Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the victim has earlier eloped from her house and started living with petitioner no.2 with whom she was having some relationship. As per the High School certificate, though she is stated to be minor girl aged about 16 years, but no medical examination of the corpus-petitioner no.1 was performed. The FIR has been lodged by respondent no.5 against the petitioner no.2 and his family members u/s 363, 366 etc. IPC which was challenged by them by filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.15446 of 2017 in which their arrest was stayed by coordinate Bench of this Court on 8.8.2017. The respondent no.5 along with her husband had earlier married her daughter with petitioner no.2 but after four months, the present FIR has been lodged by respondent no.5 against petitioner no.2 and his family members. As per her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., she voluntarily eloped with petitioner no.2 and has married her, hence the order passed by the learned Magistrate to keep the corpus-petitioner in Nari Niketan is bad in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgment passed in the case of S. Varadarajan Vs. State of Madras (1965 AIR 942, 1965 SCR (1) 243 . Moreover, the parents of the corpus-petitioner has disowned her and do not want to keep her. He submits that even though the victim was taken to be minor by the Magistrate, she cannot be allowed to be kept in Nari Niketan against her wishes. In support of his arguments, he has further placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court as well as this Court in the case of Smt. Parvati Devi vs. State of U.P. reported in 1992 All. Crl. Cases 323 and Smt. Renu Maurya and another vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2014 (86) ACC 128 .
