IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.W.J.C. No.506 of 2011 Yasmin Parwin @ Yasmin Begum w/o Mintu Kumar D/o Motiur Rahman @ Timan Mian. ……………Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through District Magistrate, East Champaran. 2. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director General of Police-cum- Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari. 5. The Superintendent of Police, East Champaran at Motihari. 6. The Superintendent, District Jail, Motihari, East Champaran. 7. The Superintendent, Remand Home, Gaighat, Patna. 8. The Officer Incharge, Chhauradano P.S., District- East Champaran. 9. Motiur Rahman @ Timan Mian s/o late Shekh Molim of Village- Jeeetpur Tola Hardia, P.S. Chhauradano, District- East Champaran. …………….Respondents ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sangeet Deokuliar. 4 29.8.2011 The present writ application was filed by two petitioners, who claim that though they belong to different communities, they have married. The father of petitioner no.1 claiming that she was a minor, had lodged a case of kidnapping against petitioner no.2.When the writ petition was taken up, at the request of learned counsel for petitioner no.2, the alleged husband, dis-associated himself with the proceeding and as such his name was permitted to be deleted. Respondent no. 9 to the writ petition was the father of the petitioner no.1. An intervention application was also filed, which has been allowed. The intervenor claims to be the first husband of the writ petitioner belonging to the same 2 community .Virtually there are three claimants for the petitioner, namely, respondent no.9, her father from the same community, the intervenor, her alleged first husband from the same community and the erstwhile petitioner no.2, the alleged husband from different community. We found it peculiar. We may note here that this writ application has been affidavitted by the father of the erstwhile petitioner no.2. In other words, the alleged second father-in-law of the petitioner. As the petitioner is lodged in the After Care Home, the writ petition is by her for her release from the After Care Home and to permit her to leave and live with erstwhile petitioner no.2. her husband from a different community. She refuses to go back to her parents. The resolution to this problem lies for the present in the age of the petitioner. If she is an adult then notwithstanding wishes of her father notwithstanding her first marriage, she as an independent individual has right to decide where she will live with whatever civil consequence may be, but that would not be the case if she is found to be a minor. On record we have five evidences on the issue of her age. The first is her Registration Card, as presented by her father, issued by the Bihar School Examination Board , which shows her date of birth as 5.12.1993. On basis of this certificate, she is about three months short of being a major. The second certificate is granted by the Bihar Madarsa Education Board in which her date of birth is shown as 12.11.1992. That would make her major. The third is the 3 statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure upon her recovery on 13.4.2011.The learned Magistrate being fully aware of the case, has assessed her age to be 19 years. In the same statement, the petitioner has also given her age to be about 20 years. She was then by virtue of order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari, ordered to be examined by the Medical Board. The Medical Board gave its report and assessed her age to be between 18 ½ to 19 ½ years. Thus, the only evidence of her minority is the Registration Card issued by the Bihar School Examination Board . Let it be noted that this registration with the Bihar School Examination Board as well as her registration with the Bihar Madarsa Education Board were both made at the behest of her father (respondent no.9) and much prior to the incident, which took place in April, 2011 but what we found is that pre- dominant evidence and preponderant evidence shows that she is major .Apart from that even if one would look to the certificate of the Bihar School Examination Board, she would became a major in three months. In view of the aforesaid we are of the considered opinion that it would be safe for us to assume for the purposes of this writ petition that she is a major. If that be so then it is open for her to take a decision in the matter as to where and with whom she would live, whatever the civil consequence 4 may be. So her continued detention in the After Care Home (Nari Niketan), Gaighat, Patnacity, against her wishes would thus be clearly illegal. We, therefore, direct the Superintendent, After Care Home, Gaighat, Patnacity, to let her leave the place but considering the tender age, the Superintendent, After care Home, Gaighat, Patnacity would verify the identity of the person with whom she agrees to leave and she would not be forced to go nor she would be forcibly taken by any person against her wishes. We make it clear that no finding of ours in this writ petition would adversely affect the interest of any of the parties in any manner because our finding is limited to the disposal of this writ petition and for the purposes thereof. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Let a copy of this order be sent to Superintendent, After Care Home (Nari Niketan), Gaighat, Patnacity, by FAX at the cost of the petitioner. Singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.) (Ashwani Kumar Singh,J)