Judgment :- Srinivasan, J. This petition is filed by one Ameena. According to the affidavit, her daughter Abeetha was born on 14. 1975. But her counsel now says the correct date of birth is 19. 1975 and he has produced the birth certificate to that effect. It is averred in the affidavit that the petitioner’s daughter was kidnapped by the 2nd respondent on 16. 1993. She preferred a complaint and a case was registered in Crime No.187 of 1993 on the file of the 1st respondent viz., Sub Inspector of Police, Cherambadi Police Station, The Nilgiris. The detenu was rescued from the 2nd respondent and produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Gudalur, who entrusted her to the custody of a rescue home at Coimbatore on 20.6.1993. According to the petitioner, her plea to regain the custody of the girl was not considered. The 3rd respondent conspired with the 2nd respondent and filed a petition before the Judicial Magistrate, Gudalur, impersonating himself as Aboo, son of Veeran and uncle of the detenu. Without notice to the petitioner, the Judicial Magistrate ordered entrustment of the detenu to the 3rd respondent on 30.6.1993. The 2nd respondent was released on bail and the detenu is in the custody of respondents 2 and 3. The said custody is illegal. The impersonation by the 3rd respondent, was manipulated through an influential Advocate Mr.Sundaram, who prevailed over the Judicial Magistrate, Gudalur and illegally got an order Of detention. A petition was filed before the Judicial Magistrate to rescue the petitioner’s daughter, which proved futile. Hence, she has filed this petition for issue of habeas corpus to direct the respondents to produce her daughter and set her atliberty. 2. Respondents 2 and 3 could not be served in the first instance and the 3rd respondent was arrested and brought before this Court. This Court passed an order directing him to be kept in Central Prison, Madras. The 3rd respondent filed an affidavit on 19. 1993. In the affidavit he stated that he was innocent and in no way connected in this alleged missing of the girl. He slated that the 2nd respondent was also residing in the localily as his and very well known to him. He was informed that the 2nd respondent had married the detenu viz., Abeetha and that she is with the 2nd respondent. He slated that the 2nd respondent was also residing in the localily as his and very well known to him. He was informed that the 2nd respondent had married the detenu viz., Abeetha and that she is with the 2nd respondent. The 3rd respondent said that if he was released on bail, he would undertake to produce the detenu, who is in the custody of the 2nd respondent. This Court passed an order on 19. 1993 directing the 3rd respondent to execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 5,000 to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of Central Prison, Madras and on such execution he shall be released on bail on condition that he shall accompany a named Head constable at Cherambadi Police Station and the Head Constable shall search for the girl Abeetha and as also the 2nd respondent, arrest them and produce them before this Court on 29. 1993. The Registry was directed to issue a non-bailable warrant for that purpose and handed over the same to the Head Constable of Cherambadi Police Station. 3. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent was produced before this Court and he was accompanied by the 3rd respondent. The court directed the production of the girl Abeetha in court and adjourned the matter. Thereafter the case was adjourned on a few occasions. Today, the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3are present in court. The petitioner’s daughter Abeetha is also present in court. We questioned the said Abeetha with whom she is living now and whether she is willing to go back to her mother. She has categorically replied that she is living voluntarily with the 2nd respondent, who is her husband and she is not willing to go back to the petitioner, who is her mother. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though as on date the girl Abeetha has attained majority and she is not willing to go with the petitioner, this Court shall pass an order, directing her to be kept in a rescue home, where she was kept initially by the Judicial Magistrate till she attains the age of 21 years. It is vehemently argued that an offence has been committed by the 2nd respondent under Sec.366-A of I.P.C. and a criminal case is pending against him. It is vehemently argued that an offence has been committed by the 2nd respondent under Sec.366-A of I.P.C. and a criminal case is pending against him. It is also contended that the 3rd respondent has committed an offence of impersonation and has got the custody of the girl Abeetha on a false representation made to the court. According to learned counsel both of them deserve punishment and the girl should not be sent with them. 5. Learned counsel places reliance on Sec.29(3) of the Madras Children Act, 1920and more particularly on the proviso to the said sub-section, which reads as follows: “(3). Power to place young person in suitable custody: Any police officer or other person authorized by the State Government in this behalf may bring before a court any person apparently of the age of sixteen years so circumstanced that he would come within one or other of the descriptions mentioned in Sub-sec.