HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 26415 OF 2010 AND CRL. PETITION NO.10619 OF 2010 Monday, the Twenty Fourth day of January, Two Thousand and Eleven Between WP No. 26415 Of 2010 V. Ravi Tejaswari Petitioner AND The Superintendent of Police, Kurnool District and others Respondents CRL. P. No. 10619 Of 2010 V.Siva Shankar Reddy Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through Station House Officer, Rural Police Statiion, Yemmiganoor, Kurnool District, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and others Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: COMMON ORDER: Ms. V. Ravi Tejaswani, has filed the Writ Petition No.26415 of 2010 through her father and natural guardian Mr. V. Raghava Reddy and the Criminal Petition No. 10619 of 2010 is filed by V.Siva Shanker Reddy under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash further investigation in Cr. No. 107 of 2010 on the file of Rural Police Station, Yemmiganoor, Kurnool District. On a complaint lodged by Mr. V.Raghava Reddy, father of Ms.V. Ravi Tejaswani, before the Station House Officer, Yammiganoor Police Station, on 12.10.2010 alleging that the petitioner in Criminal Petition, who is working as a constable, along with others kidnapped his daughter, with a view to marry her and to take action against them and see that his daughter is released from them, the police registered a case in Cr.No. 107 of 2010 dated 12.10.2010 under Sec. 366-A read with Sec. 34 IPC against Shiva Shankar Reddy, Smt. Ratnamma, Smt. Hemalatha and Veeragandham Jeevan Kumar. The said Shiva Shanker Reddy filed the above Criminal Petition to quash the crime stating that the averments made in the complaint lodged by the father of Ms. V.Ravi Tejaswani are absolutely false and the petitioner and complainant are relatives and there were marriage talks among both the families for the last six months and at that stage father of the girl tried to perform her marriage during Dasara holidays and, as such, Shiva Shanker Reddy and Ms. V.Ravi Tejaswani were constrained to perform their marriage on 11.10.2010 at Sarva Narasimha Swamy Temple, Gajulapally village, Mahanandi Mandal, Kurnool District, that the marriage was performed with their intention and without any coercion and force. It is also stated that when the father of Ms. Ravi Tejaswani, was trying to perform her marriage with another person, she was compelled to force the petitioner to complete the marriage formalities. It is stated that both of them are living amicably and leading marital life. It is also stated that the ingredients for the offence under Sec. 366-A IPC are not made out and the crime is liable to be quashed. Whereas, the case of the petitioner in W.P. No. 26415 of 2010, filed by Ms. Ravi Tejaswani through her father, is that Shiva Shanker Reddy who is working as constable and his mother, has taken his daughter along with one Jeevan Kumar, in a car from the hostel with a view to marry her and she was kept in the custody of Shiva Shanker Reddy and they are not allowing the parents of the girl to move and, therefore, he has filed a complaint, which had been registered as Cr. No. 107 of 2010. It is stated that he has only one son and two daughters and Ms. Ravi Tejaswani is the eldest daughter. It is stated that as Shiva Shanker Reddy has taken away his daughter, apprehending that he will marry her forcibly, the present writ of habeas corpus is filed. Counter affidavit is filed by the Station House Officer, Yemmiganoor Rural Police Station, stating that on the complaint lodged by the father of Ms. Ravi Tejaswani, the crime was registered and investigation was taken up and visited hostel premises, where the offence is said to have taken place and examined the Hostel Warden and Watchman, who stated that the alleged detenu Ms. Ravi Tejaswani, has voluntarily left the hostel. According to the Transfer Certificate of the alleged detenu is aged 17 years 3 months. It is stated that the Investigating Officer went to Nandyal and searched the house of suspect Mr. V.Shiva Shanker Reddy and fount it locked. Thereafter, the said Shiva Shanker Reddy produced a copy of the order passed by the High Court staying investigation in the said crime. According to the investigation, the daughter of the complainant voluntarily accompanied the said Shiva Shanker Reddy and she married on her own will without any coercion. To that effect, the detenu had also filed photographs. On quash proceedings, this court granted interim stay by order dated 25.10.2010 and so far as the writ petition is concerned, this court by order dated 7.12.2010 directed production of Ms. Ravi Tejaswani on 13.12.2010 before this court and directed to post the Criminal Petition along with the Writ Petition. When the matter had come up on 13.12.2010, this court examined the girl and recorded her statement, wherein she has stated that her date of birth according to school records is 17.8.1993, but in fact her dated of birth is 17.8.1992 and as per the Voters’ List of 2010 relating to Allagadda Assembly Constituency, she is a major. She further stated that as her parents proposed to make complaint against her wish and will, she herself asked Shiva Shanker Reddy and his parents to take her from the collage and accordingly, they took her from the college on 10.10.2010 and she got married Shiva Shanker Reddy on 10.10.2010 and exchange garlands and Tarambralu and now she is residing in the house of husband from 11.12.2010 onwards. As can be seen from the statement, the girl herself stated that she voluntarily married Shiva Shanker Reddy. If that be so, the only question that arises for consideration is whether Ms. Ravi Tejaswani, who is said to be a minor as on the date of the marriage and who is not willing to go to her parents, can be allowed to live with the petitioner in Criminal Petition Mr. V.Shiva Shanker Reddy, with whom her marriage was performed. This question is squarely covered in favour of the petitioner in Criminal Petition viz., V.Shiva Shanker Reddy, by virtue of the judgment of this court in Makemalla Sailoo Vs. Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda District and others ([1]), wherein a Division Bench of this Court has held that under Sec. 4(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, a person who has not completed the age of 18 years is a minor and under Sec. 6 of the Act, the natural guardian of a Hindu minor will be father. But under Sec. 6(c), in case of a married girl, the husband would be natural guardian. Therefore, as per the Act, the husband shall be the guardian of Ms. Ravi Tejaswani. Therefore, we are of the opinion that Shiva Shanker Reddy, being husband of Ms. Ravi Tejaswani, is her guardian. The petitioner in the writ petition will be at liberty to live as per her free will with her husband. Therefore, it cannot be said that the said Ms. Ravi Tejaswani, is in the illegal custody of Shiva Shanker Reddy. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. So far as the Criminal Petition is concerned, we are not inclined to express any opinion, as it is the concerned criminal court to decide the issue on merits after charge sheet is filed, if any. The Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed. ___________________ Justice V.Eswaraiah ________________________ Justice V.Suri Appa Rao January 24, 2011 MAS [1] 2006 (2)ALD 290 (D.B)