JUDGMENT 1. This petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing release of the petitioner from respondent No.3 facility. The petitioner also prays for a writ in the nature of certiorai quashing order dated 21.5.2016 vide which the petitioner has been housed in respondent No. 3 facility(Nari Niketan). 2. Order dated 8.7.2016 notices the gist of the issue raised by the petitioner. The order reads as under: "1. The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing respondent no. 3 to release the petitioner. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner got married to Avinash. Marriage has not been accepted by respondent no. 4, therefore, Case Crime No. 297 of 2016 under Section 3 63 , 366A, 376 Indian Penal Code and Section 3 /4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 has been registered in Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Gonda. The petitioner gave her statement under Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code, placed on record as Annexure-3 in which she has not supported the prosecution case, rather has clearly stated that she had gone with Avinash of her free will. Document, Annexure 2 has been placed on record in evidence of the fact that the petitioner is approximately 19 years of age. It has been pleaded that liberty of the petitioner has been curtailed without any legal cause. The petitioner has been housed in Nari Niketan, Gonda vide order dated 21.5.2016, Annexure 1. 3. Issue notice to serve respondent no. 4 returnable on 18.7.2016. Let notice be served also through Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Gonda. 4. List on 18.7.2016. 5. Respondent no.3 is directed to produce the petitioner in court on the next date of listing. 6. Investigating Officer of Case Crime No. 297 of 2016 (supra) is directed to file his affidavit. ". 3. Sri Vishnu Srivastava, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.4. His Power of Attorney is taken on record. 4. Short Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the investigating agency in Court, which is taken on record. Contention of learned counsel for respondent No.4 is that the age of the petitioner/the detenue is less than 18 years and, therefore, order Anneuxre-1 has been passed for the right reasons. His Power of Attorney is taken on record. 4. Short Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the investigating agency in Court, which is taken on record. Contention of learned counsel for respondent No.4 is that the age of the petitioner/the detenue is less than 18 years and, therefore, order Anneuxre-1 has been passed for the right reasons. The petitioner has been confined in Nari Niketan because she refused to go in the company of her parents. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 has also argued that the petitioner would have alternative remedy available for challenging order Annexure-1 and, therefore, this petition filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus be dismissed. 6. Perusal of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the investigating agency indicates that radiological age of the petitioner is 19 years, as is evident from Annexure-C.A.-2. The petitioner being the victim of offence/the prosecutrix has given her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she has not supported the prosecution case, as is evident from Annexure-C.A.-5. 7. Perusal of Annexure C.A.-5 indicates that the petitioner gave her statement to the effect that she is 19 years of age. She has studied up to Class IX. The family members had kept Avinash at the house where petitioner was living. Avinash used to share the house expenses with the family members of the petitioner. Father and mother of the petitioner got the petitioner married of Avinash about two months earlier in "Khaira Bhawani Mandir". Father of the petitioner has been demanding Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten Lacs) for return of the petitioner to Avinash. It has further been clarified that she wants to live with Avinash. It has further been stated that intentionally age of the petitioner has been shown as less in the testimonials. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it has been asserted on behalf of the petitioner that this case is covered by judgment rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No.156 (H/C) of 2015 titled 'Smt. Poonam Vs. State of U.P. and others' decided on 17.09.2015. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have not been able to distinguish the facts of this case from the facts considered in judgment rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No.156 (H/C) of 2015 titled 'Smt. Poonam Vs. State of U.P. and others' (supra). 10. State of U.P. and others' decided on 17.09.2015. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have not been able to distinguish the facts of this case from the facts considered in judgment rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No.156 (H/C) of 2015 titled 'Smt. Poonam Vs. State of U.P. and others' (supra). 10. We have considered the rival contentions in a reference to the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. In Smt. Poonam's case (supra) the following has been held in the relevant portion - "21- We are coming across a large number of cases in which parent/ parents of a girl do not accept marriage of choice of their daughter, on account of different reasons, be it the caste, financial conditions, social status or religion. Although, the girl elopes with the boy voluntarily, however, criminal proceedings are initiated with allegation of abduction, kidnapping or inducing the girl to get married. In most of such cases the complainant takes a ground that his daughter is a minor. For showing that his or her daughter is a minor, school certificates are relied upon. 22- The facts and circumstances of the present case are required to be considered in context of the law, as noticed above. While considering the same, the Court is required to take into account the most Cherished Right of a citizen of the country, which is personal liberty. 23- As noticed above, various documents have come on record indicating different dates of birthge of the petitioner. Be that as it may, there is a conflict between the age of the petitioner determined on the basis of school documents, and the age assessed through ossification test. The Court is required to lean towards the report furnished by the Doctor, on the basis of scientific tests. This is particularly so because liberty of the petitioner is required to be protected, it being most precious Constitutional Right of the petitioner. 