JUDGMENT 1. - Issue notice for final disposal. 2. Mr.L.R.Upadhyay, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Firoz Khan accept notice for respondents No. and respectively. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this miscellaneous petition under sectionof the Code of Criminal Procedure,(for short `the Code' hereinafter) is being finally heard and decided at the admission stage. 3. By the instant petition under section of the Code, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 7.2.2008 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gangrar, Distt. Chittorgarh (for short `the Executive Magistrate' hereinafter) directing the Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Udaipur to keep Kumari Laxmi in their custody till she attains the majority. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that firstly the order impugned is erroneous to the extent that Kumari Laxmi is years of age; she already attained the majority; she was examined by the Executive Magistrate and in her statement on oath, she stated her age to beyears. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on a proceeding under sections and of the Code initiated by respondent No. Devilal, girl Kumari Laxmi was produced before the Executive Magistrate and the Executive Magistrate recorded her statement on oath. Respondent No. Devilal has no objection, if Kumari Laxmi is released from Nari Niketan, Udaipur and live with petitioner Narayan, with whom she stated to have contracted "Nata Marriage. An affidavit of respondent No. Devilal has been filed by learned counsel for respondent No., which has been placed on record. 4. This Court in Santosh v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2004 (2) Cr.L.R. Raj. has held that there is no provision under any law which empowers the Magistrate to pass an order of detention of a woman in Nari Niketan without her consent. She can be detained for a brief period only during an inquiry as to the custody of the girl. 5. In the instant case, firstly the girl Kumari Laxmi has attained the majority and, therefore, no such order directing detention in Nari Niketan in respect of Kumari Laxmi could have been passed. Therefore, on this ground alone, the order impugned suffers from patent error. Even otherwise, according to the learned counsel for respondent No., Kumari Laxmi has attained the majority and contracted "Nata Marriage" with the petitioner and she isyears of age and respondent No. has no objection, if she is released from Nari Niketan, Udaipur and live with the petitioner. Therefore, on this ground alone, the order impugned suffers from patent error. Even otherwise, according to the learned counsel for respondent No., Kumari Laxmi has attained the majority and contracted "Nata Marriage" with the petitioner and she isyears of age and respondent No. has no objection, if she is released from Nari Niketan, Udaipur and live with the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the petition deserves to be allowed. 6. Consequently, the petition is allowed. Order impugned dated 7.2.2008 is set aside. Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Udaipur is directed to set Kumari Laxmi at liberty forthwith to move whenever she wants. *******