Judgment :- D. Murugesan, J. 1. The petitioner is the father of the detenue by name Ms.Bhaghiya Lakshmi. According to the petitioner, the detenue is a minor and she was born on 28.07.1990. The detenue was found missing from 21.03.2008. On enquiry, he came to know that the fourth respondent Silambarasan had kidnapped her with the help of the respondents 5 and 6. Therefore, he lodged a complaint to the Inspector of Police, Law and Order, Veppur Police Station, Veppur, Virudachalam Taluk, Cuddalore Districton 24.03.2008. As the said complaint was not properly acted upon, a representation dated 08.04.2008 was made to the District Collector, Cuddalore District, Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District and other higher officials. Still there was no action, he was constrained to approach this court by way of the present Habeas Corpus Petition. 2. When the petition was taken up for hearing, the respondent police produced the detenue Ms. Bhaghiya Lakshmi. We enquired with the detenue girl. On enquiry by the court, she has stated that she was born on 28.07.1990. However, as she had fallen in love with the fourth respondent Silambarasan, she had left her parents on 21.03.2008 and stayed along with him in Pondur Village, near Sriperumbudur and got married him on 24.03.2008 at Vallakkottai Murugan Temple. She has further stated that both of them lived as husband and wife; that the marriage was also consummated; and that she is now pregnant for about two months. When a specific question was asked, she has stated that she is not wiling to accompany with her parents and claimed that the said Silambarasan, the fourth respondent is her husband and she is persistent to go along with him. 3. We had an occasion to enquire the parents of the detenue girl also, who are present in the Court. They are not willing to send the girl along with the fourth respondent and they insisted that the detenue must be sent along with them. 4. The issue relating to the custody of the minor girls, who had eloped with the boys and got married had come up before this court in many occasions. Though the consent of minor girls for the marriage is irrelevant and the marriage with the minor cannot be regularized by this court, the paramount interest of the minor detenue girl has to be considered. Though the consent of minor girls for the marriage is irrelevant and the marriage with the minor cannot be regularized by this court, the paramount interest of the minor detenue girl has to be considered. This court had an occasion to set the detenue at liberty to go along with her husband. In this context, a reference could be made to the judgment reported in (2003-2-L.W. (Crl.) 89) J.S. Kumari (minor), aged 17 years , rep. By the Registrar General, High court Court High Court, Madras vs. The Inspector of Police, Vyasarpadi, Chennai 600 039 and another. In that case, the Full Bench of this Court was also considering the similar issue, where the detenue was a minor and she had eloped with a boy Kumaresan and due to their wedlock and consequential consummation of their marriage she became pregnant for about 20 weeks. Therefore, in that case, considering the paramount interest of the detenue girl, this court had to direct the detenue to go along with her husband. The said precedent squarely applies to the facts of the present case. As we have already pointed out, the girl is at present pregnant for about two months and she has also expressed her willingness to go along with her husband, the fourth respondent only. What is more relevant in this case is that she will be attaining majority in yet another 20 days. In the above peculiar circumstances and taking into consideration of the paramount interest of the detenue girl and her present status, we are of the considered view that the detenue girl should be allowed to go along with the fourth respondent - Silambarasan. The detenue girl is set at liberty to go along with the fourth respondent. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of.