JUDGMENT : Ajai Lamba, Rajeev Singh, JJ. 1. The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature habeas corpus directing respondent no.4 (Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Prag Narain Road, Lucknow) to produce the petitioner in Court and set her at liberty. The petition also seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 03.04.2017 vide which the petitioner has been confined in respondent no.4 facility. 2. Order dated 06.12.2018 notices the gist of the issue raised by the petitioner. The order reads as under :- “1. This petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus directing respondent No.4 Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Prag Narain Road, Lucknow to produce the petitioner before this Court and set her at liberty. The petition also seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 3.4.2017, contained in Annexure No.3, and order dated 3.1.2018, passed by Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act/Fast Track Court, Raebareli, in Case Crime No.209/2016 under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Sections 3, 4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, P.S. Gurbaxganj, district Raebareli. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla. 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner is married to the deponent Ajay Kumar. The parents of the petitioner wanted the petitioner to be married elsewhere which was not acceptable to the petitioner, therefore, she left her parental house, met Ajay Kumar, went with him and got married of her free will and accord. It has been pleaded that the marriage alliance of the petitioner with Ajay Kumar has not been accepted by respondent No.5, father of the petitioner, therefore, in abuse of process of the law and process of the Court, Crime No.0209/2016 under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., P.S. Gurbaxganj, district Raebareli was registered. In the course of investigation of the said crime, statement of the petitioner as prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 CrPC in which she has explained that she is married to Ajay Kumar of her free will and accord. 4. Learned counsel also referred to contents of Annexure No.4 to plead that on 30.3.2017, age of the petitioner was found to be seventeen years approximately. In such circumstances, it stands demonstrated that the petitioner has already attained the age of majority. 4. Learned counsel also referred to contents of Annexure No.4 to plead that on 30.3.2017, age of the petitioner was found to be seventeen years approximately. In such circumstances, it stands demonstrated that the petitioner has already attained the age of majority. It has been argued that in denial of right of the petitioner under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has been housed in Nari Niketan, Prag Narain Road, Lucknow vide the impugned orders. 5. Issue notice to serve respondent No.5, also through Station House Officer, P.S. Gurbaxganj, district Raebareli. Respondent No.5 is directed to remain present in Court. 6. Respondent No.4 is directed to produce the petitioner in Court on the next date of listing. Mr. Ajay Kumar, the deponent through whom the petition has been filed is also directed to remain present in Court. 7. The investigating officer of Case Crime No.209/2016 (supra) is directed to file his affidavit, detailing the evidences collected in the course of investigation. 8. List on 2.1.2019. 3. In deference to above extracted order, the petitioner has been produced in Court. 4. We have questioned the petitioner at some length. The petitioner has stated in clear terms that she is married to Ajay Kumar @ Guddu Kushwaha, the deponent, and wants to live in her matrimonial home. The petitioner has also stated that a child has been born out of the wedlock. The petitioner has stated in unequivocal terms that she does not want to go and live with her parents/father, respondent no.5. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the investigating agency in Court which is taken on record. In Para-5 of the affidavit it has been stated that notice was served on respondent no.5 on 21.12.2018. Evidence of service has been placed on record as Annexure – 1 with the counter affidavit. We have taken notice of the fact that respondent no.5 despite service has neither appeared in Court nor is represented by a Lawyer. 6. This being a petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus we are of the view that the matter cannot be delayed any further, particularly because the petitioner/detenue has a child aged one year and two months. The conditions in Nari Niketan for housing young girls with children are not ideal. 7. 6. This being a petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus we are of the view that the matter cannot be delayed any further, particularly because the petitioner/detenue has a child aged one year and two months. The conditions in Nari Niketan for housing young girls with children are not ideal. 7. It is the case of the prosecuting agency through counter affidavit that in the statement of the prosecutrix/detenue recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the detenue has stated that her age is 18 years. She knew Ajay Kushwaha since earlier. The detenue went with Ajay Kushwaha and thereafter, they went to Mumbai on 01.12.2016. The detenue got married to Ajay Kushwaha of her freewill in a temple in Mumbai. She had physical relations with Ajay Kushwaha of her free will, and is pregnant. 8. Bone age of the petitioner has been found to be approximately 17 years as per document placed on record as Annexure – 4 with counter affidavit. 9. The pleadings in the petition are that the detenue got married to Ajay Kushwaha of her freewill which alliance was not accepted by her father respondent no.5. Aggrieved by the marriage of choice of his daughter, respondent no.5 initiated criminal proceedings vide Case Crime No.209 of 2016, under Sections 363 and 366 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Gurbaxganj, District Rae Bareli. In the course of investigation, however the detenue has stated that she had not been victimized by Ajay Kushwaha, rather she of her freewill got married to Ajay Kushwaha in Mumbai and has given birth to a child. It becomes evident that the criminal proceedings have been initiated because respondent no.5 did not accept the marriage of his daughter with Ajay Kushwaha. 10. Considering the stand of the prosecutrix/detenue as recorded by this Court, as noticed above, contents of statement of the detenue under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and her age as found in the course of investigation, we are of the firm view that detention of the petitioner in Nari Niketan would be in violation of her rights vested under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. We take judicial notice of the fact that conditions of living in Nari Niketan for young girls with children are not ideal. In case the detenue has an alternate place of choice to live, the Court must rule in favour of that choice. 11. We take judicial notice of the fact that conditions of living in Nari Niketan for young girls with children are not ideal. In case the detenue has an alternate place of choice to live, the Court must rule in favour of that choice. 11. In view of the above, we hereby allow the petition. We hereby direct respondent no.4 (Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Prag Narain Road, Lucknow) to release the petitioner forthwith to live as per her own wish. We hereby quash order dated 03.04.2017, the same having been passed dehors the rights of the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and dehors the facts and circumstances of the case. 12. Let a copy of this order be released under signatures of the Bench Secretary.