IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.1058 of 2008 SUNIL KUMAR @ BAM BAM SINGH ------ PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NAWADAH 3. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE CUM INVESTIGATING OFFICER, WARISALIGANJ, POLICE STATION – WARSALIGANJ, DISTRICT – NAWADAH 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT , WOMEN CARE HOME (NARINIKETAN) GAYGHAT, PATNA CITY, DISTRICT – PATNA 5. SADAN PRASAD SINGH SON OF SARYUG SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHANAPUR, POLICE STATION – WARSALIGANJ, DISTRICT – NAWADAH --- RESPONDENTS ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Devendra Prasad Singh, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, AAG – I Mr. Ritesh Kumar, JC to AAG - I P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --- Dated, the 19th November, 2008 Sunil Kumar - the petitioner herein claims to have married Pammi Kumari daughter of Sadan Prasad Singh (respondent no.5) He has averred that in a false First Information Report lodged by Sadan Prasad Singh for the offences punishable under section 365 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, he and some villagers have been implicated. According to him, in P.S.Case no.59 of 2008, the custody of his wife – Pammi Kumari has been given to the Superintendent, After-Care -Home, Patna. By means of this writ 2 petition, he has prayed that Pammi Kumari be ordered to be released from After-Care-Home and she be permitted to reside with him. 2. That the petitioner is principal accused in P.S. Case no.59 of 2008, registered as Warsaliganj Police Station for the offence punishable under section 365 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is not in dispute. That he was arrested and taken into custody for the investigation into the said crime and that now he has been released on bail is also not in dispute. That Rambalak Singh (petitioner’s father) filed a petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawadah for handing over the custody of Pammi Kumari to him being her father-in-law has been rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawadah vide order dated 5th September, 2008 is apparent from the record. Although, according to the petitioner and the statement of Pammi Kumari recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the age of the girl is twenty one years but, according to the girl’s father, Pammi Kumari is hardly fourteen years old. We find from the record that Pammi Kumari was medically examined and she has been found to be 15-16 years of age. 3. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawadah rejected the petition filed by the petitioner’s father for release of Pammi Kumari by the following order: “A petition dated 03.07.08 was filed on behalf of petitioner Bambalak Singh for release of Pammi Kumari 3 from Remand Home Patna City in his favour and a petition has also been filed on behalf of victim girl Pammi Kumari on 01.07.08 in which she has prayed that she may be released in favour of her Sassur Rambalak Singh, who has been sent to Remand Home in connection with Warisaliganj P.S. case no.59/08 for the offence under section 365 of the Indian Penal Code. The copy of the petitions have also been served to the learned incharge D.P.O. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned incharge D.P.O. for the State. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the girl has married with Sunil Kumar, the son of the petitioner in accordance with Hindu Ritual and Rites so the girl may be released in his favour as his son is about 24 years and the age of Pammi Kumari is 21 years and his contention regarding solemnization of marriage is also supported with an affidavit. The learned D.P.O has vehemently opposed these petitions and concedes that the victim girl may be released only in favour of her natural guardian and not others. Perused the case record and relevant papers of this case. It appears that the informant Sadan Pd. Singh, who is the father of the victim girl Pammi Kumari, has mentioned in F.I.R. that the age of Pammi Kumari, victim girl, is 14 years and perused the statement of the victim girl Pammi Kumari u/s 164 Cr.P.C. in which the Magistrate has assessed the age of the victim girl Pammi Kumari as 14 years and on perusal of medical report it appears that the doctor has mentioned the age of victim girl Pammi Kumar about 15-16 years. On perusal of all relevant papers and physical appearance of victim girl Pammi Kumar , it appears that Pammi kumari is not major and she is minor at this stage. The petitioner is not the natural guardian. The parents of the victim girl has not appeared before the court filing a petition for releasing the victim girl in his favour. Although the girl Pammi Kumari is not ready to go with her parents and she has already been sent to Nari Niketan Gaighat, Paatna. On the above facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the victim girl Pammi Kumari is minor. Therefore, the petition dated 03.07.08 filed on behalf of petitioner Rambalak Singh and petition dated 01.07.08 on behalf of the victim girl Pammi Kumari are hereby rejected.” 4 4. In view of the medical report concerning the age of Pammi Kumari and there being no other material to establish the age of Pammi Kumari conclusively otherwise, it can, prima facie, be assumed that she is not major as she appears to be 15-16 years of age. In this back drop, prima facie, it cannot be held that marriage between the petitioner and Pammi Kumari is valid or Pammi Kumari is his legally wedded wife. 5. In the circumstances, the prayer of the petitioner for release of Pammi Kumari from After-Care-Home and giving her custody to him, in our opinion, cannot be acceded to. 6. Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. R. M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J. Neyaz/-