RITA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein has moved this court for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus and quashing of the First Information Report lodged by the respondent No.2, her father at Mirganj police station in the district of Gopalganj She has alleged that she was married to the respondent No.3 on 6th September, 1989 at Deoria Durga Mandir in the town of Deoria DistrictDeoria (U.P.) She, according to the allegations in the petition, left her parent's house with the respondent No.3, married him, of her on own free will and lived with him until she learnt about the lodgement of a report at Mirganj police station by her father, who had alleged that she was a minor and that respondent No.3 with the help of some other persons had enticed her away from the lawful custody of respondent No.2. After notice, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have appeared. Respondent No.3 has reiterated that the petitioner, his daughter, is a minor, that respondent No.3 who had been engaged for some work for some time by the petitioner No.2 had enticed her away from the lawful custody of the respondent No.3 the and that he alongwith some other persons had committed the offences punishable under various provisions of the. Indian Penal Code Respondent No.3 has advanced a plea of marriage with the petitioner with her consent and alleged that she was a major at the time he and she together decided to marry. Accordingly, they applied for registration of their marriage under the Special Marriage Act. When called upon to state before this Court, the petitioner as stated that she is aged about 19 years and claimed that she has entered into a voluntary marriage with the respondent No. 3. She has also alleged that she apprehended danger to her life from her parents, other relatives and their friends. She has said that her father- in-law and three other persons had already been arrested by the police in connection with the case lodged by her father and that she herself and her husband were apprehending arrest. A further probe into the matter, however, has revealed and accordingly affidavits have been filed including one by the petitioner herself, in which she has admitted that there had been no marriage solemnised or registered as stated by her in the petition. She has, however, reiterated and affirmed that she is a major aged about 19 years and that she has been apprehending danger to herself and to respondent No.3 and others.

(2.) This court directed for examination of the petitioner by the Civil Surgeon, Patna who was directed to report about the age of the petitioner. The report of the Civil Surgeon is on the record. The Civil Surgeon got the petitioner examined by a Medical Board. The report reveals that she was aged about 21 years on the date of the examination.

(3.) Petitioner has vacillated and varied her statement from time to time. She has, however, been consistent about her age above 18 years and the fact that she is not a major. She has, it appears with a little variation of acknowledged that she was a willing partner when respondent No.3 took her to Deoria and from thereto other places. The marriage, however, has not been proved. Facts show otherwise. The petitioner has herself in one of her affidavits admitted that there had not been any marriage solemnised or registered as yet.