Shamsuddin Ahmed, J. - (1.) This application is directed against an order dated 18th July, 1986 passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Contai, Midnapore in Misc. Case No. 81/86. Petitioner's case is that his wife Sanchita Paul filed an application before the Id. S.D.J.M. for recovery of their daughter Lucy Paul who is aged about 4 years. Her case before the learned Magistrate was that he was married to the petitioner and lived there for some time. He pressed her for dowry of Rs. 10,000/-. As her father was not able to pay she Was assaulted mercilessly and was denied food for 2 days. Her father took her to his house with the consent of the mother of the petitioner. On 6. 3. 85 while going there she took with her daughter Lucy. On 6.3.85 in the absence of the mother on a plea of giving sweets the child was taken away by the petitioner. There was attempt for settlement. Uncle and the aunt of the wife went to bring the child back. They lodged a G.D. entry. Police also tried to recover the child but failed. Attempts through Panchyat was also made but did not succeed. The husband petitioner, as alleged, has claimed Rs. 20,000/- against which he would return the girl.
(2.) Learned Magistrate examined the mother who stated before him that her daughter was threatened to be killed if payment as demanded was not made. According to her, her daughter was forcefully detained in the house of the husband. After examining her, learned Magistrate issued search warrant for recovery of the said child. The learned Magistrate directed custody of the child if recovered to be given to the mother on execution of a bond. On 26.4.86 the complainant wife submitted that her husband had removed the child to different houses so that she could not be recovered, hence search warrant for search of six houses were issued. The execution report of the search warrant shows that the girl could not be found there. On 5.5.86 husband submitted a petition that he has filed Matrimonial Suit No. 37/86 and the said suit is pending and he has filed a petition for stay of the said proceedings. On 26.4.86 the first party wife filed a petition under section 98, Cr.P.C. On 30.5.86 the court directed the father to produce the girl and application under section 98, Cr.P.C. was allowed. Date for production of girl was fixed on 7.6.86. On that date the petitioner produced certified copy of an order in Crl. Motion No. 135/86 which he preferred before the learned Sessions Judge, Midnapore. The learned Sessions Judge disposed of the Motion on 25.6.86 and it was rejected.
(3.) The learned Sessions Judge while disposing of the Crl. Motion observed - that a perusal of the record would show that the attitude of the father is reprehensible. He removed the child from one place to another only to defeat the process of the court. Only course now left to the court is to direct the authority concerned to put him under arrest otherwise he is in no mood to submit to the jurisdiction of the court by making over the custody of child as directed by the court.;