24- Considering the law laid down by this Court in Shaheen Parveen's case (Supra), as noticed above, it becomes prima-facie evident that the petitioner had neither been abducted nor kidnapped or induced by Suneel Kumar Singh. Rather statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. indicates that the petitioner had gone with Bauwa alias Suneel Kumar of her free will and voluntarily. Prima-facie, therefore, this Court concludes that offence has not been committed in context of the petitioner. Rather statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. indicates that the petitioner had gone with Bauwa alias Suneel Kumar of her free will and voluntarily. Prima-facie, therefore, this Court concludes that offence has not been committed in context of the petitioner. Surely, the petitioner is not an accused. Under the circumstances, we are faced with a situation wherein liberty of an alleged victim has been curtailed under the direction of the Magistrate. 25- Considering the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Juhi Devi's case (Supra) as extracted above, it becomes evident that in such cases reliance can safely be placed on the opinion of the Doctors in context of age of the girl, when the age recorded in school certificate(s) is at variance. 26- We have considered that there is consistency in the results of medical/ossification test reports, whereas the basis of making entry in school record in regard to date of birth, is generally not brought on record. In the circumstances, so as to consider whether a person has attained age of majorityge of discretion in cases such as the present one, it is safer to rely on medical/scientific/ossification test reports. 27- Perusal of the judgment rendered in Smt. Reena's case (Supra), as extracted above, shows that age cannot be held to be a relevant consideration, while considering Personal Liberty of a person. A person living in India has a Right to enjoy his or her liberty, as guaranteed by the Constitution of India. Any order which curtails or encroaches upon the liberty of such a person is required to be struck down, if it is not in accordance with procedure established by law. 28- Article 21 of the Constitution of India promises every citizen that he shall not be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Petitioner not being an accused, it cannot be held that her personal liberty has been curtailed as per procedure prescribed by law. This is particularly so because she apparently has attained age of discretion and has asserted her right to get married of her own choice. Petitioner not being an accused, it cannot be held that her personal liberty has been curtailed as per procedure prescribed by law. This is particularly so because she apparently has attained age of discretion and has asserted her right to get married of her own choice. 29- While considering a petition filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus, the writ court is not required to go into the complexities of law, once it is made evident to the Court that personal liberty of a citizen has been curtailed. A writ court cannot contemplate any limitation on its power to deliver substantial justice. Equity justifies bending the Rules, where fair play is not violated, with a view to promote substantial justice." 12. Perusal of the order Annexure-1 indicates that the petitioner has been directed to be housed in Nari Niketan, because, as per her testimonials, her age is 13 years. The Court while observing Annexure-1, however, has taken notice of the fact that radiological age of the petitioner is 19 years. It has further been recorded in the impugned order that the petitioner refused to go in the company of her parents. 13. When the facts are collectively considered, it becomes evident that the petitioner has attained the age of majority as per her radiological examination. The petitioner has not supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is the case of the petitioner that she had not been kidnapped. It is further specific case of the petitioner that she does not want to live with her parents rather wants to live in her matrimonial home. 14. In difference to the directions of this Court, the petitioner and respondent No.4 have appeared. The petitioner has again reiterated her stand as taken in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has refused to go in the company on her father. 15. While interacting with the the petitioner, we find that the petitioner has attained the age of discretion and is aware of her well being. 16. Considering the various aspects of the case, we are of the considered opinion that liberty of the petitioner stands curtailed by housing her in Nari Niketan. 17. Conditions of living in a Nari Niketan for yound girl are not ideal. 16. Considering the various aspects of the case, we are of the considered opinion that liberty of the petitioner stands curtailed by housing her in Nari Niketan. 17. Conditions of living in a Nari Niketan for yound girl are not ideal. A person should be housed to the Nari Niketan only if no other alternative place is available. In the present case, petitioner wants to live in her matrimonial home. 18. We are also of the considered opinion that a technicality as raised by learned counsel for respondent No.4 cannot be considered as a good ground for curtailing liberty of the petitioner. Precedence is required to be given to the rights vested for a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 19. The technicality that Annexure-1 can be challenged in due process cannot be accepted as a good ground for continued custody of the petitioner in Nari Niketan. 20. We, however, of the view that the case of the petitioner is covered by the judgment rendered in the case of Smt. Poonam (supra). 21. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 21.5.2016 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No.5, Gonda in Case Crime No. 297 of 2016, under Sections 363, 366A, 376 I.P.C. & ¾ Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Disrict Gonda is hereby quashed. 22. Consequently, respondent No. 3-Superintendent of Women Protection/Nari Niketan Gonda, District Gonda is directed to release the petitioner forthwith to allow her to go as per her free wish. 23. Let a copy of this order be released under the signatures of Bench Secretary of this Court.