(1) and the court if satisfied, on inquiry of that fact, and that it is expedient so to deal with him, may make an order placing him in suitable custody in the prescribed manner until he attains the age of eighteen years, or for any shorter period; Provided that a girl coming within the description mentioned in clause (e) of Sub-sec.(1) may be placed in such custody until she attains the age of twenty-one years or for any shorter period.” 6. We are of the view that the said section will have no application in this case. Sub-sec. (3)of Sec.29 of the said Act will apply to a case where the person apparently of the age of sixteen years is so circumstanced that he would come within one or other description mentioned in Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.29 and the court is satisfied, on inquiry of that fact, that it is expedient so to deal with him, it may make an order placing him in suitable custody in the prescribed manner until he attains the age of 18 years. Even if the court passes an order under Sub-Sec.(3), it will be only for custody until the person attains the age of 18 years. In this case, the girl Abeetha has already attained the age of 18 years in September, 1993. 7. Even if the court passes an order under Sub-Sec.(3), it will be only for custody until the person attains the age of 18 years. In this case, the girl Abeetha has already attained the age of 18 years in September, 1993. 7. Learned counsel submits that the matter will fall under the proviso to the said subsection and, therefore, the girl Abeetha should be kept in custody until she attains the age of 21 years. The, said proviso, on its own terms, will not apply in this case. It refers to cases falling within the description mentioned in Sub-secl(e) of Sec.29, Under that sub-section if the person is living in a house used for an immoral purpose or in any other circumstances calculated to cause, encourage or favour the seduction or prostitution of the child. In this case, nothing appears on record, even by way of an allegation, that the girl Abeetha is living in a house used for the purpose mentioned in that sub-section. Moreover, the said proviso itself gives a discretion to the court either to order custody until the person attains the age of 21 years or for a shorter period. Even if the proviso is applicable in this case, we are prepared to hold that this is a case, in which the custody, if at all, could be only till the girl Abeetha attains 18 years and she has already attained 18 years of age. We are not inclined to grant the relief as prayed for by the petitioner under the said proviso. 8. Learned counsel relies on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in P.Seenivasagam v. S.P.Sankoran and ten others, 1992 L.W. (Crl.) 556. In that case the detenu was a minor girl, aged about 15 years and 11 months and when she appeared before the court, she refused to go with her father. The court said in the circumstances of the case she cannot be sent with the guardian and ordered the custody of the girl to be with Avvai Home till she attains majority. The Bench noted that the date of attaining majority of that girl as 29. 1994. Even in that case, the Bench directed the custody of that girl with Avvai Home till she attains majority, and not beyond that. Hence, the ruling in the said case will not help the petitioner herein. 9. The Bench noted that the date of attaining majority of that girl as 29. 1994. Even in that case, the Bench directed the custody of that girl with Avvai Home till she attains majority, and not beyond that. Hence, the ruling in the said case will not help the petitioner herein. 9. It is then contended by learned counsel that this Court will be putting a premium upon the illegality committed by respondents 2 and 3 if we permit the girl Abeetha to go and live with the 2nd respondent. We do not agree. We are not deciding the question whether the 2nd respondent is guilty of offence under Scc.366-A of I.P.C. or any other section of the Code; nor are we deciding whether the 3rd respondent is guilty of impersonating some other person and getting an order on false representation from the Judicial Magistrate. These are matters to be decided by the Magistrate on the evidence placed before him. We are only concerned with the prayer asked for in the writ petition, viz., to release a person who is alleged to have been detained in illegal custody by some other person. The prayer in this writ petition is to produce the detenu, petitioner’s daughter Abeetha, before this Court and set her at liberty [Italics is ours]. We are only considering that. We are satisfied that the petitioner’s daughter Abeetha is not kept in wrongful confinement by respondents 2 or 3; nor is she kept in illegal custody by any person. She having attained majority, has now chosen her own course. She has categorically stated that she is not willing to go with the petitioner. She is already at liberty. No relief can be granted to the petitioner. The petition is dismissed. No costs.