K. J. VAIDYA, J. ( 1 ) RAJESH Dilipkumar Shah, claiming Kinjai, his sweet-heart, as his lawfully married wife, has come before us inter alia praying for issuance of the writ of Wabeas Corpus, against his father-in-law Yogeshkumar Chokshi, respondent No. 1 directing him to produce her daughter (Kinjal) before the Court and hand over her custody to him alleging that though she is aged 19, major, still she is beaten up and illegally detained in his house against her will, with a view to prevent her from returning to her matrimonial home. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he married with Kinjal on 2-3-1995 at ahmedabad, and got the same registered before the Registrar of Marriages - ahmedabad. In support of this say, he has also produced a copy of the Memorandum of Marriage in question duly signed. by all the parties concerned, that is to say petitioner himself, Kinjal and the officiating priest, namely, Ramesh K. Joshi, who performed the marriage-rites as well as joint-affidavit, furhther declaring therein that both the petitioner and Kinjal have gladly and voluntarily married without there being any threat, compulsion. promise or inducement administered upon them from any quarters. ( 3 ) TO complete the narration of chain of proceedings, it may further be stated that when this matter came up for admission before us on 21-8-1995, we had passed the following order :-"notice to the respondents returnable on 22-8-1995. Respondent No. I is directed to produce Smt. Kinjal before this Court on 22-8-1995 at 11-00 a. m. Mr. D. N. Patel, learned A. P. P. waives service of notice on behalf of Respondent No. 2. Direct service permitted. Respondent No. 3 is directed to serve notice to Respondent No. 1. " ( 4 ) THEREAFTER on 22/08/1995, on the respondent No. 1 producing his daughter Kinjal before us, we had passed the following further order :"in response to our notice dated 21-8-1995, Kinjal comes from the custody of her parents. We have ascertained her age and she is found to have completed 18 years. However, on putting certain questions, she did not appear to be free from influence prima facie while answering. In that view of the matter, we think it desirable to send her to Nari Vikas Gruh, Paldi, Ahmedabad, for few days to coolly ponder over the matter disabusing her mind from the influence which she may be carrying. However, on putting certain questions, she did not appear to be free from influence prima facie while answering. In that view of the matter, we think it desirable to send her to Nari Vikas Gruh, Paldi, Ahmedabad, for few days to coolly ponder over the matter disabusing her mind from the influence which she may be carrying. Accordingly, Police Inspector, Astodia Police Station, Ahmedabad is directed to take her to Nari Vikas Gruh, Paldi, Ahmedabad. The Superintendent, Nari Vikas Gruh, ahmedabad is requested to keep Kinjal in the custody and produce her before this court at 11-00 a. m. sharp on 28-8-1995. During her stay at the Nari Vikas Gruh, the superintendent would see to it that neither from the side of her parents nor from the side of Rajesh any one approaches her directly or indirectly or even on telephone. S. O. to 28-8-1995. " ( 5 ) ACCORDINGLY today, as per our direction, Kinjal is once again brought before us by the Superintendent of Nari Vikas Gruh, Ahmedabad. On noticing the return of self-confidence and calm-pause restored on her face, and further satisfying ourselves that she was quite free of external influence and resultant embarrassment, we have recorded her statement in presence of all concerned present in the chamber. According to her she was born on 4-12-1977 at Ahmedabad and she knew petitioner Rajesh Dilipkumar Shah as he has residing in a house adjoining her house. On reading over the contents of petition to her, she has admitted that the allegations made therein are correct. Further, in reply to the specific question put to her as to with whom she intended to go and where, she has answered specifically expressing her willingness to go with Rajesh Dilipkumar Shah with whom she had married. ( 6 ) ON putting questions to Kinjal, she gave her statement as aforesaid which from her frank, forthright and straightforward demeanor has impressed us to be quite voluntary, coolly made after duly pondering over the matter involving her personal future interest. Having been so satisfied with her statement and more particularly when Kinjal is found to be major, aged 19, and not of unsound or wavering mind, matured enough and not victim of any brain-washing or blackmail, we are obliged under the law to respect her liberty, her wishes and permit her to go wherever she likes. At this stage, Mr. Having been so satisfied with her statement and more particularly when Kinjal is found to be major, aged 19, and not of unsound or wavering mind, matured enough and not victim of any brain-washing or blackmail, we are obliged under the law to respect her liberty, her wishes and permit her to go wherever she likes. At this stage, Mr. P. V. Nanavati, the learned Advocate appearing for the father of Kinjal, Respondent No. 1 submitted that what is produced before the Court in support of the alleged marriage is merely a true copy of the Memorandum of marriage dated 2-3-1995, as duly signed and issued by Mr. P. P. Patel, the Registrar of Marriages, Ahmedabad, and therefore, it would not be safe, rather to put it quite positively, it would indeed be hazardous to place implicit reliance upon the same " Mr. Nanavati further submitted that the Memorandum of Marriage do not disclose the true facts of marriage, firstly, because the place of marriage is shown at kinjals fathers residential house and the petition itself shows that the father was against the marriage and accordingly, therefore, it is absolutely impossible to reconcile the inherent contradiction to the effect that the marriage could have been celebrated at the address shown in the petition, secondly, the affidavit does not disclose the definite place where the marriage was celebrated. It simply says that the marriage was performed at temple. Now which temple, is a question that looms large and vague remaining unresolved, as the name of the temple is not disclosed, thirdly, the officiating priest who is said to have performed the marriage ceremony, his affidavit is also not filed. Taking all these basic infirmities combined together, the alleged factum of marriage, cannot be taken at its face value. Further, according to Mr. Nanavati, father of Kinjal has filed an affidavit definitely alleging therein that Rajesh was in the habit of consuming illicit liquor and he was also suffering from T. B. , and therefore, in any case it would not be in the overall interest of justice to indiscreetly permit Kinjal to go to any other place save and except her fathers house. On the basis of these submissions, Mr. Nanavati finally vehemently urged that the parents of Kinjal who are her only ultimate well-wishers should be permitted to take her back to their home. On the basis of these submissions, Mr. Nanavati finally vehemently urged that the parents of Kinjal who are her only ultimate well-wishers should be permitted to take her back to their home. ( 7 ) NOW, while considering the submissions of Mr. Nanavati, we cannot be oblivious to the fact that the petition we are dealing with is a Habeas Corpus petition under Art, 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein it is clearly admitted by girl kinjal that she was beaten up and kept in illegal custody by her parents against her will and that she very much intends to go alongwith the petitioner - Rajesh with whom she had love affairs fructified into marriage. In this background, the submissions made by Mr. Nanavati are indeed of no consequence for obvious two simple reasons. They are, firstly, even in cases wherein if the person is a lawfully married and yet if his wife declares that henceforth she does not intend to return alongwith her husband to matrimonial home, for any just and valid reason, then also the Court indeed will have no alternative but to respect her wishes and allow her to go to the place where she intends, likes. unless of course the petitioner-husband in appropriate proceedings against her before the competent Court in respect of the restitution of the conjugal right makes out a case for the same and secures the decree in the said regard. This decree also can remain merely on paper, an ineffective decree (.) quite consistent with the saying that you can take cattles to the waterpond, but you cannot make them drink. Secondly, as against the first, in case even if a girl (major) is unmarried or not lawfully married, but then if she ultimately says that she intends to go alongwith a friend of her choice or relatives, and not to the house of the parents or any other relatives of them, then in that case also the Court would be simply helpless in forcing her to go alongwith parents unless of course in some given case some special and exceptional ground is made out justifying not to accede to her desire, where for an example a case where she appears to be trapped and blackmailed by an anti-social and/or an anti-social gang of persons dealing in immoral traffic trading on human flesh, etc. . . Further, it must be borne in mind that the Habeas Corpus proceedings of the present nature is in way of summary nature. In that view of the matter, its scope and ambit indeed being quite narrow and limited, extends merely upto making inquiry from the person concerned who is alleged to have been illegally detained/kept in custody against his/her own will and to ascertain his/her ultimate wishes as to where he/she would like to go. To enlist few of such questions, they are : (i) what is the age of the person concerned allegedly kept in illegal custody ? Is he/she major ? (ii) whether the answers given to the questions put by the Court impresses as free and voluntary ? or ( iii ) whether the said answers appear to be given under some duress having come from the custody of a particular person/s alleged to have illegally detained, kept in custody against her will ? (iv) whether he/she is illegally kept in detention/custody against his/her own will as alleged in petition ? (v) whether as to where he/she finally intends to go ? (vi) what is the type, character and family background of concerned boy ? (vii) In case if it primer facie appears to the Court that the girl produced before it do not appear to be that psychologically free from pulls, pressure and influences and was quite caught in vortex of emotional cross-currents, or torn and set apart by diametrically opposed emotional pulls with attachment with parents on the one hand and her life adore on the other, and accordingly, indeed needs some more time to get free and detached to surmount fear and cobweb of pressure complex in order to truly and voluntarily express herself before the Court, it would be the paramount duty of the Court not to hush and hasten up the