JUDGMENT 1. - These two writ petitions have been directed to be tagged by order dated 06.01.2011 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition (Habeas Corpus) No. 97/2011 because of the reason that Habeas Corpus Petition No. 97/2011 has been filed by father of the girl Mst Meera, alleging that her daughter has been illegally detained by respondent No. 4 Rakesh Kumar Whereas Rakesh Kumar and said Mst Meera preferred Writ Petition No. 10872/2010, alleging that they had already contracted marriage and Mst Meera is adult and since that family members of Mst Meera are not happy with their marriage, therefore, they have lodged a false criminal case against Rakesh Kumar and the Police is harassing petitioners Rakesh Kumar and Mst Meera of Writ Petition No. 10872/2010. Since the issues involved are connected and can not be decided in isolation, therefore, both the petitions are heard together. 2. In Habeas Corpus Petition No. 97/2011, it has been alleged that Mst Meera born on 03.08.1996 and in support of her age, certificates obtained from two school have been produced as Annxs. 1 and 2. It is submitted that said Mst Meera has been kidnapped by the respondent No. 4 Rakesh Kumar and an application has been submitted to the SHO, Police Station Nohar on 10.11.2010, complaining about missing of Mst Meera, by father of Mst Meera. He also submitted an application for changing the Investigating Officer because no serious efforts have been made by the Investigating Officer for searching Mst Meera. It is alleged that the petitioner came to know that her daughter has been taken away by respondent No. 4 Rakesh Kumar and Ravi S/o Subhash with the help of some woman and some other persons. The investigating Officer, Rakesh Kumar and Ravi are residents of same village-Taja Patti and therefore, no efforts are made for tracing out daughter of the petitioner. The petitioner also submitted an application before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nohar but no serious action was taken. 3. It will be relevant to mention here that in the writ petition filed by father of the girl - Satya Narayan (No. 97/2011) itself, it is submitted by the girl's father that Rakesh Kumar has already filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking their protection, obviously from the Police Officers in view of the complaint filed by girl's father Satya Narayan. The Petitioner-girl's father also submitted criminal complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar on 24.11.2010, complaining that the respondent Rakesh Kumar has performed marriage with petitioner's minor daughter, by fabricating forged documents. However, upon that complaint no order was passed except to put the matter on 07.01.2011, it has been alleged by the father of the girl that said marriage of Mst Meera is in violation of rule 12 (3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Rules, 2007. With these averments, it has been praved that direction may be issued for producing the corpus in the Court and delivery may be given to the petitioner. 4. The Writ Petition No. 10872/2010 has been preferred by Rakesh Kumar and the Corpus Mst Meera herself, alleging that Rakesh's uncle was married in the family of the girl's father Satya Narayan because of which Rakesh Kumar started knowing the girl and fell in love and ultimately, they married on 10.11.2010. The petitioners stated that in view of filling of criminal report of Mst Meera as missing person, at Police Station Nohar by father of the girl, the Police is harassing them, therefore, they may be given protection. The petitioners-Rakesh Kumar and the girl Mst Meera have submitted Election Identity Card of Rakesh Kumar, MLC report about age of the girl showing her to be 19 to 21 years of age and the marriage registration certificate obtained from the registrar of Marriages under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with photographs; and it has been stated by the petitioners that the marriage has not only been solemnised but has been consummated and now the petitioner No. 2 has already conceived. 5. In the Writ petition No. 10872/2010 filed by Rakesh Kumar and the girl Mst Meera, reply has been filed by respondent No. 5 father of the girl (Satya Narayan), substantially opposing contention of the petitioners. Reply has also been filed by the respondents No. 1 to 4 along with statement of Mst Meera recorded by the Police and copies of the school certificates. 6. The corpus was called in the Court and the was interrogated in the Chamber by us and the girl has stated that she contracted marriage with Rakesh Kumar and she is pregnant also and she wants to go with her husband. 6. The corpus was called in the Court and the was interrogated in the Chamber by us and the girl has stated that she contracted marriage with Rakesh Kumar and she is pregnant also and she wants to go with her husband. When the girl was allowed to talk with her father, he clearly stated that he will not permit his daughter to live with Rakesh Kumar. 7. Then Rakesh Kumar was also called in the Chamber and we found that said Rakesh Kumar is having problem in one leg. He stated that he contracted marriage with the girl and he & his family members tried to convince the girl's father to accept the marriage but they are not accepting. 8. Be it as it may be, the girl appears to age of understanding and even if her date of birth is accepted to be 03.08.1996. So far as her answers to the questions are concerned, they were given with firmness and determination and she stated that her father has already contracted second marriage after death of first wife and she was knowing Rakesh Kumar and also was knowing well about his disability in one leg yet she contracted marriage with Rakesh Kumar. 9. In a Writ Petition of Habeas Corpus, we have to find out whether said detention of the corpus is illegal. The father of the girl in his writ petition itself has admitted that the respondent No. 4 Rakesh Kumar has performed marriage with minor daughter of the petitioner, however, by fabricating and forging the documents. We have perused the marriage certificate and after going through the statement of the corpus, we are of the view that no case is made out by the petitioner so as to declare that the corpus has been detained illegally. It appears that she voluntarily went and wants to go with Rakesh Kumar and she has admitted that she married and is pregnant. Therefore, the Habeas Corpus Petition No. 97/2011 deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 10. It appears from the reply of respondent No. 5-Satya Narayan filed in the Habeas Corpus Petition No. 97/2011 that said Rakesh Kumar came in the Court in his Writ Petition No. 10872/2010 with the corpus, wherein Mst Meera has also submitted her affidavit and she remained present in the Court on 20.11.2010, 23.11.2010, 26.11.2010 and 01.12.2010 before the Court. 10. It appears from the reply of respondent No. 5-Satya Narayan filed in the Habeas Corpus Petition No. 97/2011 that said Rakesh Kumar came in the Court in his Writ Petition No. 10872/2010 with the corpus, wherein Mst Meera has also submitted her affidavit and she remained present in the Court on 20.11.2010, 23.11.2010, 26.11.2010 and 01.12.2010 before the Court. However, in the Writ Petition No. 10872/2010 attendance of the corpus has not been marked. 11. Be it as it may be, on 04.02.2011 after perusing the case diary when we found that statement of the corpus had already been recorded under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code, therefore, the corpus may be called and we directed Rakesh Kumar to produce the corpus in the Court on 15.02.2011 and the corpus has come with Rakesh Kumar. Therefore, there is no doubt that the corpus was with Rakesh Kumar but it can not be held that she was illegally detained. 12. Since the matter has been reported to Police by Satya Narayan-father of the corpus and investigation is going on, we deem it proper to partly allow the Writ Petition No. 10872/2010 filed by Rakesh Kumar and Mst Meera and direct the respondent State to see that Rakesh Kumar and Mst Meera may not be harassed in any manner and if needed, Police protection may be given to them for their security, for which appropriate decision may be taken by State administrative authorities. 13. We make it clear that any of our observations made above shall not come in the way of investigation, which is being conducted by the Police authorities and the Police authorities will be free to proceed in accordance with law but they are also Supposed to be protector of the persons of petitioners of Writ petition No. 10872/2010 i.e. Rakesh Kumar and Mst Meera.Writ Petition No. 10872 of 2010 Partly Allowed and Habeas Corpus Petition Dismissed. *******