Bombay High Court
Himmat S/O Kashinath Patil vs Mangala D/O Shyamrao Patil And Anr. on 16 April, 1991
Equivalent citations: 1992(2)BOMCR194
JUDGMENT N.P. Chapalgaonker, J.
1. Petitioner and respondent No. 1 married each other in the year 1982. But as the destiny would have it, this happy wedlock was not to last long. Though on 14th August 1984, Swapna - a daughter was given by God to both, parties wanted to separate and on 2-1-1990 a divorce by the mutual consent was effected. In the deed of divorce, it was agreed that father - petitioner in this revision application - would be responsible for maintenance, education and marriage of Sapana, and the child was given in custody of the father. But it was agreed that on the occasion of festivals and after each two months father will bring the minor to mother and if father ill-treats Sapana, then mother will take her custody by legal means. It appears that even this arrangement did not work. It is alleged that in May 1990, the respondent mother took away Sapana and did not return her to the father. Therefore, father was constrained to file an application bearing Misc. Criminal Application No. 249 of 1990 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon on 6-8-1990. This application purporting under section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prayed for a warrant to release minor Sapana from the possession of her mother. It was contended by the wife that when the visited the house of the father of the minor child was found weeping and was not fed. Therefore, wife decided to continue with the custody of the child. Both father and mother have shown concern for the education and it was pointed out to the learned Judicial Magistrate that both of them have admitted minor child in different schools at Malegaon and Jalgaon. In furtherance of the warrant child was brought before the Court and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon was pleased by order dated 10-8-1990 to direct that the custody of the child be given to the father being person lawfully entitled to the custody.
2. Aggrieved by this order, a Criminal Revision bearing No. 384 of 90 was filed before the learned Sessions Judge, Jalgaon by the wife and the learned Sessions Judge holding that application under section 97 would not be a proper remedy to redress grievance of the father, who wanted custody of the child, was pleased to allow application quashing the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in Misc. Civil Application No. 249 of 90 and directed that the custody of the child Sapana be given to the mother - revision petitioner. This order dated 9-1-1991 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jalgaon has been challenged in his revision application by the father.
3. Shri S.R. Barlinge, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that search warrant would be a proper remedy in the instant case. Since petitioner - father was entitled for custody of the child Sapana and she was wrongfully held up by her mother without a legal authority. According to him, divorce deed dated 2-1-1990 goes to show that parties had agreed that the custody of the child should remain with the father. Shri barlinge further relied on the provisions of The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, particularly, on section 6 in support of the proposition that the father is entitled for the custody being a natural guardian of a Hindu minor.
4. Shri Barlinge further relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Sk. Razak v. Riyasathbi and others, 1975 Cri.L.J. 1131 to support his contention that section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be resorted to in a dispute about the custody of a minor child between father and mother.
5. Shri K.G. Khadar, learned Counsel for the respondent, submitted that unless the custody of a minor amounts to an offence, section 97 cannot be resorted to. Shri Khadar further submitted that search warrant can be issued for releasing somebody from the confinement and it cannot be issued to take the possession of the child which is regularly going to the school. He also submitted that in the absence of an order passed by competent Court in. The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, both father and mother would be proper custodians of a minor child and, therefore even assuming that mother did not return child to the father as per the agreement entered into in the divorce deed, it will not constitute an offence in the criminal law. He, therefore, defended the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Jalgaon.
6. Section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is reproduced below for the ready reference.
"97. If any District Magistrate Sub-Divisional Magistrate or Magistrate of the First Class 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."
The action under section 97 is to meet emergency. A reasonable belief by the Magistrate that the confinement of the person concerned amounts to an offence is sine qua non for the exercise of the jurisdiction under this section. Therefore, unless there is material before the Magistrate and the Magistrate believes that the confinement of the person concerned is an offence, the jurisdiction under section 97 could not be exercised at all. Section 97 does not authorize a Magistrate to go into the disputed question as to which of the claimants is entitled to custody of a minor. Such a question will always have to be left to the Civil Courts empowered under the different statutes. It would also be beyond the scope of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to assess the comparative merits and demerits of the claim of a father and mother or other contending persons claiming custody and to find out in whose custody the well being of the minor is protected.
7. In the case of K. Sarasu v. Sengodam, 1981 Cri.L.J. NOC 113, the learned Judge of the Madras High Court held that whether the welfare of a child demands its custody with mother or with father is a matter to be decided in a Civil Court and this cannot be gone into in a proceeding under section 97. Therefore, though both the learned Counsel have made submissions urging that the welfare of the child Sapana will be well protected if the custody is given to their client, I am not considering this point in this proceeding.
