JUDGMENT 1. - Since both the petitions involve similar questions of facts and law, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Both the petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. arise out of the orders dated 7.5.2011 and 22.3.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Neem-kathana, whereby the applications filed by the petitioners in both the petitions for custody of Sumitra and Lali have been dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sayar and Sultan has submitted that the petitioners have solemnized marriage with Sumitra and Lali. They were earlier engaged with the consent of the parents for marriage with the daughters of the complainant (petitioner in Petition No. 940/2011), but later-on, the grand father of the daughters tried to marry them with some other persons, taking certain amount and aggrieved thereof, Sumitra and Lali entered into marriage with the present petitioners, namely Sayar and Sultan. Aggrieved of this marriage, Chhitar lodged a First Information Report at Police Station, Ajeetgarh. In the course of investigation, the police recovered both the girls and thereafter applications for both the girls named above were moved. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that statements of both the detenues recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., go to show that they resided happily with the present petitioners, namely Sayar and Sultan and that they have solemnized marriage with their free will. It has also been submitted that both the detenues are major and medical opinion has also been placed on record. Learned counsel further submitted that custody of petitioners' life should be handed over to them as after marriage they are the natural guardians of the detenues, if for the sake of argument they are treated as minor. In support of his argument, learned counsel has relied upon Bhaga Rain v. State of Rajasthan and others, reported in 2009 (1) Cr LR (Raj.) 297 ; Chiranji Lal v. State of Rajasthan, reported 2011 (1) Cr LR (Raj.) 106 and Alamelu and Anr. v. State represented by Inspector of Police, reported in 2011 Cr LR (SC) 200 . 5. Per contra, counsel appearing on behalf of father of the girls has submitted that the marriage of his daughters with the petitioners is ab-initio void as the marriage has been solemnized by taking away the minors out of lawful custody of their guardians. v. State represented by Inspector of Police, reported in 2011 Cr LR (SC) 200 . 5. Per contra, counsel appearing on behalf of father of the girls has submitted that the marriage of his daughters with the petitioners is ab-initio void as the marriage has been solemnized by taking away the minors out of lawful custody of their guardians. It is submitted that both the girls are minor and charge -sheet has been submitted against the alleged husbands of the minors before the competent Court. In these circumstances, custody of both the minors should be given to the complainant father who is their natural guardian. 6. I have considered the rival submissions. Sumitra and Lali in their statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. have specifically stated that both of them have solemnized marriage with the petitioners, namely Sayar and Sultan. Neither they have made any allegation of enticement nor ingredient of any offence have been alleged in their statements. Counsel for the petitioners, namely Sayar and Sultan has tried to prove the age of the girls by filing ration card, whereas the counsel for the complainant (father of the girls) has filed school certificates to prove the age of the girls. However, there is a dispute regarding these documents. Learned counsel for the petitioners Sayar and Sultan has produced another document procured from the School, wherein the date of birth of Sumitra has been mentioned as 15.4.1995, whereas her younger brother's date of birth is stated as 20.9.1996. It is an admitted fact that in between Sumitra and Rajesh, there is one more child, namely Lali who is a detenu in the present case. In this view of the matter, it can well be said that the dates of birth recorded in the. school certificates are not of much value. At the same time, no value could be attached to the Ration Card and the opinion of the doctor. Sumitra and Lali in their statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. have categorically stated that they have solemnized marriages with Sayar and Sultan at their free will and nothing has been said against these marriages. 7. Keeping in mind the fact that both the girls are of prudent age and they want to live with their husbands. At the same time, there is an allegation against the parents that they want to sell them of. 7. Keeping in mind the fact that both the girls are of prudent age and they want to live with their husbands. At the same time, there is an allegation against the parents that they want to sell them of. Thus, it would be in the welfare of the minor girls that their custody should not be given to their parents, inasmuch as they do not want to live with them and have also levelled specific allegation against the parents of selling them to other persons for some consideration. 8. Learned counsel for petitioners Sayar and Sultan has also placed a copy of the judgment delivered by this Court in Lachho v. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 20/2011) decided on 18.2.2011 , to show that in identical circumstances, the Court has ordered custody of the minor to her husband. In the case at hand, petitioners Sayar and Sultan are the lawful husbands of both the girls and according to Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, after marriage of a girl, her lawful guardian would be her husband. No allegation of enticement has been alleged by both the girls, who are of prudent age. It would also not be out of place to take note of the fact that on 29.8.2011 both the girls were present before this Court and categorically stated before the Court that they have married to the petitioners voluntarily and desire to go with the petitioners only. 9. For the reason aforesaid, Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1218/2011 is allowed. The order dated 7.5.2011 passed by the learned Court below rejecting the application of Sultan and Sayar for custody of their wives, is hereby quashed. It is ordered that custody of both the girls Suunitra and Lali, who are presently confined in Balika Grah Samajik and Adhikarita Vibhag, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur, be given to their husbands, Sayar and Sultan on their furnishing Isupurdaginama' on the terms and conditions as may be considered just and proper by the learned Court below for its satisfaction. 10. Criminal Misc. Petition 940/2011 filed by Chhitar is dismissed. 11. The stay application, filed along with Petition No. 1218 also stands disposed of.Petition no. 1218 of 2011 allowed/Petition No. 940 of 2011 dismissed. *******