IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.605 of 2010 PHOOL KUMARI . Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 4 2.8.2010 Learned counsel for the parties are present. The petitioner Phool Kumari has also been produced before us from the After Care Home, Gaighat at Patna. Heard. The prayer in the present petition is that the petitioner, who is confined presently by the orders of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria passed on 1.4.2004 in After Care Home, Gaighat, Patna be set at liberty because she had already attained majority and had married Gautam Kumar out of her own sweet-will. It may be pertinent to note that there is properly instituted First Information Report Vide Baildaur P.S. case No. 17 of 2010, in which the brother of the petitioner has made allegations that Gautam Kumar, in conspiracy with his father, had enticed the 2 petitioner away for the purpose of getting her married to him. It may be indicated that an order passed on 22.7.2010 by the court which indicates that there was some interpolation in the birth records in respect of the petitioner which was produced before the Court on earlier occasion. We are not concerned much about that because we have the report of the medical Board which was constituted for going into the question of determining the age of the petitioner and that appears as Annexure-4 to the present petition. The Board after having obtained radiological data came to a conclusion that the petitioner Phool Kumari might be aged in between 17 and 18 years on 1.4.2010. The law is well known that any assessment of age would be made after having added two years to the age assessed by the Medical Board (See (1982) 2 SCC 538 Jaya Mala Vs. Home Secretary, Govt. of J & K.) and 3 then the petition of the present nature has to be assessed. If we add up two years to the maximum age limit assessed by the Medical Board, then the age of the petitioner may come somewhere around 19 to 20 years. This is one aspect of the matter. The other aspect of the matter is that the girl was examined by a Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that statement appears enclosed as Annexure-3 to the present petition. On consideration of her version, we find that the petitioner has stated that she, on her own sweet will, got herself married to Gautam Kumar and the allegation of her brother that Gautam Kumar and his father had kidnapped her was false and baseless. The petitioner expressed her desire while making the statement Annexure-3 that she would like to join Gautam Kumar. We are not expressing our opinion to 4 the merits of allegations in the criminal case because in the proceeding of present nature the petitioner has envoked our jurisdiction only for adjudicating upon the prayer of the petitioner as to whether her confinement is undesirable on account of being illegal because the petitioner could not be below 18 years of age. We have already pointed out that the petitioner could be said to be aged somewhere between 19 to 20 years. She has expressed before us, besides in her statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C, that she has married herself to Gautam Kumar. We find and feel that she has attained majority and the order passed by the CJM on 1.4.2004 was completely outside the four corners of law when he was directing confinement of the petitioner to remain in After Care Home. We set aside that order and we direct that she be set at liberty here and now. She is free to go 5 wherever she desires to. While we were hearing the present petition, the father of Gautam Kumar was also before us and we made certain queries regarding his willingness to accept the petitioner as his daughter-in-law and to take her to his house. The man appeared quite assuring to us and promising that he would provide all amenities to the petitioner. In that view, we allow the lady petitioner to accompany the father of Gautam Kumar, namely, Dahi Chand Singh. This petition stands disposed off. (Mridula Mishra,J.) (Dharnidhar Jha,J) A.Kumar