IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.1121 of 2010 RAKESH MAHTO Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 5. 30.11.2010. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner claims to be the husband of respondent no.9 Jyoti Kumari. His prayer is for issuance of writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents nos.6, 7 and 8 to produce his wife, as she has been forcibly kept in confinement against her will and prevented from leading her conjugal life. Petitioner’s case is that respondent no.9 Jyoti Kumari was in love with him, both decided to elope and as such they went to Hyderabad, got solemnized their marriage and thereafter, they came back to Chapra. In the meantime the father of Jyoti Kumari had already instituted Amnaur P.S.Case No.12 of 2010 under Section 366A and 34 of the IPC against the petitioner and his family members. The petitioner was taken into custody in connection with Amnaur P.S.Case No.12 of 2010 and Jyoti Kumari was produced 2 by the investigating officer before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chapra. Statement of Jyoti Kumari was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and she was directed to be produced before the Medical Board for examination to ascertain her age. The age of Jyoti Kumari as disclosed in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is 15 years, but as per the medical report her age has been assessed in between 17 to 19 years. Jyoti Kumar, in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that she herself decided to leave her parents house in order to get married with the petitioner, and the marriage was solemnized at Hyderabad. She also expressed her desire that she wants to go with her husband, the petitioner. However, subsequently, she herself filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chapra where she completely changed her decision to go with the petitioner. She made a request to allow her to go with her father. The father of Jyoti Kumari Respondent No.9, also filed an application for his daughter’s release in his favour and to allow her to go with him. The 3 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chapra, passed and order on 4.3.2010, while Respondent No.9 was present in the court. Considering the desire shown by Respondent no.9, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chapra allowed her application and she went in the company of her father. At present respondent no.9 Jyoti Kumari is residing with her father. Counsel for the petitioner submits that since respondent no.9 is his legally wedded wife, and against her will she is being kept in captivity by her father, as such she is in illegal confinement and considering this, it is a fit case for directing the respondent to produce Jyoti Kumari before this court and allow her to go with him so that they may start their conjugal life. However, the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chapra narrates some other story. The girl has changed her mind and now she does not want to live with the petitioner. Considering her age as decided by the medical board, she is major and competent to decide her course of life. Since, she has disclosed her mind before the 4 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chapra that she wants to go with her father, there was no other option before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chapra than to allow her to go with her father. In this circumstances, it respondent no.9 is willingly residing with her father, that cannot be considered by any stretch of imagination as illegal confinement. Respondent no.9 not being illegally confined, we lack jurisdiction to interfere in the mater, this application is not maintainable and it is dismissed. B.Kr. ( Mridula Mishra,J. ) ( Dharnidhar Jha,J.)