JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, Sri Akhilesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri S.P.Sharma learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 2. This habeas corpus writ petition has been filed on behalf of Smt. Vinita through Munendra Singh (claiming himself to the husband of the corpus) with the following prayers to: (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of habeas corpus commanding the respondent No. 2 to produce corpus i.e. petitioner before this Hon’ble Court to set her at liberty from illegal detention and unlawful custody of respondent No. 2. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent Nos. 3 and 4 not to interfere in the married life of the petitioner. (iii) issue any further writ, order or direction as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper to secure the ends of justice. (iv) an order awarding the cost of the petition to the petitioner. 3. The facts, in brief, of this case are that an NCR has been lodged by Munendra Singh at Police Station Dando on 19.7.2012 alleging therein that his wife Vinita Devi was taken away by Shilendra, who was illegally detained, thereafter an application was moved from police station Dando in the Court of S.D.M. Atrauli, District Aligarh for obtaining the warrant of search under section 100 Cr.P.C., thereafter on 31.7.2012, a report was submitted by police station Dando district Aligarh in the Court of S.D.M.Atrauli, district Aligarh for recording the statement of the corpus, on which SDM Atrauli passed the order on 1.8.2012 for holding the medical examination to determine the age of the corpus. The corpus was recovered from the house of Shilendra, she stated that she was aged about 22 years, she had performed the marriage with Munendra in the month of April, Shilendra was not her husband, she was forcibly handed over to Shilendra by her father and Bahnoi, she was having apprehension of her life, thereafter, the SDM Atrauli directed the C.M.O.Aligarh for conducting the mental test, after her medical examination, she was directed to be produced before the competent officer. 4. According to the medical examination report dated 7.8.2012 the age of the corpus was about 19 years. 4. According to the medical examination report dated 7.8.2012 the age of the corpus was about 19 years. An application dated 11.8.2012 was given by corpus to SSP Aligarh mentioning therein that she had performed the marriage with her free will on 14.4.2012 in Arya Samaj Sewa Sansthan with Munendra Singh, but her parents were not satisfied with her marriage and they assured that her marriage shall be performed with Munendra in accordance with the Hindu Rites, on their assurance, she came to the house of her father but on 6.6.2012 without her consent she was married with Shilendra by her father. She was detained by local police, she wanted to go with her husband Munendra Singh. An application dated 7.8.2012 was also sent by the corpus to Rashtriya Mahila Ayog, New Delhi with the same prayer. On submission made by counsel for the petitioner that whereabouts of the corpus was not known, the Officer- in- Charge of the police Dando, District Aligarh was directed to produce the corpus before this Court on 17.9.2012. On 17.9.2012, the corpus was produced before this Court by Agan Singh, Sub Inspector, Police Station Dando, District Aligarh, she was brought from her parents’ house. 5. On query made by the Court, the corpus stated that she did not want to go to her parents’ house. On query made by the Court, respondent No. 4 Ramesh Chandra, father of the corpus, stated that the marriage of the corpus was solemnised with respondent No. 3 Shilendra and no marriage was performed with Munendra Singh, he stated that his elder daughter Smt. Seema was married to one Atvir, after his death, she was re-married with Munendra Singh, from their wedlock, a female child, now aged about 4 and ½ years, was born but the corpus stated that the allegation of re-marriage of her sister Seema was false. After making the query with them, Munendra, Smt. Seema and her daughter were directed to appear before the Court of learned C.J.M. Aligarh and direction was issued for holding the paternity test of daughter of Smt.Seema in SGPGI, Lucknow to determine whether Munendra Singh was her father. In pursuance of the order dated 17.9.2012, the paternity test was done in SGPGI Lucknow. The report of the paternity test was produced by learned A.G.A.on 18.12.2012. In pursuance of the order dated 17.9.2012, the paternity test was done in SGPGI Lucknow. The report of the paternity test was produced by learned A.G.A.on 18.12.2012. According to paternity test report, Smt. Seema was the biological mother of baby Bably (with a probability of 99.99 %) and Munendra Singh was also biological father (with a probability of 99.99 %) of baby Bably. The corpus was also produced before this Court on 18.12.2012, Munendra Singh, Smt. Seema and Km. Bably, Shilendra, Ramesh Chandra were also present in the Court. On query made by the Court, the corpus stated that she had passed 5th class examination, she was aged about 19 years, the date of birth was not known to her, she was having 5 sisters and 3 brothers, she had performed marriage with Munendra on 12.4.2012 in a temple at Aligarh, her sister Seema was married with one Atvir who died, thereafter she was not married with Munendra, she was forcibly married by her father with Shilendra where she lived for 10 or 12 days, she wanted to go with her husband Munendra. 