Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. Invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court, one Mr.S.Deivanayagam sought for a writ of habeas corpus, directing respondents 1 and 2 to produce the detenue D. Renuka, aged 17 years before this Court, who has been illegally detained by the third respondent and set her at liberty. 2. Affidavit filed in support of the habeas corpus petition is perused. This Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2. 3. Today, the alleged detenue Renuka is produced before this Court. The case of the petitioner is that the detenue Renuka was born on 24.11.1992 and she is aged about 17 years and she is a minor. He is living at No.44, Kattabomman Street, Kamaraj Nagar, Gorimedu, Pondicherry – 605 006 along with his family members. The third respondent, who is none else than his sisters son, is a resident of Villupuram. His daughter was complaining of the activities of the third respondent. Hence, the third respondent was called and was actually warned. 4. In view of the same, the third respondent kidnapped his daughter in the month of July, 2009 and a complaint was given to the second respondent-police. A case came to be registered in Crime No.220 of 2009 for the offence under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, the detenue was rescued and his relatives persuaded the petitioner not to pursue the complaint. Accordingly, the case was withdrawn. But, the third respondent did not stop his activities. 5. Thereafter, he made all his attempts to kidnap her. From 14.2.2010, she was found missing and the petitioner also gave a complaint to the second respondent-police, but no steps have been taken. He apprehends that the detenue is in the illegal detention of the third respondent. Under the circumstances, it has become necessary to file this habeas corpus petition. 6. It is represented by the learned counsel appearing for the State that the detenue was secured along with the third respondent and they were produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Pondicherry on 24.2.2010. The statement of the girl was recorded. The third respondent was judicially remanded by an order of the Court. 6. It is represented by the learned counsel appearing for the State that the detenue was secured along with the third respondent and they were produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Pondicherry on 24.2.2010. The statement of the girl was recorded. The third respondent was judicially remanded by an order of the Court. After recording the statement of the detenue, learned Judicial Magistrate took the view that it is a fit case that she must be put in Home till she attains majority and accordingly, an order was passed. 7. Today, the detenue was produced before this Court and when this Court enquired her, she has stated that she is the daughter of the petitioner; she was born on 24.11.1992 and she is aged about 17 years. She would further add that she came over to Madras and she is a minor. She also informed the Court that she is not willing to go to her parents home. 8. A case has been registered against the third respondent and he is in judicial remand. The case is pending before the Court of law in respect of the offence alleged to have been committed. Since the detenue is not willing to go to her parents house and she is a minor, aged about 17 years, the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, directing her to stay in Home, will continue until she attains majority. 9. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the detenue is now doing XII standard. Under the circumstances, she must be allowed to continue her studies. When the detenue was asked, she is also willing to continue her studies. Hence, a direction is given to the Home, where she is staying, that the detenue will be permitted to continue her studies. 10. With the above observations, the habeas corpus petition is disposed of.