1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application (APPP) No. 1145 OF 2010 in Criminal Application no. 1164 of 2010 Sanjay s/o Suryakant Lagad Vrs. Mukta w/o Sanjay Lagad and one ................................................................................................................................................................... .. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... .. CORAM : R.G. KETKAR, J. DATED : 2nd DECEMBER, 2010. Heard Shri Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri A.B. Mirza, learned counsel for non-applicant no. 1 and Shri N.R. Rode, learned APP for non-applicant no. 2/State. By this application, the applicant has prayed for taking suitable action against the respondent no. 1/wife for removing the children from his custody. It has been further prayed for restoration of the custody of the children to him. Pursuant to the directions given by this court on 25th November, 2010, the respondent no. 1/wife is present in the court along with children namely Samruddhi and Aashutosh. 2 Shri Mirza, learned counsel for the non-applicant no.1, filed affidavit dated 2nd December, 2010 made by the respondent no.1/wife wherein she has alleged ill-treatment meted out by the applicant. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. The Criminal Application no. 1164/2019 is filed challenging the order dated 24th June, 2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Telhara, in Misc. Cri. Application no. 109/2010, as also, the judgment and order dated 12th July, 2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akot, in Criminal Revision No. 36/2010. By order dated 24th June, 2010 the learned Magistrate issued search warrant and directed the Telhara Police to find out Ku. Samruddhi and Aashutosh and further directed him to produce the children in the court. Against this decision the applicant preferred revision before the learned Sessions Judge, who by the impugned judgment, dismissed the said revision. When the matter came up before me for admission on 15th October, 2010, the respondent no. 1/wife expressed her willingness to cohabit with the applicant. Since the parties were exploring the possibility of settlement, the hearing of the application was deferred till 20th December, 2010. However, after respondent no. 1/wife cohabited with the applicant for few days, she left the applicant and removed the children from the custody of the applicant and went to her parents house. The respondent no.1 did not move this court. When the matter was adjourned on the ground that parties are exploring the possibility of settlement, she should not have removed the children from the applicant’s custody. In these circumstances, 3 respondent no.1/wife was not justified in removing the children from the custody of the applicant. Shri Mirza submitted that the respondent no.1/wife is ready to hand over custody of the children to the applicant. In view of this, the respondent no.1/wife is directed to restore the custody of the children to applicant forthwith. It is further made clear that the respondent no.1 will be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for seeking the custody of the children. Since the respondent no.1/wife is ready to handover custody of the children to the applicant, I do not think it appropriate to take any action against the respondent no.1/wife. It is made clear that the observations made herein are limited for disposal of this application only. With these observations, the application is disposed of. JUDGE Hirekhan