6. On query made by the Court, respondent No. 4 Ramesh Chandra stated that corpus was his daughter, he was having six daughters and three sons, his elder daughter was married with Atvir, after his death, she was married with Munendra and from their wedlock, a female child was born, who is aged about 4 ½ years, the corpus was not married with Munendra, his daughter Seema, who was married with Munendra was expelled by him from the house, thereafter she lodged a case for maintenance, for which three Panchayats were arranged but Munendra was not agreed to keep his wife Seema, at his house. The corpus was married with Shilendra according to Hindu Rites, she remained at Shilendra’s house for about 2 months as his wife, but at the instance of Munendra she was taken out by the police from her husband’s house without any proper reason, therefore, S.I.Munna Lal, who was involved in bringing the corpus from the house of Shilendra was, suspended. The corpus was married with Shilendra according to Hindu Rites, she remained at Shilendra’s house for about 2 months as his wife, but at the instance of Munendra she was taken out by the police from her husband’s house without any proper reason, therefore, S.I.Munna Lal, who was involved in bringing the corpus from the house of Shilendra was, suspended. On query made by the Court Shilendra stated that he was aged about 22 years, he had passed High School examination in the year 2006, his marriage was performed with corpus, the corpus remained at his house for about 2 months in cool and calm atmosphere, thereafter she was taken by the police from his house at the instance of Munendra, he wanted to have the corpus in his custody. On query made by the Court, Munendra stated that he was aged about 22 years, he had passed High School Examination in the year 2006, he was not married with Smt. Seema, he was not having any knowledge about any case filed by Smt. Seema under section 125 Cr.P.C., he has performed the marriage with corpus in Arya Samaj Mandir, he wanted to have the corpus in his custody. 7. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the corpus was firstly married with Munendra Singh. With the marriage of the corpus with Munendra Singh, the parents of the corpus were not agreed that is why they forcibly performed the marriage of the corpus with Shilendra from where she was apprehended by the police on the basis of NCR lodged by Munendra Singh. The corpus is major, she also wants to go with her husband Munendra Singh, she may be set her at liberty forthwith and she may be given to her husband Munendra Singh. 8. In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A.and the counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 that the corpus is major, she herself has admitted that she was married with Shilendra. Munendra is already married with Smt. Seema, the elder sister of the corpus and from their wedlock, a female child has been born, who is at present aged about 4 ½ years. Smt. Seema has filed the case of maintenance against Munendra Singh. Munendra is already married with Smt. Seema, the elder sister of the corpus and from their wedlock, a female child has been born, who is at present aged about 4 ½ years. Smt. Seema has filed the case of maintenance against Munendra Singh. The paternity test also show that from the wedlock of Munendra Singh and Smt. Seema a female child, namely, Bably has been born, in such circumstances, the corpus may not be given to Munendra Singh, she may be given in the custody of her husband Shilendra. 9. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the corpus is daughter of respondent No. 4 Ramesh Chandra, the corpus is major. According to the statement of the corpus also, she has been married with Shilendra by her father. She has been taken out by the police from Shilendra’s house at the instance of Munendra Singh, who lodged the NCR under section 498 I.P.C. on 19.7.2012 at police station Dando,district Aligarh. The corpus has been produced before this Court by the police, she was brought from her parents’ house but she refused to go to the house of her parents, the corpus and Munendra Singh stated that Smt. Seema, elder sister of corpus, was not married with Munendra Singh whereas respondent No. 4 Ramesh Chandra, father of the corpus, categorically stated before the Court that Smt. Seema, the elder sister of the corpus, was married with Atvir Singh, after death of Atvir Singh, she was re-married with Munendra Singh and from the wedlock of Munendra Singh and Smt. Seema a female child has been born, who is aged about 4 ½ years, such statement has been given by Smt. Seema also but to ascertain the truth this Court directed for paternity test of female child namely, Bably. Accordiing to the paternity testing report issued by Professor Suraksha Agrawal, Department of Medical Genetics, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, Smt. Seema was the biological mother of baby Bably and Munendra Singh is biological father of baby Bably, according to the paternity test also, from the wedlock of Smt. Seema and Munendra Singh a female child was born, it shows that Munendra Singh and the corpus were telling a lie with regard to the marriage of Smt. Seema with Munendra Singh whereas respondent No. 4 Ramesh Chandra and Smt. Seema truthfully stated that Smt. Seema was re-married with Munendra Singh and from their wedlock, one female child was born who was also present in the Court. 10. In such circumstances, the corpus may not be given in the custody of Munendra Singh because he is already married person, he has been married with Smt. Seema, the elder sister of the corpus and from their wedlock, a female child has been born, who is aged about 4 ½ Years at present. It has been admitted by corpus herself that she was married with respondent No. 3 Shilendra and corpus was taken from the house of Shilendra by the police, it shows that Shilendra being husband of the corpus is natural guardian, he is entitled to have the custody of the corpus, therefore, we direct that the corpus shall be set her at liberty from the Nari Niketan Mathura. The Superintendent of Nari Niketan Mathura is directed to release the corpus in presence of the officer-in-charge of police station Dando and respondent No. 3 Shilendra. The Officer-in-Charge of Police Station Dando is directed to bring the corpus from Nari Niketan Mathura in presence of respondent No. 3 Shilendra to the house of respondent No. 3 Shilendra. He is also directed to ensure that in any case the life of the corpus may not be put in danger. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of. ——————