IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.988 of 2011 Anand Kumar Mahto, Son of Ramanand Mahto, resident of Village-Laxmipur, P.S.-Raxaul, District-East Champaran. –Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar through Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Inspector General of Police, Tirhut Range, Muzaffarpur. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Champaran Range, Bettiah, West Champaran. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Motihari, East Champaran. 5. The Officer-in-Charge, Raxaul P.S., District-East Champaran. 6. The Superintendent, Remand Home, Gaighat, Patna City, District-Patna. 7. Khushboo Kumari, D/o-Prabhu Prasad, W/o-Anand Kumar Mahto, R/o-Vill.- Laxmipur, P.S.-Raxual, District-East Champaran. 8. Prabhu Prasad, S/o-Late Bhaiya Lal Prasad, R/o-Vill.-Laxmipur, Panchayat Ran Dhangarhwa Kodihar, P.S.-Raxual, District-East Champaran. –Respondents. ----------- 03 17.10.2011 By this writ application, the petitioner has sought custody of his alleged wife Khushboo Kumari, respondent no.7. He states that the two of them, that is, the petitioner and respondent no.7 have married and want to stay together. He also states that they are from different castes and, as such, their marriage was not approved by the parents of Khushboo Kumari. Accordingly, when they eloped and got married a case being Raxaul P.S. Case No.19/10 was instituted on 16.02.2010 under Section-366 A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging that Khushboo Kumari was aged about 13 years old and had been kidnapped by the petitioner and others. In the said case, upon investigation being completed chargesheet was submitted against the petitioner. He was tried by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Motihari in Sessions Trial No.637 of 2010/41 of 2011 and by judgment and order dated 27.08.2011 he was acquitted. Before the Sessions Court Khushboo Kumari was examined as P.W.5. She did not support the prosecution. She supported the defence 2 and clearly stated that she out of her own will had gone with the petitioner and got married. The informant, the father or any other relation was not examined in the case. The deposition of Khushboo Kumari as P.W.5 is Annexure-4 to the writ application. In that she has disclosed her age to be 24 years but the Court has assessed her age to be 22 years. After the Sessions Court acquitted the petitioner the question was what is to be done with Khushboo Kumari, who was lodged in the Nari Niketan (Remand Home) at Gaighat, Patna City. She had been examined by the Medical Board and in May, 2010 the Medical Board had assessed her age to be about 15 to 16 years old. That would make her age close to 18 years by now. The learned Sessions Judge, after acquitting the petitioner, by his order dated 09.09.2011 ordered that the girl in question is a minor in view of the medical report and, that being so, as she had refused to go to her parents, she would remain in the Nari Niketan till she attains the majority. It is this order that is virtually challenged in these proceedings. Considering that as per the medical report itself the girl would nearly 18 years of age as of date, we asked for the production of the girl before us in Chambers. The girl is produced. First, we assessed her maturity by questioning her. We find that she is matured enough to take her decision. We also found that she understood the consequences of being left to live with the petitioner as husband and wife and was ready for it. She also disclosed that it is almost about a year since her parents have met her. She wanted to live with her husband. We then called the 3 petitioner in person. The girl in his presence and boy in her presence said that they were married and wanted to live together. He was mainly employed at Delhi and would look after her. Considering the maturity both physical and mental, in our view, no useful purpose would be served by permitting the girl to be detained in Nari Niketan. The boy, that is, the petitioner undertakes to look after and care for Khushboo Kumari as his lawfully wedded wife and keep her with all dignity and responsibility. Upon this undertaking, we direct that the Khushboo Kumari be released by the Superintendent of Nari Niketan (Remand Home), Gaighat, Patna City to go with her husband, that is, the writ petitioner. The Superintendent of Nari Niketan (Remand Home), Gaighat, Patna City would inform the Court concerned also in this regard. Accordingly, we disposed of the writ application. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.) (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.)