Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 380 (RAJ)

Sita Bai v. State of Rajasthan

2005-02-08

H.R.PANWAR

body2005
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-By this criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC, petitioner Sita Bai has challenged the order dated 30.09.2003 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapasan (for short, "the trial Court" hereinafter) in FIR Case No. 245 of 2003, whereby the trial Court allowed the application filed by her parents Smt. Kesar and Magni Ram, respondent No. 2 and directed that the custody of the petitioner be given to her parents. 2. Before the trial Court, petitioner herself filed an application expressing her desire to go and live with her husband, respondent No. 3 Kishan Lal S/o Shri Kaluji, inter alia stating therein that she has married with respondent No. 3 Kishan Lal on 16.05.2003. In the application, the petitioner has shown her age to be 20 years. That application has been rejected by the trial Court; however, the application filed by her parents has been allowed. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition. 3. The petitioner is present in the Court and states that she is now about 20 years in age and she contacted marriage with respondent No. 3 Kishan Lal on 16.05.2003. She further stated that out of this wed-lock, she gave birth to a female child, namely Ku. Saalu, who is presently about 8 month in age. Today, she has brought the child in the Court, who is in her lap. 4. The trial Court allowed the application filed by respondent No. 2 Magni Ram and his wife only on the ground that in the School Certificate, her date of birth has been shown as 15.07.1986 ad as per the school certificate, her age, on the relevant date, was less than 18 years and, therefore, she is minor. 5. The petitioner was medically examined through the investigation agency and according to the medical opinion; the age of the petitioner is 18 to 20 years and appears to be more than 20 years. The school certificate has not yet been proved as the matter is under investigation. However, from the facts noticed above and looking to her age as also her own statement and keeping in view the medical evidence, at any rate, the petitioner is more than 18 years in age. The school certificate has not yet been proved as the matter is under investigation. However, from the facts noticed above and looking to her age as also her own statement and keeping in view the medical evidence, at any rate, the petitioner is more than 18 years in age. She has given birth to a female child about 8 months back and presently she is living peacefully with her husband Kishan Lal, respondent No. 3. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping her custody with her parents. 6. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.09.2003 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapasan in FIR Case No. 245/2003, to the extent directing the custody of the petitioner with respondent No. 2 Magni Ram and Smt. Kesar, is hereby set-aside. The petitioner is major. She is at liberty to go wherever she wishes.