JUDGMENT The petitioner has preferred this petition under section 482, of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking the quashing of order passed by First Additional Sessions lodge, Shivpuri. Before dealing with the rival contentions, a brief narration of the facts would be useful. The lady Smt. Daljit Kaur, who is a major lady, was recovered by the Police from Gurudwara in the town of Shivpuri. She was sent to Short Stay Home as a report was lodged by petitioner, the father of Smt. Daljit Kuar, that respondent No. 1 had enticed away his daughter. The respondent No. 1 was also arrested by the Police in the offence registered on the report of the father of lady Daljit Kaur under sections 366 and 342 of IPC. The respondent No. 1 was allowed bail on the statement of Smt. Daljit Kaur that respondent No. 1 was her husband. After the release from custody, the respondent No. 1 had preferred an application for the release of Smt. Daljit Kaur from Nari Niketan, Gwalior, where she was sent under the order of the Court. Smt. Daljit Kaur is a major lady, aged about 30 years. Smt. Daljit Kaur on being produced from Nari Niketan, Gwalior, under the order of the Court, stated that she was major and was capable of protecting her interests. The respondent No. 1 was her husband and she wanted to go with him and could not be detained in Nari Niketan. The petitioner preferred objections submitting that he was the legal guardian being her father and deserved the custody of Smt. Daljit Kaur in Supurdgi as her interest could only be served in living with the petitioner. The learned Court below in view of the statement of Smt. Daljit Kaur, directed her release from Nari Niketan, Gwalior, and made her free to go as per her wishes. Since Smt. Daljit Kaur had further sought the help of the Court that she should be given the Police protection for safely reaching to her husband's house, the learned Court below, further directed that the arrangements shall be made so that the lady reaches to her husband's house safely. The petitioner's counsel contended firmly that the petitioner being the father, was entitled to the custody of his daughter Mst. Daljit Kaur. The petitioner's counsel contended firmly that the petitioner being the father, was entitled to the custody of his daughter Mst. Daljit Kaur. It was also submitted that Smt. Daljit Kaur was in fact the wife of one Hari Singh; as such, she could not be allowed to go to the house of respondent No. 1, Karnail Singh under the order of the Court. Lastly, it was urged that the lady could not be permitted to go with the accused, when there was a criminal case pending against him. With regard to the above submissions made by the petitioner's counsel, it is pertinent to note that Smt. Daljit Kaur is admittedly not a minor girl. She is a major lady aged about 30 years, as such the petitioner could not be said to be her legal guardian, entitled to her custody. The allegation that Smt. Daljit Kaur was married to one Hari Singh, does not find support from the record of the petition. Her alleged husband Hari Singh had admittedly not approached the Court for carrying the lady with him. The report against respondent No. 1 was lodged by the petitioner, who is the father of the lady, but when Smt. Daljit Kaur was recovered and brought to the Court, she had stated that she does not want to live with her father. The lady being the major, cannot be compelled to live with a particular person against her will. She had stated the respondent No. 1 to be her husband, and the learned Court below under the impugned order, on the strength of her statement, made her free, releasing her from the custody of Nari Niketan, Gwalior. The Court had provided the Police help to the lady only on her prayer. Shri B. Raj Sharma, Advocate appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on the authority of Sunita Joshi v. State of M.P. [1989 (I) MPWN SN 43] to contend that Smt. Daljit Kaur, in the circumstances of the case, could not be allowed freedom, but the facts of the referred authority are remarkably distinct. Shri B. Raj Sharma, Advocate appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on the authority of Sunita Joshi v. State of M.P. [1989 (I) MPWN SN 43] to contend that Smt. Daljit Kaur, in the circumstances of the case, could not be allowed freedom, but the facts of the referred authority are remarkably distinct. The Court having put certain questions to Sunita Joshi had come to the conclusion that her statement was untrue, and that she was under the evil influence and inducement of persons interested in driving her to a life of vagrancy as she had made one Kailash Jaiswal as her Dharm Bhai and was living with him having left her parent's house, and therefore, it was found that making her free was not in her interest. Whereas, in the present case, Smt. Daljit Kaur stated that the respondent No. 1 was her husband. There is nothing on record to show that some other person was the husband of Smt. Daljit Kaur. The lady was produced in Court after she had stayed in Nari Niketan for many days, and could not be said to be under any outside influence. She desires to live with her husband. Being the major lady, she is able to understand her good or bad. The ladies have the similar right of freedom as that of men. With the indulgence of Court a major lady could not be compelled to live with a particular person against her will. There is nothing on record to suggest that Smt. Daljit Kaur was going to lead or was leading a life of vagrancy. The Court could impose some restraint on her movements only, if the circumstances could disclose the different story. In the impugned order, I have found no illegality or any material irregularity. The process of law cannot be said to be abused in the circumstances of the case. The petition has, therefore, no substance and is dismissed.