- (1.) None present on behalf of the present petitioner from the last couple of hearings. Perused the revision petition and concerned impugned order and the annextures attached to the petition and heard the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
(2.) The contention of the present petition no. 2 is that he is husband of the petitioner no.1 who has been sent to Nari Niketan. He filed a petition before the court below to have the custody of his wife which has been rejected. Hence this petition.
(3.) The impugned order dated 9.12.2011 has been placed on record which reveals that no application to have the custody of petitioner no.1 has been filed by petitioner no.2. The mother of petitioner no.1 has filed the petition for the custody of her daughter which has been rejected and in connection of that application, affidavit has been filed by petitioner no.2 that petitioner no. 1 is his wedded wife. At the same time, affidavit has also been filed by petitioner no.1 but no application for having custody of petitioner no.1 has been filed by petitioner no.2. It has been stated that he filed the application as Annex. 4 but Annx. 4 is not the application by the present petitioner no.2 but is an application filed on behalf of mother of petitioner no.1 and when no application has been filed by petitioner no.2, this petition is pre-mature and liable to be dismissed.;