Judgment 1. The petitioners are non-governmental organisation registered under the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935. Petitioner No. 1 produced registration certificate bearing registration No. 13/1995. Smt. Suman Lal is Secretary of petitioner No. 1. The activities of the petitioners are upliftment of the female society and to help the weaker female section of the society to lead their life in dignified manner. To achieve the object they used to bring to the notice of the administration/judicial authority about atrocities being committed on the women in the society. Petitioner No. 1 on coming to know about the confinement of respondent No. 8 tried to contact the parents of respondent No. 8 but they completely showed their ignorance regarding whereabouts of respondent No. 8. However, during course of enquiry petitioner No. 1 succeeded in getting written statement made by respondent No. 8, Annexure-2, and as such the writ petition was filed to get respondent No. 8 released from the confinement of respondent Nos. 4 to 7, the father and family members. In Annexure-2, the letter/written statement of respondent No. 8, it has been stated that she is an adult girl aged about 26 years. Her date of birth is 6-12-1975. She wanted to marry Mr. Rakesh Kumar son of Sri Mahangu Singh. When she disclosed about the decision of marriage the parents acted violently and also threatened Mr. Rakesh Kumar. On 3-2-2001 she was taken to Delhi on the pretext to meet some relative. She was confined for a month and was tortured mentally and physically. On 5-3-2001 she was forcibly brought to her village, namely, Mahuaria against her wishes. She requested her father and brothers to at least let her lead an independent life, even if they do not want her to marry Rakesh Kumar but it was invain. She has graduated from Delhi University and had previously done a job at Aptech Computer Education, Boring Road, Patna from 15-7-2000 to 15-1-2001. She is capable of leading an independent life and wants to do so but her father and brothers have confined her. She is not allowed to talk to any body nor any body is allowed to talk to her. Those who showed sympathy towards her were also threatened by her father and brothers. She is not allowed to receive or make phone calls. She is not allowed to talk to any body nor any body is allowed to talk to her. Those who showed sympathy towards her were also threatened by her father and brothers. She is not allowed to receive or make phone calls. If her friends or relatives call and wish to speak to her they are told by her father and brothers that she is not staying there and do not know about her whereabouts. In fact she has been confined within four walls of the house. In the writ petition virtually the same statement has been reiterated. 2. On 7-1-2002 pursuant to the order of this Court respondent No. 8 was brought by respondent No. 4 who represents respondent Nos. 5 to 7. On that date respondent No. 4 admitted that respondent No. 8 is major. Respondent No. 8 also stated that she is major. She stated in presence of the parties i.e. respondent No. 4, Smt. Suman Lal, Secretary of petitioner No. 1 and the learned counsel for the parties that she is not happy with her parents and is not ready to live with them. She expressed her desire to live with her friend, namely, Smirti Jaiswal and if the case is adjourned her friend Smirti Jaiswal and her parents will appear before the Court and will file undertaking for keeping her safely. Respondent No. 4 himself in the situation stated that he may be absolved from the responsibility of respondent No. 8 and for the said purpose he will file affidavit. However, the case was adjourned to 11-1-2002 at the request. 3. On 11-1-2002 when the case was taken up respondent No. 8 admitted that Annexure-2 has been written by her and the statement made in Annexure-2 is correct. She was confined by respondent Nos. 4 to 7. She was tortured mentally and physically by them and they were not allowing her to lead independent life though she is major and capable of leading independent life. However, no affidavit was filed on behalf of Smirti Jaiswal and her parents and it was stated by respondent No. 8 that Smirti Jaiswal is going to be married and as such it is not possible for her to come before this Court. However, no affidavit was filed on behalf of Smirti Jaiswal and her parents and it was stated by respondent No. 8 that Smirti Jaiswal is going to be married and as such it is not possible for her to come before this Court. However, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 8 to the aforesaid effect in which she has reiterated her firm decision that she is not ready to return to her parents again in any circumstances as she feels totally unsafe in going to her parents house. She is major and adult and competent to take her own future decision for herself. She is now willing to live with petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 1 has given assurance and undertaking to provide her all facility and security. In the Court also she reiterated the stand in the affidavit. An affidavit has also been filed on behalf of petitioner No. 1 that pursuant to the order dated 7-1-2002 respondent No. 8 was living for the time being with Smt. Suman Lal, Secretary of petitioner No. 1 and was being provided all necessary security and facilities. If respondent No. 8 expresses her wish and desire to stay with petitioner No. 1 the deponent undertakes to provide her all necessary facility and security till she desires and petitioner No. 1 shall bear all the expenses for the said purposes. 4. A petition has also been filed on behalf of respondent No. 4. In paragraph 6 of the petition it has been stated that the statement which was made by respondent No. 8 before the Court on 7-1-2002 that she does not want to live with her father and she wants to live her own independent and free life according to her own will and also the arrogant behaviour shown to her own father at the time of departure from the Court room compelled the respondent No. 4, to file this petition. In paragraph 7 it has been further stated that respondent No. 8 had already decided to lead her life independently according to her own will against the wishes of her entire family including her father and as such the respondent No. 4 seeks indulgence of the Court that he be absolved from all the responsibilities and liabilities of respondent No. 8 and sever all kinds of relations with her from today onwards. 5. 5. Today again respondent No. 8 stated in presence of the parties and learned counsel for the parties that she stands on her previous stand and she is not willing to live with her father and family members. She will live with petitioner No. 1. The respondent No. 4, however, stated that he has already filed petition before the Court. Learned counsel for the parties also reiterated the averments made in the writ petition, affidavits and subsequent petitions etc. and say that the writ petition be disposed of. 6. In view of the facts enumerated, it is obvious that respondent No. 8 is daughter of respondent No. 4 and admittedly she is major. She has passed graduation from Delhi University. She is not ready to live with respondent No. 4 and her family members rather she is willing to live with petitioner No. 1. The petitioner No. 1 has also filed an affidavit giving undertaking therein that the petitioner No. 1 will keep the respondent No. 8 and will provide her all necessary facilities and security till she desires. For the said purpose the petitioner No. 1-Society shall bear all the expenses. In the petition respondent No. 4 also did not controvert the stand taken by respondent No. 8 rather it has been expressed that he may be absolved from the responsibilities of respondent No. 8. 7. In such a situation, the Court has no option but to allow the respondent No. 8 to live independently and since she expressed her desire to live with petitioner No. 1, she is allowed to live with petitioner No. 1. The petitioner No. 1 shall comply the undertaking given by it. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Order accordingly.