Short Note : 1. On January 28, 1978 at 2 p.m., the petitioner and his relatives had come to know that respondent No. 1 was wrongfully confined in the house of Mithailal alias Shyamlal Jaiswara, resident of Azad Nagar Gorakhpur, Jabalpur. The matter was reported to the Gorakhpur and Ranjhi police-but the police took no action. On the other hand, they threatened the petitioner and his relatives. The life of respondent No. 1 is in danger and she can be done to death by respondents 2 to 4 and their associates. Hence this petition. The petitioner has filed in support of the minor's date of birth, a school leaving certificate (Annexure No. 1 to the petition). The petitioner has supported his petition by an affidavit. 2. Respondent No. 1 filed a separate return supported by an affidavit and contended that she was of 9 or 10 years age at the time of her admission in the school and her date of birth was wrongly given in the school. The date of birth recorded in the school is incorrect. She further stated that she developed intimacy with respondent No. 2 and wanted to marry him but the petitioner and his family members were not agreeable to this and wanted to marry her with an aged person. She, therefore, left her parents home of her own accord and thereafter married respondent No. 2 in a temple. 3. Respondents No. 2 to 4 and 6 filed their return supported by an affidavit. They denied that Ku. Tarabai was born on May 6, 1962 or July 6, 1963. They stated that she was born on May 6, 1959 and for the purpose of admission in the school her date of birth was got recorded wrongly. Tarabai had already completed 18 years of age and attained majority on May 7, 1977. Held : In view of the above, we do not have reliable data before us to hold that respondent No. 1 Tarabai is a minor. On the other hand, there is material to hold that she was major and had married respondent No. 2 with her free will. In Bhagwatibai v. Yadav Krishna and others (1968 JLJ, 717 it is held as under :- "The writ of habeas corpus and subjiciencfum i.e., you have the body to submit or answer, is commonly known as the writ of hebeas corpus. In Bhagwatibai v. Yadav Krishna and others (1968 JLJ, 717 it is held as under :- "The writ of habeas corpus and subjiciencfum i.e., you have the body to submit or answer, is commonly known as the writ of hebeas corpus. It is a prerogative process for securing the liberty of the subject by affording an effective means of immediate release from an illegal or improper detention. The writ also extends its influence to restore the custody of a minor to his guardian when wrongfully deprived of it. The detention of a minor by a person who is not entitled to his legal custody is treated, for the purpose of granting the writ, as equivalent to imprisonment of the minor. It is, therefore, not necessary to show that any force or restraint is being used against the minor by the respondent". 4. In the same ruling, it is stated that the paramount consideration in every such case is the welfare of the minor. The best interest of the child is the primary consideration; the right of the guardian is secondary and it will not be enforced by issuance of the writ when it is in conflict with the former consideration. The above observations relate to a case of a minor but our case is not akin to that. On the other hand, the available date does not establish that the girl was a minor. It is further established that she had married respondent No. 2 with her free will and is living with him without there being any kind of illegal or wrongful detention. In the circumstances, we find no case for issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. 5. Shri N.P. Dube, counsel for respondents contended that there being an alternative remedy available to the petitioner, a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution was barred. He relied upon a decision of this Court in Smt. Asha Mishra v. Shri Narayan Prasad Mishra, (Misc. Petition No. 316 of 1977 decided on 2-8-1977). We have perused the decision and find that the facts of that case are distinguishable. In that case, the dispute was between the husband and the wife mainly regarding the custody of a female child. Petition No. 316 of 1977 decided on 2-8-1977). We have perused the decision and find that the facts of that case are distinguishable. In that case, the dispute was between the husband and the wife mainly regarding the custody of a female child. On these facts, it was observed that the petitioner could have recourse to sections 25 and 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act which provided an equally efficacious alternative remedy. This is not a case here. In this case, it was alleged that a minor was wrongfully detained without the consent of the guardian and, therefore, we are of the view that the petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable. 1968 JLJ 717 , referred to. M.P. No. 316 of 1977, distinguished. Petition dismissed.