JUDGMENT 1. 1. This petition is filed on the allegation that the petitioner is detained in Nari Niketan against her will and wish. According to the allegation made in the petition the petitioner is twenty years of age and is major. 2. It so happened that FIR No. 23/99 was lodged in police station Bassi Dang by the parent of petitioner alleging that the petitioner is being abducted by one Ram Snehi when she was returning to her house. The police took charge of the petitioner and produced her before the court of ACJM Bari on 22.6.1999. The ACJM Bari recorded the statement of petitioner under section 164 CrRC. The petitioner stated in her statement that Ram Snehi is her uncle by family relation. She is totally illiterate. She had physical relations with Ram Snehi with her own will. Due to such relations her parents were unhappy. They wanted that she should not keep any contact with Ram Snehi. About twenty days back Ram Snehi took her to Girraj Maharaj for circumambulating. She went with him without informing her is parents. They stayed there in a dharamshala. They stayed at the dharamshala for ten to twelve days. For these ten to twelve days Ram Snehi had physical relations with her. They were to go somewhere else from the dharamshala, for which Ram Snehi had not disclosed to her, in the meantime police cot hold of them, and she do not know where Ram Snehi is at present. She wants to marry Ram Snehi. She has nothing to say further. 3. The police moved an application before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Bari to the effect that Ms. Bhuro be sent to Nari Niketan. The father of Ms. Bhuro, Rambharosi, also filed an application on 16.6.1999 requesting that and Ms. Ramdulari, parents of the petitioner, alleging that Ms. Bhuro is under the influence of Ram Snehi and she does not understand what is good or bad for her. She may be given sometime to independently think over the matter and, therefore, she may be sent to Nari Niketan. When the learned Judge asked Ms. Bhuro about her wish, she said that she does not want to go with her parents and that they will kill her. Further she has stated that she wants to stay with Ram Snehi as his wife. This fact is recorded in the order of learned Judge. When the learned Judge asked Ms. Bhuro about her wish, she said that she does not want to go with her parents and that they will kill her. Further she has stated that she wants to stay with Ram Snehi as his wife. This fact is recorded in the order of learned Judge. The learned judge has passed an order that Ram Snehi being sagotra, Ms. Bhuro cannot marry him under the Hindu Marriage Act, although she has wished to marry him and stay with him. 4. Considering all the facts, in the interest of Ms Bhuro and her security the learned Magistrate observed that it would be appropriate to send her to Nari Niketan and directions were issued accordingly. Ms. Bhuro was sent to Nari Niketan and the persons in the management of Nari Niketan were directed to find some good person, and if Ms. Bhuro likes that person she be married with him. Otherwise she be given training so that she may become self sufficient. She be not removed from Nari Niketan until permission is sought from the court. After every three months report be submitted regarding Ms. Bhuro to the court. The application of Rambharose was dismissed. It is this order which is challenged in this petition. 5. It is submitted by the counsel for petitioner that Ms. Bhuro has a right to live and lead her life according to her wish and will, she being a major and the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to direct her custody in Nari Niketan. In support of his contention he has cited a decision reported in 1988(2) RLR 313 , Smt. Keshar v. State of Rajasthan. 6. We have perused the decision cited by the counsel for petitioner and we find that the decision is rendered in a similar set of facts and circumstances as in the present one. The learned judge has held that it is not within the domain of court to consider what is moral or immoral and as to what would be the effect on society. The Magistrate is obliged to decide the case in accordance with law. The person who has attained the age of majority has a fundamental right of personal liberty guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution of India, and the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to direct custody of such a person in Nari Niketan. 7. The Magistrate is obliged to decide the case in accordance with law. The person who has attained the age of majority has a fundamental right of personal liberty guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution of India, and the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to direct custody of such a person in Nari Niketan. 7. In the present case, Ms. Bhuro is a major who has expressed her wish to go and live with Ram Snehi. The court has no jurisdiction to give direction to keep her custody with Nari Niketan. It would have been a different thing if she would have been a minor. In case of minor benefit and welfare of the minor would have been the paramount consideration for the Magistrate. When a person who has attained majority and expressed her wish in the manner she likes to live, the court cannot exercise jurisdiction to direct a person to live in a particular manner or at a particular place. 8. For the reasons stated above, the order of Magistrate directing Ms. Bhuro to live in Nari Niketan is not in accordance with law and Ms. Bhuro's stay in Nail Niketan and the custody of her in Nari Niketan is illegal. Ms. Bhuro shall be set at liberty from Nari Niketan and she will be allowed to go to a place of her own choice. The petition stands disposed of.Petition disposed of. *******