JUDGEMENT 1. Petitioner in this writ application Puja Kumari has prayed for a direction to the respondent-authorities for her release from After Care Home, Gaighat, Patna City and for allowing her to spent her married life with Vishai Kumar (Respondent No. 4), who is her husband. The petitioner and Respondent No. 4 out of their own choice solemnized their marriage, without there being any consent of their parents. They left their respective houses in company of each other, to get married and lead their life as husband and wife. 2. The father of petitioner instituted Sasaram (T) P.S. Case No. 75 of 2010 under Sections 366A & 120B of the IPC in which Respondent No. 4 and other family members were made accused. In course of investigation the petitioner and her husband were arrested by the police. The petitioner was produced before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas. Petitioners statement was recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. where she disclosed that she is 21 years of age. The Respondent No. 4 also surrendered before the court and he was taken into custody, now he has been released on bail. The age of petitioner was assessed by the Medical Board and her age was found in between 19 to 20 years. Despite this fact she was sent by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas by order dated 26.3.2010 to After Care Home. The statement of the petitioner was also recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas and there also she disclosed that she has solemnized her marriage being in love with Respondent No. 4. It was not a case of abduction or illegal confinement by Respondent No. 4. However, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas without considering the statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and ignoring the report of the Medical Board, which found the petitioner to be major. The petitioner was sent to After Care Home, Gaighat, Patna City, by order dated 26.3.2010. 3. A Criminal Revision was filed by the father-in-law and cousin father-in-law of the petitioner (Respondent Nos. 5 and 6) against the order directing the petitioner in Remand Home but that was also rejected by order dated 15.5.2010 and the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas remanding the petitioner to After Care Home was affirmed. 4. 3. A Criminal Revision was filed by the father-in-law and cousin father-in-law of the petitioner (Respondent Nos. 5 and 6) against the order directing the petitioner in Remand Home but that was also rejected by order dated 15.5.2010 and the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas remanding the petitioner to After Care Home was affirmed. 4. Petitioners prayer is for quashing of the orders passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas on 26.3.2010 as well as the Revisional order dated 15.5.2010 passed in Criminal Revision No. 86 of 2010. So far the legality of the impugned orders are concerned, we are of the view that these two orders are completely illegal and without jurisdiction. Ignoring the settled law and the law of the land which provides that any one who has attained majority is free to take his/her decision and in case that person is mentally sound the decision taken by that person cannot be considered in any way to be in violation of the provision under the law. The age of the petitioner was found above 18 years by the Medical Board, as disclosed in the report is between 19-20 years. Admittedly she is major and, that is also corroborated in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. she clearly indicated that it was a marriage of her choice. The petitioner and Respondent No. 4, being legally wedded husband are willing to live in the company of each other, which is very natural and also legal. Ignoring everything, it seems that being guided by the emotions, the Chief Judicial Magistrate has passed the order, whereby the petitioner was sent to After Care Home. The Revisional Court instead of correcting the error committed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate affirmed it. 5. Accordingly, both the orders are illegal and fit to be quashed. These orders are quashed. The petitioner was illegally forced to remain in detention right from 28.2.2010 till after in After Care Home, Gaighat, Patna City. She is entitled for being released and start living in the company of her husband. As per the direction of this Court, she has been produced today by the authorities of the After Care Home. She is present in Court. Respondent No. 4, who is the husband of petitioner, is also present. She is entitled for being released and start living in the company of her husband. As per the direction of this Court, she has been produced today by the authorities of the After Care Home. She is present in Court. Respondent No. 4, who is the husband of petitioner, is also present. Accordingly, the petitioner is set at liberty to accompany her husband and start leading her life as she likes. 6. This application is disposed of. The petitioner can accompany her husband right from the Court.