JUDGMENT 1. - Through this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have challenged the detention of petitioner no. 2 in the Nari Niketan, Jaipur. 2. The brief facts of the case, which are relevant for the disposal of this petition are that: petitioner No. 1 is said to be graduate of Arts from the University of Rajasthan and holds a diploma in cookery and also diploma in restaurant and counter service from the Food craft Institute, Ahmedabad. The second petitioner Ravendra Kaur Bhumbra, now Mrs. Sheeba Khan alleged that she is more than 22 years of age. She is also a graduate in commerce from the Gujarat University and holds Diploma in Sculpture and diploma also in Cookery. It is alleged that she has obtained both these diplomas after her graduation in Commerce from the Gujarat University. Both the petitioners were getting trainings at the food craft Institute, Ahmedabad and, during the training period they developed intimacy with each other. After training petitioner No. 1 took up services in Taj Mahal Hotel and thereafter he has joined service in the Hotel Clerk's Amer. Petitioner No. 2 is alleged to have come to Jaipur by air from Ahmedabad on 6.11.1981 under the pseudonym of Yasna Oza and from Jaipur both the petitioners went to Tonk. It has been further contended that at Tonk, petitioner No. 2 embraced Islam and married petitioner No. 1 according to Islamic rites and customs before the religious Kazi an that a regular entry in the register maintained for the purpose has been made. 3. The father of the girl lodged a report on 10-11-1981 at 5.30 p.m. under Sections 363, 366 and 342 IPC against Petitioner No. 1. In the First Information Report the girl is shown to be a minor girl. 4. Alongwith the petition a certificate from the Board of Secondary Education has been produced which was issued on 16-8-1976. The date of birth of the girl has been shown to be 20th October, 1959. Petitioner No. 2 got herself medically examined at the Government Hospital, Tonk and the Doctor has opined about her age to be above 18 years. An affidavit to this affect has also been filed by Ravendra Kaur Bhumora. The date of birth of the girl has been shown to be 20th October, 1959. Petitioner No. 2 got herself medically examined at the Government Hospital, Tonk and the Doctor has opined about her age to be above 18 years. An affidavit to this affect has also been filed by Ravendra Kaur Bhumora. In the affidavit she has deposed her date of birth to be 20.10.1959 and she has further stated that she is freely and voluntarily accepting Islam and is marrying Zahir Ahmed Khan without any compulsion. 5. A reply has been filed on behalf of the State. Annexure R/l is the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Niwai, dated 15-11-1981. The Magistrate has observed that the girl does not seem to possess a free mind and as such, he ordered her to be sent to the Nari Niketan, Jaipur. On behalf of the petitioners, it has been urged that petitioner No. 2 should be detained in Nari Niketan and as she is more than 18 years of age, she should be set at liberty. Reliance has been placed on Laxmi Devi v. State, AIR 1957 Pat. 680 and Gian Devi v. Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi, 1976 CAR 171 , where in it has been held as under:- "The petitioner, who was a witness in a criminal case, was detained in Nari Niketan. Her father and her alleged husband claimed for her custody and hence both were impleaded in the petition of writ of habeas corpus moved by the petitioner in the Supreme Court. It was found that the petitioner was more than 18 years of age on the date of hearing of the petition. It was, therefore, held that as the petitioner was sui juris no fetters could be placed upon her choice of the person with whom she was to stay, nor could any restriction be imposed regarding the place where she should stay and accordingly she should be set at liberty. 6. On behalf of the State, Shri Khan has contended that the Magistrate has yet to record the statement of the girl on 21-11-1981 and, as such, till then she should be kept in the Nari Niketan. He has also contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the question of law and order is involved and under such circumstances, it is safer to keep her in Nari Niketan for the time being. He has also contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the question of law and order is involved and under such circumstances, it is safer to keep her in Nari Niketan for the time being. Reliance has been placed on Khan Sanyal v. Dist. Magistrate, Darjeeling, AIR 1974 S.C. 510 and B.R. Rao v. State of Orissa, AIR 1971 S.C. 2197 . It has been further contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the girl is being kept in the Nari Niketan under the orders of the Judicial Magistrate and as such, no petition of habeas corpus could lie. It has also been contended that the Magistrate had powers to send the girl to the Nari Niketan under the Rules for the Administration, Admission and Rehabilitation of persons in Homes and Shelters, 1970 and, also under section 98 Cr.P.C. It was also contended that the learned Magistrate has inherent powers for maintaining law and order. The learned Magistrate is competent to pass such orders as he deems fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case. Reliance has been placed on the provisions of Section 482, Cr.P.C. 7. Respective contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor have been heard and the record of the case carefully perused. 8. By this order no attempt is being made to in any way interfere with the investigation of the case alleged to have been registered under Sections 363, 366 and 342, IPC. The investigating agency would be fully competent to investigate the case and on the completion of the investigation may register the case under such section of the Indian Penal Code as it deems proper. At the moment the basic question is whether the girl, petitioner No. 2 should be detained in the Nari Niketan as was ordered by the Judicial Magistrate, Niwai by his order dated 15-11-1981, or that she should be at liberty. The statements of the girl were recorded to ascertain her wishes in the presence of the parties, parents of the girl and the officials of the Nari Niketan, Jaipur. The statements of the girl were recorded to ascertain her wishes in the presence of the parties, parents of the girl and the officials of the Nari Niketan, Jaipur. The girl has categorically stated that she has embraced Islam of her free will without any coercion or persuasion and that she has married petitioner No. 1, Zahir Ahmed Khan according to the Islamic rites and customs and an entry from the register of the religious Kazi who ceremonised the marriage has been produced. She has categorically stated that her date of birth is 20-10-1959 and that she did her graduation in Commerce in 1979 and thereafter she completed her two trainings, one for 9 months and the other for six months, as detailed above. She has also expressed her desire to live in with her in laws. 9. From the statement of the girl, the certificate of Board of Secondary Education, and Medical Certificate, we are prima facie satisfied that the girl is above 18 years of age. Being an adult, she is sui juris and if any fetters are placed upon her choice this would come in direct conflict with Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. 10. In the present set of circumstances, Rules for the Administration, Admission and Rehabilitation of persons in Homes and Shelters, 1970 do not apply. At best, petitioner No.2 is a witness in the cases upto this stage. There is no law which provides that a witness should be kept in custody or in some shelter or home against her wishes. 11. Having given our most anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation in holding that continued detention of the petitioner in Nari Niketan against her wishes is contrary to law and offends against Article 21 of the Constitution of India. We hereby direct that petitioner No. 2 shall be released forthwith from the Nari Niketan by the Superintendent of Nari Niketan, Jaipur. The Superintendent of Nari Niketan is present here. She is directed to release petitioner No. 2 forthwith. 12. The learned Public Prosecutor has been at pains to make a submission that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case a great commotion is likely to arise. The Superintendent of Nari Niketan is present here. She is directed to release petitioner No. 2 forthwith. 12. The learned Public Prosecutor has been at pains to make a submission that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case a great commotion is likely to arise. He has, therefore, prayed that necessary orders be passed to avoid any such situation. The girl shall be taken to her desired place. The Government Advocate Shri Khan is directed to ensure that adequate police arrangements are made for her escort to her desired place.Writ allowed. *******