IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1488 of 2009 SOMAR MAHTO Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 15.9.2009 The petition filed on behalf of the petitioner claiming himself to be husband of Basanti Devi @ Basanti Kumar, opposite party no.10, has been refused by order dated 16.7.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge- 7, Patna in S.T.no.630 of 2009. Legality, correctness and proprietary of the impugned order has been question by filing this revision petition. There could have been any doubt about Basanti Devi, opposite party no.10 being a minor but petition is not filed on her behalf rather on behalf of petitioner assuming that she was minor as she has no right to move for her release. In the case, the F.I.R. lodged on behalf of father is about her being minor. The doctor has also opined her in between 16 to 17 years, margin is also there while accepting the opinion of the doctor but here there is no scope as stated that the petitioner himself is assuming her as minor. Marriage is also - 2 - claimed. Admittedly both the girl and the petitioner belong to Hindu religion, so Hindu Marriage Act is applicable for their marriage. Some provision is made there for the marriage as among Hindus. There were several ceremonies mainly eight in number but most of them were not accepted while the marriage was legislated. Section 7 of The Hindu Marriage Act is there stating ceremonies for Hindu marriage which runs as follows:- “7.Ceremonies for a Hindu marriage.-(1) A Hindu marriage may be solemnized in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party thereto. (2) Where such rites and ceremonies include the saptdpadi (that is, the taking of seven steps by the bridegroom and the bride jointly before the sacred fire), the marriage becomes complete and binding when the seventh step is taken.” No doubt customary rites and ceremonies of either party are only sufficient for victim’s marriage but that never can legalise the criminal act of the petitioner specifically when he is major and one of the marriage parties. According to the F.I.R. the victim girl is kidnapped and the petitioner is bold - 3 - enough to get an affidavit filed on her behalf even about following him, marrying him, consuming the marriage, constituting in itself several criminal acts and the statement of victim girl was also recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. and now the petitioner is bold enough to claim the release of the girl from the remand home by filing this revision petition which in no case can be allowed, so it is observed that the prayer for release has rightly been refused by the court below. This revision petition is accordingly, dismissed. (Mandhata Singh,J.) AI