ORDER : 1. This petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus directing respondent No.4 to produce the detenue petitioner and set her at liberty as per her own wish. The petition also seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 22.12.2018 passed in First Information Report No. 305 of 2018 under Sections 363, 366 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Sidhauli, District Sitapur. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State, Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla. We have gone through the contents of the impugned First Information Report. 3. Order dated 21st January, 2019 notices the gist of the issue raised by the petitioner. The order rads a under:- "1. This petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus directing respondent No.4 to produce the detenue petitioner and set her at liberty as per her own wish. The petition also seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 22.12.2018 passed in First Information Report No.305/2018 under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., P.S. Sidhauli, district Sitapur. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 3. We hereby direct respondent No.4 to produce the petitioner in Court. 4. Let respondent No.5 be served through Station House Officer, P.S. Sidhauli, district Sitapur. Respondent No.5 is also directed to remain present in Court. The deponent shall also remain present. 5. List on 4.2.2019." 4. Learned counsel for the State, Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla, on the basis of instructions, states that investigation in First Information Report No. 305 of 2018 has been concluded. No incriminating evidence has been found. Consequently, final report has been prepared. 5. In deference to above extracted order, the petitioner has been produced in Court. The petitioner, in unequivocal terms, states that she is married to the deponent, Istiyaq and wants to live in her matrimonial home. 6. Respondent no. 5 is represented by Shri Pankaj Kumar Tripathi, Advocate. Shri Pankaj Kumar Tripathi, Advocate has been apprised of the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Learned counsel for the State has pointed out that age of the petitioner has been found to be 19 years. She has not supported the prosecution case as set up in First Information Report No. 305 of 2018 (supra). 8. Shri Pankaj Kumar Tripathi, Advocate has been apprised of the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Learned counsel for the State has pointed out that age of the petitioner has been found to be 19 years. She has not supported the prosecution case as set up in First Information Report No. 305 of 2018 (supra). 8. Considering the fact that in the course of investigation, it has been found that Istiyaq had neither kidnapped nor abducted the petitioner, we find no impediment in allowing the petitioner to live in her matrimonial home. 9. We are of the considered view that detention of the petitioner in Nari Niketan would be in violation of her rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It appears that criminal proceedings were initiated vide First Information Report No. 305 of 2018 (supra) because respondent no. 5 did not accept marriage of choice of his daughter. Merely because marriage of the petitioner has not been accepted by her father, she cannot be directed to be detained in a Nari Niketan. 10. Petition is allowed. 11. Impugned order dated 22.12.2018 passed in First Information Report No. 305 of 2018 under Sections 363, 366 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Sidhauli, District Sitapur are hereby quashed, the same having been passed de hors the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. 12. We hereby direct respondent no. 4 to release the petitioner forthwith to allow her to live as per her own wish.