of final nature and therefore the revisional Court was competent to entertain the revision preferred by him. Most important aspect of the case is that the petitioner has no relation whatsoever with the minor child and that he was simply in her custody for a short period. It appears that the petitioner wanted to take advantage of the situation and to make her dream for grabbing the custody of the child from respondent No.1 true, she filed an application under Section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for his production in the Court. Since the child is living with Respondent No.1 (natural guardian) and his wife, this Court fails to understand as to under which provision of law, he is required to be produced in the Court that too at the instance of a stranger. Furthermore, the main proceeding itself has been closed by the SDM, that child by now has become more than 16 years of age and being so, at this stage passing any order against his interest would not be in consonance with the provisions of law. While dealing with the identical issue in the matter of Ramesh v. Laxmi Bai (Smt.) reported in (1998) 9 SCC 266, it has been expounded by the Apex Court in unequivocal terms that prima facie Section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not attracted to the facts of the case when the child is living with his own father and being so the application filed by the petitioner before the SDM under Section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure itself was not maintainable.