8. Question before this Court is whether the learned Magistrate was right in entertaining application under section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in exercising his powers under that provisions.
9. As already pointed out, though the custody of the child was to be mainly with the father, she was to be brought to her mother and it appears that mother was also entitled for temporary custody. Whether this argument is having such a binding force so as to disentitled parties to claim rights of custody beyond this agreement need not be considered at present. Application for the search warrant submitted by the father itself mentions in paragraph No. 3 that non-applicant mother had gone to see her former husband-applicant since he had fractured his leg and at that time, took the minor child with her promising that the she would return her when the school would begin itself but has not kept up that promise. Therefore, it is not the allegation that the custody was obtained by the wife per force. The allegation is that she continued the custody beyond the period promised. This allegation per se will not constitute an offence. Shri Barlinge invited my attention to a judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of K. Pareekutty and another v. Ayyikkal Ayissakutty and another, 1978 Cri.L.J. NOC 98. The learned Judge has observed :---
"It is revolting to modern sense of justice and fair-play that a person who has lawful custody of the minor should be deprived of such custody by crude means which has no sanction under law. Removal of the child by using physical force from the custody of the mother is prima facie a wrongful act. Keeping the child beyond the reach of the person who is entitled to its custody would amount to wrongful confinement."
Relying on these observations, Shri Barlinge wanted to canvass that since the father is the lawful guardian and this fact has also been agreed by the mother, removal of the child from the custody of father would constitute a wrongful confinement. He also relied on the judgment of this Court in Sk. Razak's case cited supra in support of this proposition. I am afraid that both the cases are distinguishable on facts with the case at hand. In both cases, custody of the minor was with the mother and orders for the maintenance were obtained by the mother against father in favour of the child. To defeat order of maintenance, a forcible attempt was made by father to have the custody of the child and in the case of Sk. Razak cited supra, application for the custody of the minor under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 filed by the father had been dismissed by the Court. In the instant case, there is no declaration of the guardianship of the entitlement of custody of the child by the Courts under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The child is not removed forcibly from the custody of the father and it has been admitted that mother had also right of temporary custody. The allegations, therefore, are short of sufficient foundation to presume that continuance of the custody of the child with the mother constitute an offence.
10. In the case of Smt. Basanti Bai v. Mohanlal, A.I.R. 1988 Rajasthan 167, learned Judge was of the opinion that if the allegations are quite insufficient to believe that the confinement amounts to offence, the search warrant should not be issued. Though this case was under section 100 and section 552 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure (Identical to section 97 and section 98 of the present Code), the principle underlined is applicable to the instant case also. Shri Barlinge is right when he submits that powers under section 97 can be exercised even in case wherein the dispute is between the father and the mother. There is no blanked bar for the exercise of these powers merely because the disputants are father and mother of the child. But they are to be exercised only when the allegations constitute an offence and not otherwise. When the custody or its continuation has an element of criminal liability, then the Magistrate would be justified in resorting to section 97. As already pointed out, in the instant case, there is no allegation which would give rise to reasonable belief in the mind of the learned Magistrate that the continuation of custody with the mother constitute an offence and hence resort to section 97 was totally unwarranted. Therefore, prayer of the petitioner that the order of the Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 384 of 1990 be quashed will have to be rejected.
11. As already pointed out, the dispute about the custody will have to be resolved having recourse to the proper remedy as provided by the statute, some temporary arrangement will have to be made and that arrangement can only be custody of the child alternately for a specified period with both father and mother. Admittedly, custody of the child was with the father since 10th August 1990 till today. Therefore, I direct that mother shall have the custody of the child from 16th April, 1991 i.e. today till 2nd May, and on that day, she will hand over the child to her father before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon. Thereupon, father shall keep custody of the child upto 22nd May, 1991, and on that day, father will bring the child at Malegaon and will hand over the custody of the child in presence of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malegaon. Thereafter, the child will be with the mother upto 5th June, 1991, and on that day mother will hand over the child to father in presence of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon and custody of the child shall remain with the father upto 20th June, 1991.
Parties are at liberty to move the proper Civil Court for obtaining the orders about the custody of the child in the meantime, and the aforesaid order/arrangement will come to an end as soon as interim orders about the custody are made by the said Civil Court. In case no orders have been obtained by either of the parties, the arrangement will further continue and after the 20th day of June, each of the claimant-father and mother shall have the custody of the child for 15 days each. But, needless to say, it is advisable in the interest of the education of the child that proper orders from the Court are obtained by either of the parties before the commencement of the school in third week of June, 1991. With these directions, the Criminal Revision Application is disposed of. Rule discharged, subject to above directions.