® Q9 Smgia Bench IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRIMINAL REVISION No.2} O / 2006 APPLICANTS : 1. Mahesh Kumar Sahu, S/o Ramlakhan Sahu, aged about 24 years, g. Ramlakhan Sahu, ’ S/o Motilal Sahu, V £ CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 397/401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 973. R “ 5 1 /, 0 ”\W\ " ekyf); « h years, 3. Deepak Sahu, ‘§\V\ ~ S/o Mahesh Kumar Sahu, ~ ’ aged about 02 years, Minor Applicant No.3 is represented by Applicant No.1 his Natural Guardian and Father Mahesh Kumar Sahu All R/o Village Harra, Jobapara, Thana & Tehsil- Manendragarh, District-Koriya, Chhattisgarh VERSUS NON-APPLICANT : Kaushilya Sahu, W/o Mahesh Kurnar Sahu, Aged about 21 Years, R/o Village Lohari, Thana & Tehsil Manendragarh, District g Koriya, Chhattisgarh I 19.94.2906 Shri J.K. Gupta, counsel far the épplicant Smt.‘ Usha Chandraka'r, counsel for‘ths non—applicant. With the consent of ths panics this Criminal Revision is bein heard finally today at the stage of admi sion. M Cr P No 243/2006 for gtay‘i theiefore dismissed ‘Viins 1ev151on is directed aga nst the 01de1 dated 7412006 passed bv the Additional Sessmns lu \ umiml §evmon No 254/2005 wh reby the oider dated 23 8 7005 paswd bV the Sub Dmuonal Oiiicer M'mendiagnh m Miscellaneous ( nmmal Case No 8/2005 awarding c stody of the mmm male child to the father 1 e applicant NO 1 herem Vt/a set wide Bnef fqcts ate that the applica No 1 herein was mamed to the , non-applicant on 90 5 2002 A mal rhild was bom on 31 3 2003 Thetcafter upon a manta! d1sco1d, the -applicant lelt the matmnomal home on ”3V4 2005 ghe moved an applicatioh 0n 29 82005 unde1 Sectxcm 175 C1 P C f01 mamtenance o the ground that she was unable to mtmhm hemelf She aleo move m application befme the Sub Dmstonal Oflicei Manendrag’trh un Section 97 C1 P C for issuance of a seaioh wart ant on the gound th t her minOi male child Deepah ahu woe Wiongly confined ‘by the app icant \lo 1 herein The leamed bob DiVis1oiial O$iper5 \Ianendragaih 'de older dated 23.8.2005 held that iion-aiiplicant herein thbugh the na i‘al guardian of the minor child was unable to maintain the child an tlieiefore he oideied that the sonlioint \lo 1 heiem shall ictam Gus ody of the child It was also 1 herein had not kept the child ‘ V Mmendragarh Distt Koream mentioned theiein that the applicant‘N s. g d n n de . m mm :V \QW a Qaugm‘, mmmw WW MW $3IF—vcmaném under vmingful confinement but wasv naintaining fha child as a lawful r guardian. Being aggrieved by thc aforesaid order, the non—almlicant herein preferred Criminal Revision No. 254/2 305 before the learned Additional- Sessiom Judga, Manendra‘garh who vide o‘rder dated 24.1.2006 set aSide the order of the Sub Divisional Officer dated 23.8.2005 awarding custodywfthe .child t0 the mother. Learned Additional Sessions Judge did not record a finding that the father i.e. applicant No. l. herein was keeping the child in w1 ongful confinement The onlv contention iaised by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant 1s that the non-applicant ”a No 1 1s the natural guardian of ‘thc child being his father and was pro erly maintaining the minor child ' He placed reliance on Yudiizstar M hanand Vs. Dalimba il/fohanand reported in 1990 Cr.L.J., Page 1!}85 hile arguing that. the question as to the custody of the minor Child has to be-deeided by the Civil: Court and cannot be gone into in an appliea 'on under Section 97‘of‘the Code of Criminal l)roéedure. It was also ed that the non-applicant was aw disabled person and was not even ble. to 'look‘after her son: As mentioned by her in her-ownapplicati n under Section 125 Cr.P.C., she had admitted that she was unable to m intain her own self. On the other hand. Smt Usha Chandrakar, learn counsel appearing for the non- applieant argued that the mother bein the natural guardian of the minor chird was entitled to the custodv of t e child as rightly held by learned Additional Sessrons Judce Hating heard the rival cont . record; Section 97 of the C1.P.C.. has ' thereunder is only Whether the child was wrongfully confined by the ' i tionS I have gone through the " limited scope. What 1s aelevant “ g e a ’XLHC-g'z éitl1eg. No such ‘fmding Eds been récc lierefore: ‘ the leaned ' Additionalv Sessg side the order dated 23.82006 jzassa Officer, Manendragarh. The quesgion the minor child is not gelinane :1'1 a1 V C1 P C A pamsal of the 16co1d aiso sh< 1s a disa’eled pe1sm and ls unable to ma In v1ew of What has been statec n0 material to show that the applicant passeit by learned Additianal Sessions I undsr m‘ongful‘confimment, the im iliegal and liabis t0 b6 set aside. _ In the result, this criminal revi arcisr dated, 24.10.2G06 pass¢d by the k la set aside vehile affn‘mihg the order leamed sob Divisional‘Offlcet, Manent ided bV both the Coulis below ms Judge wholly cared m settm lby'ths leamed Sub Divisional of entitlement to the custody of 1' application under Section 97 )ws that the Non—applicant No. rl V mtain’herself.r ‘ above, since there is absolutely No. 1 had kept the minor chil r sugded ordar dated 24.1.200 Judge; Manendragarh'is per s’e gion‘is allowed. The impugned ' urned Additional Sessions Judge dated 23 8 ”GUS passedbythe tagarh. / Fliya ‘ f T a g d 5 n / l / Cw (2»e'v mluo mm. ' f m W 200 mmmm : ‘ WWm‘VWW agmaggT « —r L z a