SYED AFZAL HAIDER, J.--- Petitioner through this revision seeks to challenge the order dated 13-2- 2006 whereby the learned trial Court dismissed the complaint after perusing a report dated 2-1- 2006 submitted by the Judicial Magistrate. The learned counsel contends that the solitary ground raised by the learned trial Court in dismissing the complaint is given in para.3 to the effect "no case can be got registered against a father for abduction of any of his children, and, therefore, provisions of section 365, P.P.C. Cannot be said to be attracted".
2. The complaint shows that four accused other than her father were alleged to have caught hold of the complainant in order to take her along with them and in this process when she raised hue and cry, she received injury and her uncle Muhammad Bakhsh was also beaten up as he had come to rescue her. Her maternal-grandfather and other close relations also came forward and rescued her from the clutches of the abductors. The motive behind the offence is that the accused wanted to force her to marry some one against her consent. It has been clearly stated in the complaint that it is at the instigation of the father that four accused came to abduct her. It has been stated that she is not living in the house of her father but she is living in the house of her maternal-uncle and maternal-grandfather because her father had divorced her mother after her birth and since then she is living in the house of her maternal-grandfather. It is also stated that the suit of the complainant against her father for maintenance has also been decreed and execution of the decree is in process.
3. The impugned order shows that the learned trial Court has not considered these aspects. There is no cavil with the proposition that no case of abduction can be registered against a father provided the children are living with him and are in his protective custody but if a child is abandoned by the father the latter loses the right of custody. Then, if after a lapse of few years when the abandoned child comes of age, a right does not abruptly crop up in favour of the father to marry his daughter. It is, therefore, clear that no right accrues to the father to forcibly remove his abandoned daughter from the lawful and protective custody of her maternal-uncle and maternal- grandfather who have maintained her throughout the period of infancy, childhood and the youth.
The father cannot compel her to marry against her will. The complainant is sui juris. Moreover the father has no right to take the law in his own hand and seek assistance of hired persons to forcefully remove his daughter for the purpose of forcing her to enter into marriage against her will.
4. There is also a history of litigation between the daughter and the father which shows that the father did neither maintain his daughter (complainant) for considerable period nor extended paternal affection during this period. The daughter is of course angry but that does not mean that her complaint should not be heard.
5. All these points had to be assessed. The complainant cannot be deprived of right of proving her case through private complaint. In this view of the matter, the order, dated 13-2-2006, wherein the points mentioned above do not form part of deliberation of the learned trial Court, is hereby set aside. Learned trial Court is directed to issue process and proceed with the trial. The trial must be concluded within a period of six months and a report be sent to the Registrar of this Court accordingly.