IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.1081 of 2008 ----- Indal Kumar Singh @ Indal Singh, son of Jainandan Singh, resident of village-Bidhani P.S.Deo, in the district of Aurangabad. …. Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director General and Inspector General of Police, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Gaya. 4. The Dy.S.P.(Sherghati), in the district of Gaya. 5. The Officer Incharge cum- I.O.Gurua, P.S. in the district of Gaya. 6. Arvind Kumar Singh, son of Sri Mathura Pd. Singh, resident of village-Khairi Taira P.S. Gurua, in the district of Gaya. 7. Meena Devi, wife of Arvind Kumar Singh, resident of village Khairi Taira, P.S. Gurua, in the district of Gaya. 8. Puja Kumari, wife of Indal Singh alias Indal Kumar, presently residing at village-Khairi Taira, P.S.Gurua, in the district of Gaya. ….. Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ranjit Kumar,Advocate For the respondents : Mr.Pawan Kumar, Junior Counsel to Government Pleader XIV ------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal -------- Dated, the 26th November, 2008. We heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the writ petition and the documents annexed thereto. 2. The petitioner claims to be the husband of Puja Kumari (respondent no.8). A first information report has been lodged by respondent no.6 (father of respondent no.8) alleging that her daughter - 2 - Puja Kumari has been kidnapped by the present petitioner. The investigation is still going on. The statement of respondent no.8 has been recorded on 20th September, 2008 (annexure-3). In her statement, she has admitted her marriage with the petitioner and has expressed her willingness to reside with her husband. 3. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that by the impugned order dated 20th September, 2008, the Judicial Magistrate has handed over the custody of respondent no.8 to her parents, although she is major and in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has expressed her desire to reside with her husband. 4. The counsel for the petitioner does not seem to be right in contending that respondent no.8 Puja Kumari is major. A copy of the school transfer certificate (page-22) reveals that the date of birth of Puja Kumari is 14th February, 1993. As per this certificate, she would hardly be fifteen and half years. In the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is neither desirable, nor proper for us to go into a disputed question of fact concerning the age of respondent no.8. Prima facie, on the basis of the school transfer certificate, it can safely be assumed that the respondent no.8 Puja Kumari is not major, and, therefore, the petitioner’s marriage with her does not seem to be legal and valid. 5. In the circumstances, when respondent no.8 is minor, if her custody has been given to her father, such order cannot be legally flawed. In any case, Puja Kumari cannot be said to be in unlawful - 3 - confinement. 6. Writ petition does not deserve to be admitted. It is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Sunil