IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Habeas Corpus Petition No. 05 of 2010 Pappu @ Prakash ……… Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. .……. Respondents. Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Respondent No. 4 is present in Court in person. Date of decision: 16-04-2010 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. J.S. KHEHAR, C. J. (Oral) In the first medical examination, respondent No. 4 was found to be a minor. She appeared before this Court on 05.04.2010 and demanded a second medical examination. Accordingly, in furtherance of the directions issued by this Court on 05.04.2010, respondent No. 4 was again medically examined. Yet again she was found to be a minor. 2. Proceedings came to be deferred from time to time, so as to enable the Court to record an amicable settlement between the parties. During the course of hearing today, the parents of the petitioner, as also the parents of respondent No. 4 were spoken to. Despite of the minority status of respondent No. 4, she is unwilling to accompany her parents. She insists, that she desires to live with the petitioner. Since she is a minor, the desire expressed by her is of no consequence. In view of her repeated assertion, that she does not desire to live with her parents, but would rather prefer to live at the Nari Niketan, we consider it just and appropriate to dispose of the instant writ petition with the direction, that respondent No. 4 shall remain in the custody of the Nari Niketan till she attains the age of majority. Thereafter she would be free to make a choice, whether she wishes to live with the petitioner or with her parents. 3. To be fair to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be pertinent to mention, that during the course of hearing learned counsel for 2 the petitioner placed reliance on a decision rendered by the Apex Court in Juhi Devi versus State of Bihar and others (2005), 13 Supreme Court Cases, 376. Our pointed attention was invited to the factual position and the conclusions drawn in paragraph-2 of the aforesaid order. The same is being extracted hereunder: - “2. The petitioner herein is alleged to have married another person of her age and the 5th respondent herein, the father of the petitioner, objected to the said marriage. It seems that the petitioner had eloped with that person and the father of the petitioner, the 5th respondent, has filed a complaint and the petitioner was produced before the CJM, Patna. The petitioner claims that she was a major and voluntarily left with her husband. The father of the petitioner alleged that the petitioner was a minor and the question of age was referred to a Medical Board. The Medical Board opined that as on 17.05.2003, the petitioner must have been aged between 16 and 17 years. However, the father of the petitioner produced two certificates before the Revisional Court and contended that her date of birth is 12.10.1985 and she has not attained majority. However, the medical report shows that she must have been aged more than 16 years, even on 17.05.2003. Having regard to these facts, we are of the view that she must have attained majority and her stay at the remand home would not be in the interest of justice and we think that her continued stay at the remand home would be detrimental and she would be in a better environment by living with the person whom she had allegedly married.” Based on the aforesaid observations made in Juhi Devi’s case (supra) it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the instant case, that herein the age of respondent No. 4 (as per medical examination) has been depicted as above 16 years, but below 18 years, and as such, in terms of the order passed by the Supreme Court, respondent No. 4 also should be permitted to accompany the petitioner, since that is her desire even today. 4. We have considered the aforesaid contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. We, however, find no merit therein. The facts depicted in paragraph-2 in Juhi Devi versus State of Bihar and others case (extracted hereinabove) reveal, that she was judged as between 16 and 17 years of age on 17.05.2003, whereas the order was passed by the Apex Court on 17.11.2005 by which time the girl concerned in the aforesaid case had acquired the age of majority. In so far as the present case is concerned, the medical certificates were issued in 3 05.07.2009/05.04.2010, and as such, as of now in the present case, respondent No. 4 cannot be treated to be a major. 5. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is totally inapplicable in the present case. 6. The instant petition is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (V.K. Bist, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C. J.) 16.04.2010 16.04.2010 Amit