HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA W.P.NO.28026 OF 2010 Dt.23.11.2010 Between: K.Sudhakar Reddy ..Petitioner And The Superintendent of Police, Kadapa and others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA W.P.NO.28026 OF 2010 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) The father of the alleged detenu Mythreye filed this writ of habeas corpus alleging that his daughter is in illegal custody of the 3rd respondent – Chandragiri Uma Mahesh Kumar. He has also lodged a complaint and pursuant to which Crime No.117 of 2010 dated 8.9.2010 of Proddatur P.S. III Town, Kadapa District, was registered. It is stated that the police have not taken any steps so far to trace out the minor daughter of the petitioner and she is only 17 years and very much innocent and she is minor girl and taking advantage of the age and innocence, the 3rd respondent saying deceptive words trapped her and kept her in some secret place by kidnapping her, whose whereabouts are not known to him and his family members and he is afraid of the safety of the innocent girl. In spite of giving phone numbers used by the kidnappers, the police are sleeping over the matter without taking any action and therefore he filed this writ of habeas corpus. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, the alleged detenu and the 3rd respondent have been produced before this Court on 22.11.2010 and both of them reported that they got married on 25.9.2010 at Tirumala and living together as husband and wife from the date of the marriage. The police are directed to produce both the alleged detenu as well as the 3rd respondent before this Court today to record their statements. Both the alleged detenu Mythreye as well as the 3rd respondent are present before this Court and we have recorded statements of both of them and at the request of the mother to have an interaction with the girl, the girl also interacted with the mother and father. But, the girl is not inclined to go with her parents and she is inclined to live with her husband alone. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly the girl is a minor girl aged about 17 years and the girl has no safety in the hands of the 3rd respondent and if the girl is not inclined to join the parents, she may be sent to the rescue centre till she attain the age of majority. Learned counsel attached to the office of the Advocate General submits that as per judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in Makemalla Sailoo v. Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda[1] though the marriage of the minor is an offence under Section 18 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but, it does not make the marriage an illegal marriage. Even if one of the spouses or both the spouses are minors, the marriage does not become void. The marriage by a minor would be contravening the various laws and the factum of marriage in itself would be an offence under various laws, but, it cannot be held that such marriage would be invalid, illegal or null and void marriage. The Division Bench further held under Section 6(c) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 if a minor girl is married, her natural guardian is the husband. Both the parties i.e., Mythreye and the 3rd respondent affirmed that they have married on 25.9.2010 and living together as husband and wife. The alleged detenu has declined to go with her parents. Therefore, we are inclined to give custody of the minor detenu to the husband alone in view of the aforesaid judgment of this Court. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of allowing the alleged detenu to go with her husband. No order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. _________________ B.N.RAO NALLA, J. 23.11.2010 kpr [1] 2006 (2) ALD 290 (DB)