IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.132 of 2010 SURUTI KUMARI, wife of Prabhat Kumar, resident of Village Rambag Road, police station Mithanpura, District Muzaffarpur …. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur 3. Superintendent, Remand Home, Patna 4. The Officer-in-charge, Mithanpura PS, Muzaffarpur 5. Prabhat Kumar son of Kailash Prasad Singh, resident of Village Rambagh Road, Ps Mithanpura, District Muzaffarpur 6. Ravi Kumar Gupta son of Vinod Kumar Gupta resident of village Kalyanibagh Diwan Road, Muzaffarpur …. Respondents ----------- 04- 7.4.2010 Heard Mr. K N Diwakar for the petitioner, Mr. Vijay Kumar Pandey, learned Assistant Counsel to GP 18 for respondent nos. 1 to 4, Mr. Baldeo Narain for respondent no.5, and Mr. P L Jaiswal for respondent no.6. Ms. Sangeeta Prasad, Superintendent of the After-Care Home, is also present along with the girl (the petitioner). 2. According to the writ petition, the petitioner claims to have married respondent no.6 at Santoshi Mata Mandir, Muzaffarpur, in the presence of her mother, brother, and the friends of respondent no.6. Thereafter they lived together like husband and wife for some time. Respondent no.5, being the father of the petitioner, started troubling them as a result of which they left the city and were at Gorakhpur. It is further stated on her behalf that the marriage has been consummated, and they are unable to live together because respondent no.5 is not permitting them to live together. On the other hand, respondent no.5 submits that the petitioner is a minor and, 2 therefore, the marriage is illegal and in violation of the provisions of Section 12 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. In view of our earlier order, the petitioner has been produced from the Remand Home. We have interviewed the petitioner, and respondent no.6, separately in camera. They have in one voice stated before us that the petitioner and respondent no.6 have married each other out of sweet will and the marriage has been consummated. It further appears from the medical report dated 5.12.2009 (Annexure 12), that the girl is between 17 to 19 years of age on the date of her medical examination. It further appears to us that there have been money transactions between respondent no. 5 and respondent no.6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to us that it would be in the interest of justice if the petitioner is allowed to join respondent no.6 to go to her matrimonial home. 4. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is released from the Remand Home and is permitted to go from the court along with respondent no.6 to her matrimonial home. We are convinced that it is a case of true and lawful marriage. In that view of the matter, the following cases are hereby quashed :- (i) Complaint case no.3267 of 2009 3 Suruti Kumari v Ravi Kumar & Ors.), pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur; and (ii) Mithanpur PS Case no.214/2009, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur (FIR –Annexure:1). ( S K Katriar ) ( Kishore K Mandal ) mrl