The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate opined that the appellant was the natural guardian of Amit, the nine year old son of the parties, and, therefore, he companyld number be said to be under any illegal companyfinement and companysequently the application for issuance of search warrants under Section 97 CrPC was dismissed vide an order dated 20 2 1995.
Against the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 20 2 1995, the respondent filed a revision petition and the learned Additional Sessions Judge exercising his revisional jurisdiction allowed the petition and directed the custody of the child to be given to the respondent.
Laxmi Bai through a decree of divorce dated 16 12 1993.
A revision petition filed by the appellant against that order in the High Court was dismissed on 17 7 1996.
On 16 2 1995, the respondent sought search warrants under Section 97 of the CrPC for recovery of Amit.
Amit, son of the parties bom on 26 2 987 was at that time living with the appellant.
It appears that the respondent in the meantime had filed an application under the Guardians and Wards Act in 1995.
The appellant divorced the respondent, Smt.
Leave granted.
