Order The petitioner whose custody is the subject matter of dispute in this case is produced from the After Care Home, Patna City pursuant to the order dated 28.4.1998. She appears to me to be of 18 to 20 years in age. In order to ascertain her own wishes I interviewed her in my chamber. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure assailing the order, dated 7.1.1998 passed by the Addl. C.J.M., Danapur in Khagaul P.S. Case No. 74/1994. By the impugned order, the petitioner was directed to be given in the custody of her father Chandeshwar Rai, Opposite party no. 2 in this case. 3. The dispute regarding the petitioner's custody arises in a Criminal case instituted against Bindeshwar Rai @ Bindeshwar Prasad, Opposite Party no. 3 in which he is accused of abducting the petitioner. 4. Both the petitioner and Opposite party no. 3 deny the allegation of her being abducted by him. It is stated that the petitioner had attained majority and had gone out to live with Opposite party no. 3 of her own free will. It may be stated here that Opposite party no. 3 was earlier married to the petitioner's elder sister who is still alive. It is, however, stated that she suffered from paralysis and it was with her consent that the petitioner and Opposite party no. 3 decided to marry. 5. After the institution of the criminal case, it was the petitioner who came forward and appeared before the A.C.J.M., Danapur and volunteered to make statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In her statement (copy at Annexure-4) she gave her age to be 24 years and told the Magistrate that she had gone to Bindeshwar Prasad for marrying him of her own will; that she was not abducted by anyone; that she wanted to live with her "husband" Bindeshwar Rai; that there no one subjected her to any harassment; that she would not go to the house of her parents. She - further stated that she had 2 to 3 months pregnancy from Bindeshwar Prasad. In the concluding sentence, she stated that her father had come to the court with a large number of persons but she would not go with him. 6. She - further stated that she had 2 to 3 months pregnancy from Bindeshwar Prasad. In the concluding sentence, she stated that her father had come to the court with a large number of persons but she would not go with him. 6. The Magistrate in order to ascertain her age directed her to be medically examined. Pursuant to the Magistrate's direction, the Civil Surgeon constituted a team of four doctors who examined her on 29.11.1997. The doctor's team on the basis of physical, dental and radiological findings estimated her age to be 18 to 19 years. 7. The learned Magistrate, however, disregarded the medical evidence arid treating her to be a minor, aged under 17 years, directed her to be given in the custody of her father. It is against this order that she has come to this court. 8. In her interview with me, I found that she was very clear and firm in her mind that she did not want to go to her father but wanted to live with Bindeshwar Rai, Opposite party no. 3, whom she described as her husband. She was also putting vermilion at the parting of hair on her head. I tried to explain to her that he being the husband of her elder sister, she cannot possibly marry him lawfully. I also tried to point out that from the records Bindeshwar Rai did not appear to be the right sort of person and that he had several pending criminal cases to his credit. I even went on to tell her that he might go to jail and in that event she would be completely deserted. I also tried to explain to her the benefits and advantages of going to her father but all my persuations seemed to fall on deaf ears. She was not amenable to the suggestion that she should go to her father in preference to Bindeshwar Rai. 9. Having perhaps some more experience of life I may not personally approve of the course adopted by her; I may even feel sorry for her and even more so for her parents. But my personal perceptions and feelings cannot be allowed to come in the way of this court in upholding the petitioner's legal and constitutional rights. 10. As noted above, she• appears to me to be aged about 18 to 20 years. But my personal perceptions and feelings cannot be allowed to come in the way of this court in upholding the petitioner's legal and constitutional rights. 10. As noted above, she• appears to me to be aged about 18 to 20 years. A team of qualified doctors on the basis of a detailed examination has determined her aged to be 18-19 years. For the past seven months she is lodged at the After Care Home and it cannot, therefore, be said that she is acting and making her choice under the' dictates or influence of Bindeshwar Rai. On the basis of the medical evidence and my own visual assessment I am fully satisfied that the petitioner has attained majority; on the basis of my talk with her I further find that she is quite capable of taking her own decisions. 11. I think it would be unfair, unjust and an abuse of the process of the court to disregard the medical evidence and my own visual assessment concerning the petitioner's age and to hold her a minor in order to subvert her legal and constitutional rights by what I or anyone else may perceive to be good and beneficial for her. I am unable to follow such a course. 12. I am, therefore, constrained to direct that being a major, she is free to go wherever she likes and to live with whomsoever she likes as long as her actions do not infringe any provision of law. The impugned order passed by the A.C.J.M., Danapur is accordingly set aside. The petitioner will be taken back to the After Care Home, Patna City from where she will be duly discharged and she would be then free to go according to her own will. 13. In the result, this application is allowed.