THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.No.24845 of 2009 Date: 21-12-2009 Between Nagisetti Krishnudu … Petitioner and The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and 11 others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.No.24845 of 2009 Oral Order: (per D.S.R.Varma, J.) Heard Sri Sadu Rajeshwar Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the learned Advocate General, appearing for respondents 1 to 6. 2. The complaint of the petitioner in the writ petition is that respondent No.7 had illegally taken away his minor daughter, by name Lakshmi Rekha, without his knowledge or permission and hence he seeks intervention of this Court by way of issuing a Writ of habeas corpus. 3. It has been stated in the affidavit that the daughter of the petitioner was found missing from 07-9-2009, therefore a complaint has been lodged with Rudravaram Police Station and the same has been registered as Crime No.121 of 2009 under the heading ‘Girl Missing’. The whereabouts of the alleged detenue were not mentioned in the said FIR. 4. The main thrust of the petitioner is that his daughter, who is the alleged detenue, is a minor and had been taken away by respondent No.7. But, at the outset, it is incomprehensible as to why he did not give the complaint against respondent No.7 at the earliest point of time. As already noticed, the first information report to the Police was about the missing of the girl but not against respondent No.7. Therefore, the inference is that the petitioner came to know about the involvement of respondent No.7 at a latter point of time and therefore, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the role of respondent No.7 amounts to an offence punishable under Sections 361 and 366 of IPC. 5. It is the further contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that since the alleged detenue is a minor, her custody is to be traced and be handed over to the petitioner, who is the natural guardian, being the father. 6. Subsequently, the girl has been traced by the respondents-Police and has been produced before this Court along with respondent No.7. Upon being questioned in the open Court, the alleged detenue in all assertion has stated that there was no force from any source to go away along with respondent No.7 and that she married him since she liked him. She further admitted that she is aged about 17 years. So, obviously she is a minor. But, she stated that she had married and has been staying with her husband (respondent No.7) on her volition happily and that presently she is pregnant. 7. The pregnancy of the alleged detenue is not the subject matter to be dealt with in this case. 8. The question is as to whether the custody of the alleged detenue is to be given to the father or she be permitted to go and live along with her husband, who is arrayed as respondent No.7 in the writ petition. 9. No doubt, the law is that the minor girl cannot be permitted to marry. Still, certain circumstances as permitted by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, such marriages are permissible. 10. This question, so far as our High Court is concerned, is no longer res integra. A Division Bench of this Court in Makemalla Sailoo v. Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda[1], had dealt with elaborately the issue involved and specifically had taken into consideration the over-riding effect of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. It is necessary to extract the relevant portion of the judgment, which is as under: “11. Minor is defined under Section 4(a) as a person who has not completed the age of 18 years. Section 6 defines the natural guardians of a Hindu minor and it lays down that the natural guardians of a Hindu minor, in respect of his person and property would be the father in case of a boy or a unmarried girl and then it mentions other guardians who can be guardians after the father. Under Section 6(c) it lays down that in case of a married girl, the husband would be a natural guardian. So this act in a way recognizes the marriages of minor girls. The Act deals with minors and mentions the husband as a guardian of a married girl. This itself conveys the intention of the legislature that for a married minor girl, guardian would be the husband. There cannot be any guardian for a major under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. Therefore the only meaning which has to be given to Section 6(c) is that if a minor girl is married, her natural guardian is the husband.” 11. We could also see concern of this Court about the child marriages. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances, held that such marriages are not always void but are voidable. It further indicates that various aspects have to be taken into account like the age of the minor etc. 12. The learned Counsel for the petitioner had pointed out that this amounts to an offence punishable under Sections 361 and 366 of IPC, notwithstanding that such marriages amount to offences. On that sole ground, the marriage of a minor cannot be held to be invalid or null and void, particularly in the light of the provisions of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. 13. Coming to the present case, it is to be seen that the alleged detenue is aged about 17 years is sufficiently proved and she attained the age of discretion and in fact, she exercised her discretion, of course, not permissible under law. But, still, having regard to the facts and circumstances, particularly in the light of her assertive statement made before this Court that she liked her husband before marriage and since her marriage was about to be performed with another person much against her will, she hurriedly married the person of her liking, who is respondent No.7 herein. 14. Though her pregnancy as such is not relevant for the purpose of deciding the case, still we deem it appropriate to take that situation also into consideration while dealing with the aspect of giving custody of the alleged detenue to the father. 15. The father quite obviously is very emotional with the conduct of his daughter and whereas her husband, who is respondent No.7, assures this Court that he would look after his wife carefully. He has his father and brothers in case of any necessity. 16. Having regard to the over all facts and circumstances, we give the custody of the alleged detenue to respondent No.7 following the judgment referred to above. 17. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. ___________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ____________________ JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO 21st December, 2009. Ak [1] 2006 (2) ALD 290 (DB)