MAKEMALLA SAILOO Vs. SUPRITENDENT OF POLICE NAGONDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WP No.23910 of 2005: This is an unusual case in which a girl of 13 years claims to have married 3rd respondent. The petitioner is the father of the girl viz., Arpitha who was a student of 7th class. He contended in this writ petition that while he was sleeping out side his residence, on 26.4.2005, the 3rd respondent took away his minor daughter, then he lodged a complaint with the police. The complaint was registered on 4.6.2005 as Cr.No.116 of 2005 under Section 366 read with Section 109 IPC. The police could not trace out the girl. Therefore the writ petiton was filed on 7.11.2005. According to certificate, her date of birth is 12.9.1993.

(2.) Counter-affidavit was filed by 2nd respondent in which it is admitted that the report had been filed. It is stated that on 11.11.2005 the police got information that the alleged detenue and the accused were staying in Chennai. A police team went there and traced the alleged detenue and the accused. Their statements were recorded. The accused in his statement stated that he married one Laxmi two years back against his will. Subsequently he developed relationship with the alleged detenue and eloped with her on 26.4.2005. The police claimed that in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the alleged detenue stated that she was induced by the accused to run away with him. They were brought to Devarakonda on 12.11.2005 and produced before the Magistrate. The alleged detenue refused to go with her parents, therefore the Magistrate sent her to State Home for Child Care Centre, Nimboli Adda, Hydrabad with a direction to retain her in the Home till she attains the majority or till further orders from the Court. The accused has been remanded to judicial custody and he is presently lodged in Sub-Jailo, Devarakonda. During the course of hearing, we summoned the alleged detenue from the State Home for Child Care Centre. She made a statement that she had studied upto 8th class, she was 13 years old and she had married 3rd respondent eight months before. Since the 3rd respondent was in custody and he was not represented, by an order dated 12.12.2005 we ordered his production. He also accepted that he had married the alleged detenue. The alleged detenue Arpitha before this Court also stated that she was not ready to go with her parents.

(3.) In the light of these facts, the question before this Court is whether a minor girl claiming to have married can be allowed to join her husband or she can be forced to go with her parents or she be put in the State Home for Child Care Centre till she attains majority.