IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 18538 of 2009 Between: Kummari Koteswararao ..... PETITIONER AND 1. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No. 18538 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) Kummari Koteswararao, father of minor girl-Kummari Krishna Kumari filed this writ petition for issuance of writ of habeas corpus to direct the respondents 1 to 3 for production of his daughter who is alleged to have been illegally detained by the respondents 4 to 6 and to set her at liberty. In the affidavit filed along with the writ petition, the petitioner stated that his daughter-alleged detenue who is aged 15 years is studying intermediate course in Navodaya Junior College, Gujarala, Guntur District, and that on 19.7.2009 at about 8.00 a.m. she left the house to her college to write examination but did not return home in the evening. On enquiries, he came to know that the 4th respondent and others threatened his daughter with knife, kidnapped her to Piduguralla side and illegally detained her with the assistance of others in his custody. He learnt that the respondents 5 and 6, who are cousins of 4th respondent, are behind the kidnapping of his daughter. On 1.8.2009 he lodged a report with the 3rd respondent who registered the same as a case in Crime No.112 of 2009 under Section 363 I.P.C, but so far, police failed to trace out his daughter. Sub-Inspector of Police, Gurazala Police Station, Guntur District- 3rd respondent herein filed a counter affidavit stating that on registering the crime, during the course of investigation, the investigating officer examined the father of suspect-4th respondent namely, B.Samuel who informed that his son-4th respondent is also missing from 19.7.209 and his whereabouts are not known to him. It is revealed that the 4th respondent who is pursuing B.Sc. II year in St.Ignatius Degree & P.G. College, Gurazala has not been attending the college from 10.7.2009. It is further revealed that the alleged detenue and the 4th respondent fell in love with each other, but since the parents of the alleged detenue were not interested with the said relation, she voluntarily fled away with the 4th respondent. In spite of service of notice, as the 4th respondent did not choose to put up appearance, this Court issued non-bailable warrants on 10.11.2009 to cause production of 4th respondent followed by another order, dated 18.11.2009 directing the 3rd respondent to execute the warrants issued against the 4th respondent. Accordingly, in execution of the warrants, the 4th respondent as well as the alleged detenue are produced before this Court today. On examination, the alleged detenue stated that she is aged about 15 years and her date of birth is 14.06.1994. The copy of certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education filed along with the writ petition also discloses her date of birth as 14.06.1994. The alleged detenue stated that she fell in love with 4th respondent and both of them left their village as her parents are not agreeable to perform their marriage and later they got married at Tirupati and since then, they are residing in the State of Karnataka, where the 4th respondent is working as a labourer in brick-kiln. She expressed her displeasure to go along with her parents and apprehends that her parents would forcibly perform her marriage with her paternal uncle’s son who is aged about 30 years. A Division Bench of this Court in Makemalla Sailoo v. Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda District (2006 (2) ALT 383 (D.B.) held that the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 recognises the husband as a guardian of married minor girl and though the provisions of various Acts make the child marriage as an offence, this Act does not make the child marriage as a void marriage. Since the marriage which has taken place between the alleged detenue and the third respondent therein is a valid marriage in the eye of law, though it may be an offence under various provisions of various statutes, yet the marriage cannot be nullified and under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 the 3rd respondent becomes a natural guardian of the detenue. Holding so, the Division Bench allowed the writ petition setting aside the order passed by the Magistrate sending the detenue therein to the State Home for Child Care Centre, Nimboliadda, Hyderabad and set her at liberty by handing over her custody to her husband. Following the decision referred to supra, we grant the custody of the alleged detenue to her husband-4th respondent and considering the fact that the alleged detenue is a minor, the 3rd respondent is directed to bind over the parents of both the alleged detenue and 4th respondent to the effect that they would not do any harm in future to both the alleged detenue and the 4th respondent and allow them to lead their matrimonial life. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ (A. GOPAL REDDY, J.) ____________________ (SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J.) NOVEMBER 26, 2009 TSR