Judgment A.M. Kapadia, J.—Rule. Mr. Sejpal, learned APP appears and waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Other respondents need not be served as the corpus Pooja is found out and produced before the Court. 2. By filing instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to issue writ of Habeas Corpus or in the nature of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ, direction and/or order directing Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 to produce before this Court her daughter Pooja, who is in illegal detention of Respondent No. 4 and handover her custody to him. 3. This Court vide order dated 26.5.2010 issued Notice, which was made returnable on 28.5.2010. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to time, as the corpus Pooja could not be traced out and produced before the Court. 4. Today when the matter is called out, Mr. Shivanand Jha, Police Commissioner of Surat City, Mr. Siddharth Khatri, DCP, Zone 1, Surat and Mr. L.B. Zala, PI, Limbayat Police Station, Surat are personally present before the Court. Mr. L.B. Zala states that the other Police Officer of Limbayat Police Station has found out the corpus Pooja from Gaya, Bihar from the custody of Respondent No. 4 – Rajkumar Vinaysingh Rajput. 5. We have ascertained the wish and willingness of the corpus Pooja and also inquired whether she is in illegal detention of Respondent No. 4 Rajkumar Vinaysingh Rajput. She has stated before us that she is lawfully wedded wife of Respondent No. 4 Rajkumar Vinaysingh Rajput. Her marriage was solemnized on 18.10.2010 in Durga Mandir at Ludhiyana, Punjab as per Hindu rights and customs and since then, she is residing with him. She is very happy at her matrimonial home. 6. So far as her age is concerned, according to her, she was born in 1993 in Civil Hospital, Surat, whereas as per the statement made by the petitioner on the basis of the certificate issued by Gyan Bharati Hindi Primary/Secondary/Higher Secondary School, Dindoli Road, Udhana, Surat, she was born on 14.11.1995. Therefore, she is minor as per the documentary evidence. 7. Therefore, she is minor as per the documentary evidence. 7. In view of this, we cannot permit the corpus Pooja to go with Respondent No. 4 Rajkumar Vinaysingh Rajput even though she is lawfully wedded wife, as her marriage with the Respondent No. 4 is void in the eye of law. 8. At this stage, corpus Pooja has shown her willingness to stay with the petitioner – her father and the petitioner would permit her to go with the Respondent No. 4 on completion of 18 years i.e. on attaining the age of majority. The petitioner No. 1 Kapildev Verma, who is personally present before the Court, has given assurance that he will not take any undue step against her daughter Pooja against her will and he would permit the corpus Pooja to go with her husband Respondent No. 4 – Rajkumar Vinaysingh Rajput on completion of 18 years i.e. on attaining the age of majority. 9. In view of this, though the corpus Pooja was not in illegal detention of Respondent No. 4 - Rajkumar Vinaysingh Rajput with whom she has married, but she has shown her willingness to go with her parents as she is below 18 years because of the assurance given by her father that she would be permitted to go with Respondent No. 4 - Rajkumar Vinaysingh Rajput on completion of 18 years of age, we hand over her custody to the petitioner, as the petitioner is her lawful guardian. 10. With the above observations and directions, this petition succeeds and accordingly it is allowed. Rule is made absolute. P P P P P