1. An order was made and served on the petitioner directing him not to carry out a proposed marriage pending the disposal of the petition. In spite of that order, he had the marriage performed. On the day the petition was taken up for hearing, the Judge directed him to give security for Rs. 30,000 to appear on the adjourned date and to cause the appearance of another person. The order so far as the production of the other person is concerned is obviously wrong and is not supported before me. Under Section 43 Clause (4) Guardian and Wards Act the order may be enforced in the same manner as an injunction issued under the Civil Procedure Code. It has been decided in Kocheppa v. Sache Devi I.L.R. (1902) M. 494 that an order directing the person who has disobeyed the order for injunction to be detained in custody can be passed only on application by a party. The section itself does not make it a pre-requisite, and the decision is based on considerations which do not apply to a proceeding under the Guardian and Wards Act. An injunction issued under the Civil Procedure Code is solely for the benefit of a party to the suit. He is to be treated in the same position as a decree-holder who need not enforce his decree. But under the Guardian and Wards Act the Court acts in the interests of the minor and will not suffer the minor's interests to be prejudiced in the manner alleged. I am therefore of opinion that it was open to the court to act even without any application. Even in that ca.se the order is illegal and must be set aside. But the Judge evidently intended to take proceedings, if necessary, under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code and apprehended that the petitioner might not appear on the adjourned date. In my opinion it was open to the Judge for the purpose of the inquiry to take security for his appearance. I shall therefore direct that the order be considered to be set aside on the day the petitioner appears before the District Judge.
2. There will be no order as to costs.