proceedings and instead forward her to some social institution for sometime to coolly ponder over the issue in free atmosphere and freely decide for herself. Thereafter, once the answer to the aforesaid questions are found to be free and voluntarily expressed out, then in that case, it becomes the bounden duty of the Court to protect his/her wish, liberty, and the disputed question of facts raised by the father relating to the validity of her marriage has got to be kept out of the province of the Habeas Corpus jurisdiction to be resolved. The reason is that the Supreme Law of the land, namely, the constitution of India recognizing the dignity of the citizen and his/her fundamental rights has given all the necessary discretionary choice to the major persons (male or female) and accordingly, in the matter particularly of habeas Corpus petitions, the jurisdiction of the High Court is strictly circumscribed within the well set parameters, viz. , of the majority of age, free-will and choice of the person concerned alleged to have been illegally detained against the will except in some given exceptional case where firstly, the Court has some special reason to believe and satisfied that though concerned person is major, yet appears to be a state of indecisiveness, where the Court shall have to stay its decision till it is satisfied that the concerned person is now free to express his/her desire. Secondly, though the girl is major, yet the person and place to which she intends to return was likely to abuse her for any immoral purpose. Secondly, though the girl is major, yet the person and place to which she intends to return was likely to abuse her for any immoral purpose. ( 8 ) TURNING to the facts of the present case, quite rightly, it is his/her life, his/ her right, and accordingly, it is his/her future, and therefore, we having satisfied ourselves regarding her well-being from all angles indeed have nothing to say in the matter save and except to spotlight the path he/she intends to travel by further making him/her aware just to enable and enlighten them in exercising right discretion acting ourselves (this Court) as well meaning, well-wishing parents only " Apart this once a major girl after she being given ~a weeks time (in a given case some more time) to coolly deliberate over quite an important issue of life, where she prima facie appeared to us to be at cross-roads, unable to cross alone without due care and assistance of the Court, now if she has shown her ultimate willingness to go to the house of Rajesh, her life partner, there is hardly anything on the earth which can prevent her from doing so. The ultimate question in all such type of cases is of the personal life of the girl, of the future of girl, of the life-partner of girl, upon which she and she alone is the only person, who has a right to deliberate and decide rather she is the best judge for the purpose. Now whether she decides rightly or wrongly, whatever way she decides and meets her fate she shall have to thank herself only, save and except the exceptional circumstances streamlined and highlighted above where this Court in her overall interest is duty bound to defer acceding to her request. Once we find that the girl (Kinjal) is major, quite capable of taking her own decision, matured enough, and that there is indeed no reason to apprehend that she had been brain-washed, duped and terrorised by the person or party which claims her at any cost, administering her threat, promise or inducement, then in that case despite sharing all possible, legitimate concern and anxiety of the parents regarding welfare and well-being of daughter, we are indeed totally helpless under law to assist Mr. Nanavati as he wants us to. Nanavati as he wants us to. At this stage, it is indeed required to be clarified that except the bald assertion and wild allegations that the petitioner is a drunkard and suffering from T. B. nothing further has been produced to substantiate the same. In this view of the matter, having regard to the facts of the case. Kinjal would be at liberty to go to a place wherever she likes. At this final juncture also, by way of abundant caution to rest and find out whether her ultimate choice of going with the petitioner was firm as a "rock" or just a wavering and uncertain as a "weather cock", vulnerable to every minute change of direction with the change of winds, before concluding this judgment, we once again questioned Kinjal in presence of her learned Advocate as well as her father - question : kinjal, where do you want to go ? answer : i want to go with Rajesh - my husband. Here the matter ends. Kinjal is found to be quite firm and steadfast in her resolve to go alongwith the petitioner to stay as married life-partner. Even the parents present before the Court despite their last ditch all possible frantic efforts emotionally appealing her to return to their house, leaving the petitioner, having failed to carry their point have submitted that they have nothing further to urge. In the result, this petition is allowed accordingly. Rule made absolute. ( 9 ) BEFORE parting, this Court would like to put on record the word of appreciation for sincere services rendered by the Superintendent, Nari Vikas Gruh, ahmedabad. We thank her and the Institution for accommodating Kinjal for a week at our shortest possible notice request. The Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Superintendent. Nari Vikas Gruh, Paldi, Ahmedabad for their record. .