JUDGMENT 1. - This application under section 482 Cr. PC has arisen in the following Circumstances. 2. On March 17, 1981, one Kalyan, grand-father of Birji, reported to the police of Bhimganj Mandi that Birji, a child 14 or 15 years of age, had been missing since morning and that on enquiry he had discovered that Meghraj and Mathura had Kidnapped her. The police recovered Birji on May 3, 1981. Mathura was arrested on May 12, 1981. On an application for the custody of Birji made by her father Prahlad, the Judicial Magistrate, Kota made an order dated, May 26, 1981 directing her to be delivered in the custody of her father on certain conditions incorporated in the order. 3. Aggrieved by that order, Birji, through her counsel, made a petition of revision in the court of Session at Kota. By his order dated, July 31, 1981 the learned Sessions Judge, partly allowed the application with a direction that instead of being delivered in the custody of her father, Birji may be kept in Narishala at Kota. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Birji made an application through her counsel under section 482 Cr. PC for setting aside the said order and for a direction from this Court to set her free from the custody of the Narishala. 4. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, mainly contended that Birji has already attained the age of majority and that therefore, she cannot be kept in Narishala against her wishes and that her further detention in the Narishala must be viewed as illegal. As the learned Sessions Judge has pointed out in his impugned order.it is very difficult at this stage without recording evidence on both sides to give any finding as to whether Birji is a minor or has already attained the age of majority. The impugned order made by the learned Magistrate and thereafter by the learned Session Judge does not seem to be covered by any provision of the code of Criminal Procedure. Section 482 Cr. PC makes it clear in terms that nothing contained in the code of Criminal Procedure shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of this court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this code. Section 482 Cr. PC makes it clear in terms that nothing contained in the code of Criminal Procedure shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of this court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this code. I am stating this provision here to show that the present application has not been made for giving effect to any order passed under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The other occasion for the exercise of inherent jurisdiction by this Court under section 482 Cr PC would arise as section itself says, if it is necessary to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. I am satisfied in the circumstances of the case that there is no abuse of the process of any court involved by Birji being kept in the Narishela. It will be seen that she is a married woman, who at the time of her alleged kidnapping was residing with her father. It appears that her husband is not eager to take her back. She does not seem to be willing to be returned to the custody of her father. Under the circumstances, the Sessions Judge seems to have thought it to be the best course to keep her in the Narishala. If she thinks that she is being kept wrongfully confined in the Narishala, it will be open to her to take such remedy which may be available to her. For example, an application under section 97 Cr. PC or a habeas corpus petition may be available to her under law. 5. With these observations, this petition under section 482 Cr. PC fails and is dismissed in limine.Petition dismissed. *******