THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Crl.R.C.No.961 of 2010 ORDER: This revision has been filed challenging the order dated 28.04.2010 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2154 of 2010 in Crime No.38 of 2010 by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet. The petitioners case is that the victim girl is their daughter- in-law as their son married her and that since their son is in judicial custody, they have filed this petition. As seen from the record, one Koodali Nagamma, grandmother’s mother of the victim girl lodged a complaint to the police alleging that the victim girl was missing from 10.03.2010. Basing on the said report, a case in Crime No.38 of 2010 was registered as girl missing case. Subsequently, the victim girl along with the petitioner seems to have appeared before the police. The victim girl was produced before the Magistrate and the son of the petitioners was sent for judicial remand. It appears that the learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the victim girl, wherein she had categorically stated that she is not willing to go to her parents’ house as she is expecting danger to her life from her parents. Subsequently, another statement of the victim girl was also recorded on 28.04.2010, wherein she had categorically stated that she fell in love with one Bandi Nagarjuna, son of petitioners, and that they have married according to their wish without any pressure from any other person. She had also categorically stated that she prepared to live with the petitioners herein, who are her in-laws. However, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order stating that the petitioners are not the guardians of the victim girl and that they did not file any document to show that the marriage of the victim girl and their son took place. The learned Magistrate had also taken into consideration the FIR, wherein the de facto complainant mentioned that the victim girl was taken by force by the son of the petitioners and that the victim girl has ordered to be sent to Rescue Home, until further orders. The learned counsel for the petitioners, relying on the judgment in Kokkula Suresh v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1], submits that after the marriage, the husband becomes a natural guardian and he would be entitled to her custody and the custody cannot be claimed by the father and the mother of the girl. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the consistent stand of the victim girl in her categorical statement that she is the wife of the son of the petitioners, I am of the view that the impugned order cannot stand and the same has to be set aside. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. He victim girl shall be released on condition of her husband i.e., the son of the petitioners executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each by giving undertaking to produce the victim girl as and when required by the Court to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet. _____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date:19.05.2010 Note: Issue CC tomorrow (Bo) sj/nsr [1] AIR 2009 AP 52