( 1 ) IN the instant case the petitioner was directed to be released in the custody of her husband, Sh. Kartar Singh, by the order of this Court dated 16/10/1998 and this judgment records the reasons in support of the order dated 16/10/1998.

( 2 ) THIS writ petition challenges the detention of the petitioner in Nari Niketan, Nirmal Chhaya, Delhi as per the order of respondent No. 2, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Shahdara, Delhi. The petitioner s case is that she married one Shri Kartar Singh on 2/11/1997, and the marriage was registered on 12/11/1997, with the Registrar of Hindu Marriages, Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh. Upon opposition from the mother of the petitioner, (the father being deceased), the petitioner left her mother s house of her free will. However, the mother lodged a complaint against the petitioner s husband, Kartar Singh, leading to registration of an FIR No. 748 of 1997 under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code of Police Station Bhajanpura, Delhi.

( 3 ) THE husband of the petitioner, Kartar Singh, was thereafter granted anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara, Delhi on 27/11/1997 and subsequently the petitioner was taken into custody by the police. The petitioner was thereafter, taken to the hospital for medico-legal examination where the doctor advised the ossification test for determination of the age of the petitioner but the investigating officer did not get the ossification test done and on 17/1/1998, the petitioner was directed to be sent to the Nari Niketan by an order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Shahdara, Delhi.

( 4 ) THE petitioner was again brought from Nari Niketan before the Metropolitan Magistrate, who rejected the petitioner s application dated 2/6/1998 for getting the ossification test done to determine her age. This application was rejected by respondents No. 2 on 27/6/1998 and this order was affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge on 17/8/1998 by holding that it was for the Investigating Officer to determine the manner and method of investigation. Thereafter the investigating officer wanted to get the ossification test done but the Metropolitan Magistrate, Shahdara rejected the said request on the reasoning he had earlier rejected the same request by his earlier order dated 27/6/1998. In this view of the matter, the petitioner filed the present writ petition in this Court contending inter-alia that she is not a minor and is about 20 years of age and as such she cannot be kept in the Nari Niketan against her Will. Her plea was that this itself amounts to a detention without the authority of law and no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code warrants such restraint or detention in Nari Niketan.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on two judgments in Mrs. Kalyani Chaudhari v. The State of U. P. and Ors. , reported as 1978 Cr. L. J. 1003 and Seema Devi alias Simaran Kaur v. State of H. P. , reported as 1998 (2) Crime 168. Both the judgments laid down similar position of law and it is only necessary to refer to the latter judgment of Seema Devi (supra ). Hon ble Mr. Justice M. Srinivasan, the Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh as he then was observed in para 6 of the judgment as follows :

"it is not in dispute that the parties are Hindus and they are governed by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995. Section 5 (iii) provides that a marriage may be solemnised between any two Hindus if the conditions set out in Sub-section (iii) is that the bridegroom has completed the age of 21 years and the bride the age of 18 years at the time of the marriage. For the purpose of this petition, I will assume that the complaint of the 2nd respondent that the petitioner herein was aged only 15 years is true. Even so, the marriage has not been invalidated by the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act. Section 11 of the Act deals with void marriages. That section relates only to marriages held in contravention of Clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of Section