1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Criminal Writ Petition No.1165 of 2008 Sunil S/o. Veer Shetty Chauhan Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr.A.M.Saraogi for petitioner. Mr.A.S.Gadkari, APP for State. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & J.H.BHATIA,JJ. June 24, 2008 P.C. 1. We have heard Mr.Saraogi, the learned counsel for the petitioner - husband and he prays for the custody of his wife - Preeti @ Pranita. The petitioner states that the marriage between them was performed on 9/11/2006 and on account of the FIR registered on 28/11/2006 (FIR No.429/06) the custody of his wife was handed to the Dongri Remand Home, more so because the complainant - uncle declined to have her custody. Based on the medical report the petitioner claims that his wife has attained the age of 18 years by now and she should be allowed to take decision to come out of the remand home and join his company, if she so desires. 2. We have seen the record and as per the medical 2 examination conducted by two different hospitals Preeti’s age is shown to be between 18 and 19 years as of now. Preeti was produced before us by the police and we have talked to her in camera. Though she did not, by her appearance, look like the age of above 18 years, she expressed a very strong desire to join her matrimonial home. She also stated that she willingly accepted the marriage proposal and she was married to the petitioner on 9/11/2006. As per her both the petitioner and she have stayed together as husband and wife for almost two years, out of which 1 and 1/2 years at Hyderabad. She expressed her satisfaction that the parents of the petitioner have love and affection for her and she would be treated like their daughter. She was very assertive in stating that she would never like to be sent back to her uncle. 3. Mr.Saraogi, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Manik Dinkar Jagtap Vs. The State of Maharashtra (Criminal Writ Petition No.674 of 2008 decided on 30/4/2008). 4. By way of abundant precaution we had called upon the Probation Officer to submit her report about 3 the general behaviour of Preeti while she has been at the Dongri Remand Home and accordingly Mrs. Madhuri Ramekar, Probation Officer, Children’s Home, Umerkhadi submitted her oral report to us and expressed her general satisfaction of Preeti’s behaviour. Mrs.Ramekar also stated that while in the Children’s Home Preeti has been insisting to join the company of her husband and the in-laws. Though there is no marriage certificate placed on record, the petitioner has filed the wedding photographs and Preeti has confirmed that they are the photographs of her marriage with the petitioner. . As far as the original complainant is concerned, our attention has been invited to his statement recorded on 21/2/2008 when he clearly stated that he did not want Preeti to be sent to his house and he further went on to state that he had no concern with her any more. 5. We, therefore, direct that Preeti @ Pranita be released from Dongri Remand Home forthwith and she be allowed to join the company of her husband i.e. the present petitioner. We further direct Mrs. Madhuri Prashant Ramekar, Probation Officer, Children’s Home, 4 Umerkhadi to visit Preeti once in a month and submit a report to the Registry of this Court. If the Probation Officer notices any incidents of ill-treatment to Preeti, it will be her responsibility to meet the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court and brief him about the same. The Probation Officer will observe Preeti and visit her matrimonial home for a period of six months from her release. 6. Petition is disposed off in terms of the above directions. 7. Certified copy be issued on priority basis. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)