THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1794 OF 2010 ORDER: 1 Petitioner is the alleged husband of Anusha daughter of the second respondent herein. He filed the present revision against the order dated 01.09.2010 passed by the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tirupathi in Cr.No.90 of 2010 of West P.S. Tirupathi whereby the learned Magistrate ordered custody of the minor girl Anusha to her parents. 2 Brief facts are that the petitioner and the daughter of the second respondent by name Anusha are in love with each other and hence they married at Sri Mogileswara Swamy Temple, Mogili, Bangarupalyam Mandal, Chittoor District on 20.08.2010 and immediately after the marriage, the same was consummated. As the petitioner belongs to Balija by caste and the second respondent belongs to Kamma by caste, the said marriage is not to the liking of the second respondent and as such the second respondent gave a report before the S.H.O. West P.S. Tirupathi stating that his daughter is missing pursuant to which a case in crime No.90 of 2010 was registered as ‘girl missing’. 3 After the registration of the said crime and during the course of investigation the Sub Inspector of Police traced out the missing girl Anusha and produced her before the court on 24.08.2010 and requested the court to issue necessary orders. The said girl, when questioned, stated before the court that she is aged about 19 years and produced her S.S.C. marks memorandum. However, being not satisfied with the said marks memorandum, the court below, after perusal of the record and also keeping in view of the physical appearance of the said girl, referred the girl to SVRRGG hospital, Tirupati to determine her age. The Assistant Professor, Forensic Medicine, SV Medical College, Tirupati, after conducting required tests, issued a certificate stating that she is aged about 18 years. As the said report is not to the effect that she completed 18 years of age, and as the girl was not willing to join her parents, the court by its order dated 26.08.2010 directed the police to send the girl to Rashtriya Seva Samithi for her shelter for a period of one week. Pursuant to the said order the girl was admitted in the said Samithi for shelter for a period of one week. 4 On 01.09.2010 the girl was again produced before the court on which day the second respondent herein who is the father of the said girl – Anusha appeared before the court and field a petition stating that he is the father of the girl and as the girl is a minor, her custody may be handed over to him and he also gave an undertaking stating that he will produce the minor girl whenever the court requires her presence. In the light of the said requisition made by the second respondent i.e. her father, the court below passed the impugned order dated 01.09.2010 handing over the custody of the girl Anusha to the second respondent. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed the present revision stating that since the said girl Anusha is not a minor and as their marriage was performed as per Hindu custom, the custody of the girl shall be handed over to him but not to the parents of the girl, and according to him the girl also is not willing to join her parents. 5 When the matter is taken up for hearing on 01.10.2010, having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and while ordering notice before admission, this court directed the respondents i.e. Station House Officer, West P.S. Tirupathi and the father of the girl respectively to produce the girl Anusha wife of the petitioner (daughter of the 2nd respondent) before this court on 19.10.2010. Pursuant to the said order, both the respondents were present and the girl J. Anusha was also produced before this court. When questioned, the girl in the open court has categorically stated that she is not willing to join her parents and she wants to live with her husband i.e. petitioner herein. 6 When once it is established that the said girl Anusha is a major and she wants to live with her husband i.e. the petitioner herein, in my considered view, the court below ought not to have given the custody of the said girl either to the police or to her parents. 7 Hence, this revision is allowed and the order dated 01.09.2010 passed by the court below is hereby set aside. ________________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 20th October 2010 Kvsn