ORDERAHMAD SAEED AWAN, J.- On the last date of hearing i.e. 13.3.1995 learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to satisfy himself about the averments and allegations contained in the petition after seeking instruction from his client. Learned counsel vehemently stressed that the averments made in the petition are correct and true. On this learned counsel was warned that in case the story put by the petitioner is found to be false then the petitioner will be burdened with heavy cost. This was acceptable to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mst. Perveen Akhtar is present in person before this Court. She states that she is living with her on accord and free will with her parents. She further states that no body has confined her illegally.
2. In view of the statement made by the alleged detenue, the story put by the petitioner falls to the grounds. It may also be observed that.It has become a tendency in cases of dispute between the spouses instead of filing of suit for restitution of conjugal rights, the provisions of Section 491 Cr.P.C, are being misused. When the police or bailiff raids the house, the insult which the inmates suffer cannot be imagined. The State is custodian of the life, honour and liberty of the citizens.
3. For what has been stated above, this petition is dismissed being frivolous and the petitioner is ordered to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- to respondent No. 1 by dragging him in the Court through such baseless and incompetent application under Section 491 Cr.P.C. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.