sec. 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure runs as follows:—

"If any Presidency Magistrate, Magistrate Of the first class or Sub-Divisional Magistrate has reason to believe that any person is confined under such circumstances that the confinement amounts to an offence, he may issue a search warrant, and the person to whom such warrant is directed may search for the person so confined; and such search shall be made in accordance therewith, and the person, if found, shall be immediately taken before a Magistrate, who shall make such order as in the circumstances of the case seems proper."

4. This petition should obviously have been thrown out, because the allegations were only that Sunder Bai was not being allowed to go to her husband, and that the husband or his relations were not being permitted to meet her. These allegations were quite insufficient for even the remotest conclusion that the girl was being wrongfully confined. At best certain persons were being not allowed to meet her, and she was not allowed to go to a particular person, but otherwise her movements were not said to be restrained. The learned Magistrate, Mr. Jamnalal Laddha, however, proceeded further to examine Mohanlal. In that statement Mohanlal for the first time added that the girl Sunder Bai was being detained by the mother against her will. A search warrant was issued, and the girl was produced in court on the 9th of November, 1956. The Magistrate did not record the statement of the girl nor or Basanti Bai who came to court to accompany the girl. There is an order recorded on that date which purports to incorporate what happed before the Magistrate. It says:—

"Enquiry was made from the girl whereupon Basanti Bai coaxed the girl to speak out, and the girl Sunder said that she did not want to live with her husband because he was impotent."

The Magistrate proceeded to say in order that "the girl was minor calling herself to be about 15 years of age. She was not mature enough to think what was good or bad. and therefore, she should, according to the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956, remain with her guardian, and the guardian of the wife was her husband, and. therefore, the girl is ordered to be given in custody to her husband. Her husband is, however, directed not to use coercion on her" Sunder Bai made an application to the court immediately that she wanted to file an appeal, and the order of her being given in custody to her husband should not be executed, but this application was refused, and she was handed over to her husband immediately. Basanti Bai, mother of the girl, held, a revision, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has made a reference that the order of Magistrate directing the girl to be handed over to the husband should be set aside.

5. The reference is opposed by Mohanlal, and learned counsel on his behalf contended that the order of the Magistrate was correct, and relied on the following authorities—Shrinivas vs. Badrilal(l), P. Venkataramaniah Chetty vs., Pappamah(2). Rajendra Nath Mondal vs

Click Here to Read the rest of this document