JUDGMENT 1. S. N. Saxena, J. This petition has been instituted in the name of Smt. Madhu by her husband, Raj Kumar. The sole respondent, Naubat Singh is the father of Smt Madhu. According to the petitioner, Madhu was legally wedded wife of Raj Kumar. She was an aduit and her marriage with Raj Kumar had validly taken place according to Hindu "riti Rivaz" in a temple. It was not arranged by her father, Naubat Singh who unable to reconcile with the same. He, therefore, had forcibly and illegally detained Madhu in his house. Madhu tried her best to live also with her husband but did not succeed. She, thereafter, managed to get this petition instituted. 2. It appears that Naubat Singh had got registered a criminal case against Raj Kumar. The investigation followed as usual and the statement of Madhu was recorded under Section 164, Cr. P. C. a copy of which is Annexure II to the petition. The petitioner naturally has prayed for her release from the illegal custody of her father so that she may be able to live along with her husband, Raj Kumar. Respondent, Naubat Singh filed counter-affidavit according to which Madhu was a minor, aged about 14 years 3 months and 12 days only and living along with. Annexure 1 of the counter-affidavit is a copy of the school leaving certificate according to which she was born on 26-5-1980. She was kidnapped by Raj Kumar on 10-5-1994 with the help of his brothers. The respondent, therefore, had lodged First Information Report with the police at police station Loha Mandi, Agra and a criminal case under Section 363/366, I.P.C. was registered against Raj Kumar. The police recovered her from the custody of Raj Kumar and gave her in his custody. Being minor, her marriage with Raj Kumar was a nullity and she was living willingly along with him. 3. The evidence on record regarding the age of Madhu was not of reliable nature due to which this court ordered for her medical examination the Chief Medical Officer, Allahabad for obtaining his opinion about her age on the date of her medical examination. The medical examination report was received and according to the C. M. O., Allahabad she was about 18 years old on 21-9-1994. The medical examination report was received and according to the C. M. O., Allahabad she was about 18 years old on 21-9-1994. The report of the radiologist formed part of the opinion of C. M. O. Allahabad, according to which the radiological age of Madhu was about 19 years. There was one more medical examination report of Madhu on record. She was gat medically examined after her recovery by the police and according to this report she was only 16 years old. The medical opinions regarding her age thus were contradictory. This Court, therefore, summoned the medico legal expert of the U. P. Government and directed him to give his opinion regarding the age of Madhu. 4. The medico legal expert, Dr. Gupta, got examined Madhu medically again according to his instructions and he filed his opinion today before this court along with the X-ray photo and the medical examination report of Madhu by a very senior lady doctor of Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad. Dr. Gupta, on the basis of the available data, was of the opinion that the age of Madhu was about 19 years on the date of her medical examination i.e. 26-10-1994. The radiological findings were considered in detail by Dr. Gupta after getting her X-Rayed. The right and left wrists joints, right and left elbow joints and both the clavicles and the shoulders were got X-Rayed by him. Both A. P. and lateral views of the wrist and elbow joints were taken into consideration by him. The opinion was based upon the report of the lady doctor also, who had found the secondary sex characteristics well developed and was of opinion that Madhu could be of any age between 18 and 20 years. The radiological findings as a result of the X-Rays taken on 26-10-1994 were follows : - 1. "all the corporal bones have appeared and the epiphysis of lower end of radius end ulna are fused. " 2. "all the epiphysis of lower end of humerous and upper end of radius and ulna are fused. " 3. "all the epiphysis of upper end of humerous and the epiphysis of medial end of clavicles are fused on both sides. " 5. The lady doctor after examining Madhu observed in the medical examination report that the secondary sex characteristics of Madhu were well developed. 6. " 3. "all the epiphysis of upper end of humerous and the epiphysis of medial end of clavicles are fused on both sides. " 5. The lady doctor after examining Madhu observed in the medical examination report that the secondary sex characteristics of Madhu were well developed. 6. After carefully going through the above mentioned medical examination report and the opinion regarding the age of Madhu. I am of opinion that she was about 19 years old. The evidence is no doubt opinion evidence but there being no other reliable evidence on the record, reliance could be safely placed upon the same. According to the school certificate filed by the respondent, the date of birth of Madhu was 26-5-1980 and she thus was about 14 and half years old only. This date of birth cannot be accepted for the obvious reasons already discussed above. The medical evidence totally negatived the possibility of the age of Madhu being 14 and half years only. 7. The only other evidence adduced by the respondent is his own affidavit, in which he mentioned the date of birth of Madhu as 26-5-1980 which evidently was incorrect. 8. Petitioner Raj Kumar in his affidavit has specifically contended that he himself as well as Madhu were major when they married each other a few months ago. This affidavit appears to be truthful when considered in the light of the medical evidence consisting of the opinion of Dr. Gupta. The lady doctor has also disclosed in the medical examination report that she had found the secondary sex charateristics well developed which suggested that margin, if any in the finding of Dr. Gupta regarding the age of Madhu was on the higher side. The lady doctor appears to have rightly observed that the age of Madhu could be anywhere between 18 and 20 years. Madhu, thus, was major when she married Raj Kumar. There was no substance in the contention of the respondent that the alleged marriage was a nullity. Being major, Madhu had got the right to live anywhere according to her choice including the house of her husband Raj Kumar. 9. It would be proper to observe that Madhu was sent to Nari Niketan on 20-9-1994 and since then has been an inmate of the Niketan. Being major, Madhu had got the right to live anywhere according to her choice including the house of her husband Raj Kumar. 9. It would be proper to observe that Madhu was sent to Nari Niketan on 20-9-1994 and since then has been an inmate of the Niketan. A period of one month and about 6 days had passed and there was, thus no occasion for any pressure or undue influence upon her. She was interrogated by this court and she gave her as about 19 years. Further she stated that she wanted to live along with her husband Raj Kumar. Under these circumstances the petition is liable to be allowed. 10. The Habeas Corpus petition is allowed and it is declared that Smt. Madhu was entitled to live anywhere according to her choice including the house of her husband Raj Kumar. The respondent is directed not to interfere with her living with Raj Kumar as his wife. No order is passed regarding the costs of the petition which shall be borne by the parties themselves. Smt. Madhu shall be set at liberty by the Superintendent, Nari Niketan. Petition allowed.