ORDER 1. HEARD BOTH SIDES. 2. THE PETITIONER HEREIN IS ALLEGED TO HAVE MARRIED ANOTHER PERSON OF HER AGE AND THE 5TH RESPONDENT HEREIN, THE FATHER OF THE PETITIONER, OBJECTED TO THE SAID MARRIAGE. IT SEEMS THAT THE PETITIONER HAD ELOPED WITH THAT PERSON AND THE FATHER OF THE PETITIONER, THE 5TH RESPONDENT, HAS FILED A COMPLAINT AND THE PETITIONER WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE CJM, PATNA. THE PETITIONER CLAIMS THAT SHE WAS A MAJOR AND VOLUNTARILY LEFT WITH HER HUSBAND. THE FATHER OF THE PETITIONER ALLEGED THAT THE PETITIONER WAS A MINOR AND THE QUESTION OF AGE WAS REFERRED TO A MEDICAL BOARD. THE MEDICAL BOARD OPINED THAT AS ON 17-5-2003, THE PETITIONER MUST HAVE BEEN AGED BETWEEN 16 AND 17 YEARS. HOWEVER, THE FATHER OF THE PETITIONER PRODUCED TWO CERTIFICATES BEFORE THE REVISIONAL COURT AND CONTENDED THAT HER DATE OF BIRTH IS 12-10-1985 AND SHE HAS NOT ATTAINED MAJORITY. HOWEVER, THE MEDICAL REPORT SHOWS THAT SHE MUST HAVE BEEN AGED MORE THAN 16 YEARS, EVEN ON 17-5-2003. HAVING REGARD TO THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SHE MUST HAVE ATTAINED MAJORITY AND HER STAY AT THE REMAND HOME WOULD NOT BE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND WE THINK THAT HER CONTINUED STAY AT THE REMAND HOME WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL AND SHE WOULD BE IN A BETTER ENVIRONMENT BY LIVING WITH THE PERSON WHOM SHE HAD ALLEGEDLY MARRIED. 3. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DIRECT THAT RESPONDENT 3 SUPERINTENDENT, RAJKIYA NARI UTTAR RAKSHA SANSTHAN, GAIGHAT, PATNA TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER FROM THE REMAND HOME FORTHWITH. THE PETITIONER WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PRODUCE A COPY OF THIS ORDER BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT FOR APPROPRIATE ACTION. 4. THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS DISPOSED OF ACCORDINGLY.