IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.13068 of 2008 Between: Veeravalli Seetha, W/o. Narayana Rao, R/o. Navduru, Veeravasram (M), West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of A.P., Rep. by Superintendent of Police, Eluru, West Godavari District. 2 The Station House Officer, Veeravasaram Police Station, West Godavari District. 3 Navduru Siva Kumar S/o. Nageswara Rao R/o. Andaluru, Veeravasram (M), West Godavari District. 4 Navduru Nageswara Rao R/o. Andaluru, Veeravasram (M), West Godavari District. 5 Palavasa Gopi R/o. Andaluru, Veeravasram (M), West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue or order or orders, direction or directions or writ or writs particularly in the nature of WRIT OF HABEAUS CORPUS, directing the respondent No.1 to 5 to produce Miss Veeravalli Nagadurga, D/o. Narayana Rao, Immediately before this Hon'ble Court, set her at liberty. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.K.L.N.SWAMY Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 : THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for Respondent No.3 : MR. GANDURI NAGESWAR RAO Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 and 5 : --None-- The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.13068 of 2008 ORAL ORDER : (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing learned Advocate General, appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, and also learned counsel for respondent No.3. 2. This Writ of Habeas Corpus is filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to produce her daughter viz., Miss Veeravalli Nagadurga, who was allegedly kidnapped by the third respondent viz., Sri Navduru Siva Kumar, son of N.Nageswara Rao, resident of Andaluru, Veeravasram Mandal, West Godavari District, before this Court and set her at liberty. 3. The facts, in brief, are that the alleged detenue viz., Miss Veeravalli Nagadurga, who is admittedly a minor, having the age of 17 years, was allegedly kidnapped by the third respondent. On earlier occasion, when the detenue left with the third respondent, a complaint was lodged by the petitioner, who is the mother of the girl, before the Station House Officer, Veeravasaram Police Station, West Godavari District, and the same was registered as Crime No.12 of 2008 for the offence punishable under Sections 366 (A), 505 read with 34 I.P.C. When the girl was traced and handed over the custody to the petitioner, the alleged girl again left with the third respondent. Therefore, another complaint was lodged by the petitioner to the police and the same had been registered as Crime No.66 of 2008 for the offence punishable under Section 366 (A) read with 34 I.P.C. Since the alleged detenue was not traced, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. In fact, when a complaint has been lodged before the police and the same is under investigation, this Court need not necessarily interfere in such matters and issue Writ of Habeas Corpus. However, since a general question of importance has arisen, we heard the matter. 5. As per the directions of this Court, the alleged detenue viz., Miss Veeravalli Nagadurga, along with the third respondent viz., Sri Navduru Siva Kumar, is present before this Court today. The petitioner, who is the mother of the alleged detenue, is also present before this Court. 6. Upon being questioned by this Court, in the open Court, the alleged detenue stated that she married the third respondent and in proof of their marriage, she placed before this Court some photographs. A perusal of the said photographs shows that there appears to be a marriage between the alleged detenue and the third respondent. But, the veracity or otherwise of the said fact cannot be gone into by this Court. 7. However, prima-facie, we are satisfied that there was a marriage performed between the alleged detenue and the third respondent. The conduct of the alleged detenue further shows that she was very stubborn to remain with the third respondent only, whom she married. 8. The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the alleged detenue, stated that her daughter is a minor and, therefore, she needs the custody of her daughter. She denies the marriage between her daughter and the third respondent. 9. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that, prima-facie, the marriage between the alleged detenue and the third respondent, unless proved contra, this Court cannot arrive at a conclusion, nor this Court is a right forum to decide the validity or otherwise of the said marriage. 10. In similar circumstances, in MAKEMALLA SAILOO vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NALGONDA DISTRICT[1], after scanning the entire legal position, a Division Bench of this Court made certain observations with reference to Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (for brevity “the Act”). The relevant observations, which are crucial, are as under: “Minor is defined under Section 4 (a) as a person who has not completed the age of 18 years. Section 6 defines the natural guardians of a Hindu minor and it lays down that the natural guardians of a Hindu minor, in respect of his person and property would be the father in case of a boy or a unmarried girl and then it mentions other guardians who can be guardians after the father. Under Section 6 (c) it lays down that in the case of a married girl, the husband would be a natural guardian. So this Act in a way recognizes the marriages of minor girls. The Act deals with minors and mentions the husband as a guardian of a married girl. This itself conveys the intention of the legislature that for a married minor girl, guardian would be the husband. There cannot be any guardian for a major under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. Therefore the only meaning which has to be given to Sec.6 (c) is that if a minor girl is married, her natural guardian is the husband.” 11. Therefore, even if there was a marriage between a minor girl with another person, such marriage cannot, by itself, be declared as void, that too, by this Court. Such a declaration has to be obtained from a competent civil court. 12. In the instant case, basing on the statements made by the alleged detenue before this Court, coupled with the photographs shown in proof of her marriage with the third respondent, we presume that there was a marriage and, in such a case, by virtue of the provisions of the Act, particularly in the light of Section 6 (c), the third respondent, who is said to be the husband of the girl, alone can be treated as guardian. 13. Therefore, notwithstanding the marriage not being performed inconsonance with the law, still, the nature of such marriage being voidable, this Court cannot interfere in such matters, particularly when the alleged girl is stick to her guns. So also the factum of marriage and the validity or otherwise of the same cannot be gone into by this Court and the aggrieved parties have to pursue their remedies in accordance with law. 14. For the foregoing, the custody of the alleged detenue be given to the third respondent, who is her husband, however, with liberty to the petitioner or any other affected party to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. 15. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is closed, at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 02-07-2008 Msr. ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Superintendent of Police, Eluru, West Godavari District. 2 The Station House Officer, Veeravasaram Police Station, West Godavari District. 3. Two CCs to the Advocate General, Government of A.P., High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (OUT). 4. Two C.D. copies. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.13068 of 2008 02-07-2008 (Msr) [1] 2006 (2) ALT 383 (D.B.)