JUDGMENT 1. - Mr. Ravi Kumar, who is alleged husband of Smt. Rijwana D/o Sabuddin, resident of Bharatpur has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and prays for custody of his pregnant wife. He further alleges that Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur by order dated 9th April, 2013 in relation to FIR No. 91/2012 registered at PS Kotwali Bharatpur has ordered that since the girl is minor, as per case diary of police where the girl is found to be about 17 years of age (alleged date of birth 20th October, 1996) she should be kept in safe custody of Balika Grah at Jaipur. By that order, applications for supardgi of Smt. Rijwana which have been filed by her father as well as by her alleged husband have been rejected by CJM, Bharatpur. 2. Photocopy of conversion of religion certificate and photocopy of marriage certificate have also been filed before us and alleged statement under Section 164 Cr.PC. of Rijwana recorded by Judicial Magistrate No.1, Bharatpur has also been filed before us. It appears that Judicial Magistrate No.1 has unauthorizedly recorded the statement of Smt. Rijwana under Section 164 Cr.P.C. because it has nowhere been mentioned in it that the statement has been recorded on the request of IO/SHO, PS Kotwali, Bharatpur. 3. To my knowledge precedents and circulars of this Court prohibit the recording of the statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by a Magistrate unless there is a prayer/request to this effect of the concerned 10. In this matter, an explanation of the then Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur who has recorded the statement on 08.04.2013 should be called by the District Judge, Bharatpur and then the said explanation should be sent to this court also within fifteen days from today. 4. The petitioner has also filed the photocopy of the age certificate allegedly given by the Chief Medical officer of Meerut (UP). It has been said that the lady is pregnant and she needs care of her husband at this stage. It has also been alleged that the lady does not want to go to her father's house. The petitioner has prayed for custody of his alleged minor wife whom he claims to be major. 5. It has been said that the lady is pregnant and she needs care of her husband at this stage. It has also been alleged that the lady does not want to go to her father's house. The petitioner has prayed for custody of his alleged minor wife whom he claims to be major. 5. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner cited certain rulings before me: (i) Neelratan Kundu v. Abhijeet Kundu reported in AIR 2009 (Suppl.) SC 732 in this case, it was held that in deciding a difficult and complex question as to custody of minor, a Court of law should keep in mind relevant statutes and the rights flowing therefrom. But such cases cannot be decided solely by interpreting legal provisions. It is a humane problem and is required to be solved with human touch. A court while dealing with custody cases, is neither bound by statutes nor by strict rules of evidence or procedure nor by precedents. In selecting proper guardian of a minor, the paramount consideration should be the welfare and well-being of the child. While dealing with the custody, the court should give weight to a minor's ordinary comfort, contenment, health, education intellectual development and favourable surroundings. It was held that over and above physical comforts, moral and ethical values cannot be ignored. It was further held that if the minor is old enough to form an intelligent preference or judgment, the Court must consider such preference as well, though the final decision should rest with the court as to what is conducive of the welfare of the minor. (ii) Bhaga Ram v. State of Rajasthan [2009 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 297] it was held that husband is the guardian of person of the wife who is minor under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. It was also held that a girl of mature understanding should not be kept in Nari Niketan against her wishes. (iii) Pratapa Ram v. State of Rajasthan [2013 (1) WLC (Raj.) 125 - it was held that a girl of mature understanding should not be kept in Nari Niketan against her wishes. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and with the consent of both the parties this case is being decided here finally at the admission stage. 7. (iii) Pratapa Ram v. State of Rajasthan [2013 (1) WLC (Raj.) 125 - it was held that a girl of mature understanding should not be kept in Nari Niketan against her wishes. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and with the consent of both the parties this case is being decided here finally at the admission stage. 7. Looking to the welfare of Smt. Rijwana, it is hereby ordered that irrespective of her age, because she is of mature understanding, she should be allowed to go anywhere, either with her father or with her alleged husband as she desires. Her desire should be clarified before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur because lady is said to be in advance stage of pregnancy. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur or any ACMM authorised by him should go to Nari Niketan (Balika Grah), Jaipur and ask her desire in this respect and then Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur, Jaipur will pass order of release of the lady accordingly. 8. A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur, SHO - PS Kotwali Bharatpur, and Supdt. Nari Niketan (Balika Grih) Jaipur. 9. Copy of this order be also sent to the District Judge, Bharatpur for its compliance as mentioned earlier. 10. The petition is disposed of accordingly. The stay petition also stands disposed of.Petition Disposed of Accordingly *******