Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner, who is the mother of detenue, has moved this petition for a direction to the 1st respondent to secure her daughter Selvi M.Pavithra, D/o. E. Manimaran, aged 20 years from the custody of the 2nd respondent, produce her before this Hon'ble court and set her at liberty forthwith. 2. According to the petitioner/mother of detenue, she is a house wife and her husband is a daily wager. They have only one daughter/detenue herein, who is studying 3rd year B.Com. Degree course at Sree Muthukumaraswamy College. In the meanwhile, her daughter was found missing from 10.02.2014 onwards and her whereabouts were also not known to her since then. Therefore, a complaint in this regard has been lodged with the 1st respondent. Though a case was registered by the 1st respondent under heading Girl Missing, the daughter of petitioner was not secured, which necessitated the petitioner to file this petition in this Court, seeking for the above direction. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the detenue, namely, M.Pavithra before this Court, accompanied by the Investigating Officer. 4. On being enquired with the detenue M.Pavithra, she has stated that her date of birth is 21.10.1993 and in proof, she has produced her Voter ID Card. She has further stated that she is doing her 3rd year B.Com. in Sree Muthukumaraswamy College and is in know of the 2nd respondent for quite a long time, aged about 33 years and running a two wheeler shop. She has, besides admitting her marriage with the 2nd respondent in a Temple on 10.02.2014, informed of her five months' pregnancy, but in support of their marriage, no proof has been adduced by her. Repeatedly, she has expressed her intent to remain with the 2nd respondent. 5. On enquiry with the 2nd respondent, it comes to light that he is already a married man having two children, has conceded that there was a marriage between him and detenue and he has also not furnished any document in proof thereof. 6. Repeatedly, she has expressed her intent to remain with the 2nd respondent. 5. On enquiry with the 2nd respondent, it comes to light that he is already a married man having two children, has conceded that there was a marriage between him and detenue and he has also not furnished any document in proof thereof. 6. Though we are not inclined to allow the detenue M. Pavithra to go with the 2nd respondent owing to non existence of material document to prove their marriage, considering the fact that things have gone upto the extent of pregnancy and taking into account her attainment of majority, viz., 20 years 5 months and further in view of her inclination to lead her life with the 2nd respondent, we, having no other option and also with painful heart, allow her to go as per her own wish. 7. Accordingly, while recording her continuous insistence upon allowing her to go with the 2nd respondent, the detenue is set at liberty to act as per her own desire. 8. The Habeas Corpus Petition stands disposed of accordingly.