JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner Rajendra has challenged the order dated 2.4.2013 where by his application for releasing Mrs. Nirma from 'Nari Niketan' has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Mrs. Nirma had left her parental house on 21.2.2012 with the petitioner. On 15.3.2012, they got married. However, since the petitioner's father, the complainant-petitioner No. 2 was unhappy with the marriage, he lodged a F.I.R. namely F.I.R. No. 35/2012 on 25.2.2012 at P.S. Sadar, Distt. Tonk for offence under Sections 363 and 366-A I.P.C. During the course of investigation, the police recovered Mrs. Nirma. Her statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded before the Magistrate. Even before the police, she has stated that she left the parental house of her own volition. She had married the petitioner of her own free will and was residing with him over a month. Since she was kept in the custody, she moved an application through her counsel for releasing her from the police custody. Meanwhile, her father, Ramkaran also moved an application for her custody ostensibly on the ground that she is a minor. She categorically refused to go with her father and raised allegation that she was twice ravished by her cousin, Prahlad, and her father wished to sell her of to another person. By order dated 25.4.2012, the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk dismissed both the applications and sent Mrs. Nirma to the Children Home at Ajmer. Meanwhile, the petitioner faced the trial for offences under Sections 363, 366-A and 376 I.P.C. But by judgment dated 1.2.2013, he was acquitted by the trial Court. After his acquittal, the petitioner filed an application before the Magistrate for release of his wife from the Children Home. However, by order dated 2.4.2013, the learned Magistrate has dismissed his application. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. By order dated 27.5.2013, this Court had directed the Deputy Registrar (Judl.) of this Court to record the statement of Mrs. Nirma. Her statements were duly recorded and taken on record. According to her statements given before this Court, she clearly claimed that about one and half years before, her father got her engaged with the petitioner. However, about two and half months earlier, her father broke- her engagement as he wanted to sell her of to another person. Nirma. Her statements were duly recorded and taken on record. According to her statements given before this Court, she clearly claimed that about one and half years before, her father got her engaged with the petitioner. However, about two and half months earlier, her father broke- her engagement as he wanted to sell her of to another person. After her engagement, she and Rajendra used to meet frequently, and used to talk to each other regularly. Therefore, she wanted to marry only Rajendra and none else. When she heard that her father is about to sell her of, she asked Rajendra to come to her village. She came with Rajendra to Jaipur of her own free will. In Jaipur, they stayed at a house for one and a half months. Meanwhile, they also got married in 'Arya Samaj Temple'. She further claimed that she wishes to live with Rajendra even in the future. According to her, her father had falsely implicated Rajendra in a criminal case. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that it is the wish of Mrs. Nyrna that has to be considered. Even in her statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she had stated the same facts that have been narrated by her before this Court. Secondly, that since Mrs. Nirma has gotten married with the petitioner, according to Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the husband becomes the guardian of a minor. Thirdly, the petitioner has already been acquitted of the offence charged against him. Thus, it is obvious that he is innocent in the eyes of the law. Even according to Mrs. Nirma, the petitioner has never forced her to have physical relationship contrary to her wishes. Lastly, that the life of a young couple is involved. No fruitful purpose would be served by keeping her in 'Nari Niketan'. Moreover, in case her custody is handed over to her father-a... person with whom she does not wish to go back to, obviously, her life would be endangered as her father is likely to sell her of to another person. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Sunil Jain, learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No. 2 has vehemently contended that according to medical report prepared by the Medical Board at Tonk, Mrs. Nirma is a minor. According to Medical Board, she is between the ages of 15-17 years. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Sunil Jain, learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No. 2 has vehemently contended that according to medical report prepared by the Medical Board at Tonk, Mrs. Nirma is a minor. According to Medical Board, she is between the ages of 15-17 years. Even in her statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she had claimed that her age was 15 years. Therefore, obviously she is a minor. Hence, the father should be given her custody instead of the petitioner. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents submitted by them. 7. Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 reads as under: "6. Natural guardians of a Hindu minor. - The natural guardians of a Hindu minor, in respect of the minor's person as well as in respect of the minor's property (excluding his or her undivided interest in joint family property), are- (a) in the case of a boy or unmarried girl - the father, and after him, the mother, provided that the custody of a minor who has not completed the age of five years shall ordinarily be with the mother; (b) in the case of an illegitimate boy or an illegitimate unmarried girl - the mother, and after her, the father; (c) in the case of a married girl - the husband: Provided that no person shall be entitled to act as the natural guardian of a minor under the provisions of this section- (a) if he has ceased to be a Hindu, or (b) if he has completely and finally renounced the world by becoming a hermit (vanaprastha) or an ascetic (yati or sanyasi). Explanation.-In this section, the expressions father' and 'mother' do not include a step-father and a step-mother." 8. Section 6(c) clearly states that in case of a married "girl", the guardian would be the husband. Obviously, Section 6 does not use the word "woman", but uses the word girl'. Therefore, even the law recognizes that after her marriage, a minor girl would be the ward of the husband and husband shall be her guardian. 9. Neither children nor woman can be treated as chattels in today's age. Therefore, they cannot be bought and sold like animals. Therefore, even the law recognizes that after her marriage, a minor girl would be the ward of the husband and husband shall be her guardian. 9. Neither children nor woman can be treated as chattels in today's age. Therefore, they cannot be bought and sold like animals. The foremost concerned of a Court is to protect the life of a person especially if the person happens to be a member of the weaker section of the society. Instead of getting into the technicalities of the law, the foremost concerned of the Court is to ensure that the person leads a life in happy and contended manner. The Court cannot be a party to an illegal act being committed even by a parent. After all, even minor children are entitled to the fundamental right of life and personal liberty as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. These principles will have to be kept in mind while deciding the present case. 10. Undoubtedly, according to the Medical Board, Mrs. Nirma happens to be a minor. But the fact remains that she has married the petitioner. According to her, in case, her custody is handed over to her father, a grave possibility does exists that he may sell her of to another person. Thus handing over the custody to her father would endanger her life; it would also permit the father to commit illegal act as stated above. The Court cannot be a party to a illegal act. 11. Moreover, she has categorically stated that even in future, she would like to live with her husband, the petitioner. Lastly, according to Section 6 of the Act, the petitioner happens to be the guardian. 12. Therefore, this Court quashed and set aside the order 2.4.2013 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Distt. Tonk and directs the custody of Mrs. Nirma be restored to the petitioner immediately. The S.H.O., P.S. Sadar, Tonk is directed to contract the Superintendent of Nari Niketan, Ajmer who shall hand over the custody of Mrs. Nirma to him; the S.H.O., P.S. Sadar, Tonk is further directed to hand over the custody of Mrs. Nirma to the petitioner, Rajendra.With these directions, this petition is hereby allowed.Petition allowed. *******