The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Mahomedan Law in determining the validity of the petitioner's marriage and the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction over the subordinate courts under Article 227 of the Constitution.

V.N. SINHA, J.

Heard counsel for the petitioner, State respondent nos. 1 and 2. Counsel for the petitioner has also appeared for respondent nos. 3 and 5 supporting the case of the petitioner. Also heard counsel for respondent no. 4, father of the petitioner in opposition to the prayer made in this writ petition.

2. This petition has been filed praying inter alia to set aside the order dated 6.3.2013 passed by CJM Muzaffarpur in Kazimohammadpur P. S. Case No. 446/12 directing the petitioner to be kept in After Care Home, Gaighat Patna with further prayer to set the petitioner free to join her husband, mother-in-law (respondent no. 3, 5).

3. In this connection, it is submitted that the petitioner eloped with respondent no. 3 on 2.12.2012 as she apprehended illtreatment at the instance of her father, respondent no. 4. While she remained with respondent no. 3 she also married respondent no. 3 on 11.12.2012 at village Tajpur in the district of Samastipur. Present Kazimohammadpur P. S. Case was registered by respondent no. 4 on 10.12.2012 asserting that his daughter namely petitioner has been enticed away by respondent nos. 3 and 5 on 2.12.2012. Having learnt and confirmed the said fact, the present Kazimohammadpur P. S. Case No. 446/12 has been lodged on 10.12.2012 for the offence under Sections 363, 366 A of the Penal Code against respondent nos. 3 & 5.

4. While the aforesaid Kazimohammadpur P. S. Case No. 446/12 remained pending for investigation, the petitioner appeared before the CJM, Muzaffarpur on 5.3.2013 and recorded her 164 Cr.P.C. statement, copy whereof has been annexed with the petition vide Annexure-4. Perusal of the statement indicates that the petitioner stated before the Magistrate that she eloped with respondent no. 3 on 2.12.2012 and stayed with his relatives until 11.12.2012 when her marriage was solemnized with respondent no. 3 at Tajpur. It is also stated in the statement that she loved respondent no. 3 and always wanted to get married to him but her father was opposing the matrimony between the petitioner and respondent no. 3. In the statement the petitioner described her age as 20 years but the Magistrate recording her statement assessed her age as 17 years. From the statement it further appears that the petitioner claimed that she carried pregnancy of about three months. On the same date i.e. 5.3.2013 itself the petitioner was subjected to medical examination by a board of doctors. Doctors examining the petitioner estimated her age between 19 to 21 years. The report of medical board is contained in Annexure-5 to the petition.

5. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate heard the matter on 6.3.2013 and relying on the admit card issued by CBSE, authorities estimated her age as 15 years in view of entry made in the admit card indicating the date of birth of the petitioner to be 2.8.1997. In light of the aforesaid finding reached by the CJM, Muzaffarpur the petitioner was sent to Remand Home as she was not willing to go with her parents.

6. In the writ petition, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of State through Superintendent of After Care Home, Gaighat Patna (respondent no. 2) accepting the fact that the petitioner is pregnant and is under medical supervision of doctors of NMCH, Patna. She visited OPD on 5.4.2013 for regular check-up and was diagnosised to be pregnant of five months.

7. Respondent no. 3 has also filed counter affidavit accepting the fact that respondent no. 3 married the petitioner on 11.12.2012 after observing Muslim rites under guidance of Maulvi and in presence of witnesses. In the light of the affidavit of respondent no. 3 we called upon respondent nos. 3 and 5 under order dated 4.4.2013 to appear before this Court on 8.4.2013. In compliance of our aforesaid direction respondent nos. 3 and 5 appeared before us on 8.4.2013 and confirmed the factum of marriage as also indicated their willingness to accept the petitioner as wife of respondent no. 3 and daughter-in-law of responden