Judgment S. NAGAMUTHU, J. 1. The petitioner claims to be the husband of the detenue, namely, Thavasathiyabama, (aged 25 years as mentioned in the affidavit). According to the petitioner, marriage between him and the detenue was celebrated on 10.12.2012 and they were living together as husband and wife. Thereafter, on 24.12.2012, the third respondent kidnapped her from the lawful custody. On a complaint made by the petitioner, the case in Crime No.344 of 2012 under Section 366 IPC has been registered by the second respondent and the same is under investigation. But, the second respondent has not taken steps to secure the detenue. With this grievance, the petitioner has come up with this Habeas Corpus Petition. 2. When this Habeas Corpus Petition was taken up for hearing, the petitioner is present and the detenue is also present. 3. When we enquired the detenue, she would state that she had already married the third respondent lawfully. On coming to know of the same, the detenue was forced to marry the petitioner again but, according to her, it is not a lawful marriage. After the said marriage with the petitioner, according to her, she left the matrimonial home and joined the third respondent. According to her, she was not detained illegally by the third respondent. The detenue would further state that she is not willing to go with the petitioner. However, she would admit that her date of birth is 05.06.1996 and thus, she is still a minor. 4. The Inspector of Police/second respondent, who is present in the Court would submit that investigation in Crime No.344 of 2012 is pending. 5. In view of the above background, in our considered opinion, since the case in Crime No.344 of 2012 is pending and the same is being dealt with by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankoil, it would be appropriate for the second respondent to produce the detenue before the learned Judicial Magistrate in connection with the said crime number, it will only be appropriate for the learned Judicial Magistrate to pass order regarding the custody of the detenue. 6. In view of the above, the Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to take the detenue to his custody and produce her today itself before the learned Judicial Magistrate at Sankarankoil for passing appropriate order in respect of the custody of the minor girl. 6. In view of the above, the Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to take the detenue to his custody and produce her today itself before the learned Judicial Magistrate at Sankarankoil for passing appropriate order in respect of the custody of the minor girl. We also make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion regarding validity of the alleged marriage between the petitioner and the detenue or the marriage between the detenue and the third respondent. We have also not expressed any opinion with regard to custody of the minor. We leave all these questions open for the learned Judicial Magistrate to decide. 7. With the above observation, the Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of.