PUJA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF BIHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner in this writ application Puja Kumari has prayed for a direction to the respondent-authorities for her release from After Care Home, Gaighat, Patna City and for allowing her to spent her married life with Vishal Kumar (Respondent No. 4), who is her husband. The petitioner and Respondent No. 4 out of their own choice solemnized their marriage, without there being any consent of their parents. They left their respective houses in company of each other, to get married and lead their life as husband and wife.

(2.) The father of petitioner instituted Sasaram (T) P.S. Case No. 75 of 2010 under Sections 366A & 120B of the IPC in which Respondent No. 4 and other family members were made accused. In course of investigation the petitioner and her husband were arrested by the police. The petitioner was produced before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas. Petitioner's statement was recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. where she disclosed that she is 21 years of age. The Respondent No. 4 also surrendered before the court and he was taken into custody, now he has been released on bail. The age of petitioner was assessed by the Medical Board and her age was found in between 19 to 20 years. Despite this fact she was sent by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas by order dated 26.3.2010 to After Care Home. The statement of the petitioner was also recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas and there also she disclosed that she has solemnized her marriage being in love with Respondent No. 4. It was not a case of abduction or illegal confinement by Respondent No. 4. However, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas without considering the statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and ignoring the report of the Medical Board, which found the petitioner to be major. The petitioner sent After Care Home, Gaighat, Patna City, by order dated 26.3.2010.

(3.) A Criminal Revision was filed by the father-in-law and cousin father-in-law of the petitioner ( Respondent Nos. 5 and 6) against the order directing the petitioner in Remand Home but that was also rejected by order dated 15.5.2010 and the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas remanding the petitioner to After Care Home was affirmed.