Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. By this common judgment, the above petitions filed in the nature of Habeas Corpus and seeking other reliefs are. being decided.

2. Ingenious but discredited, Lord Chancellor Francis Bacon wrote in his essays, as far back as, in the 16th Century "You cannot love and be wise." There are other adages "Love is Blind:' and "All is fair in love and war" etc.

3. The cases at hand amply demonstrate the truth of the above adages and the resistance thereto from societal norms.

4. The hardships and oppressions entailed to the parties is sought to be mitigated by exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and by obviating the need of separate petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) for quashing of criminal proceedings. Ravi Kumar v. State & Another, WP(Crl.).942/05 Shikha Sharma v. State & Anorther, WP(Crl.).1446/05

5. Here are the facts: Ravi Kumar, petitioner in W.P. (Crl.) No. 942/2005, seeks writ of habeas corpus and release of Ms. Shikha Sharma from the Nari Niketan/ Nirmal Chhaya. Petition No. 1446/2005 is filed in the name of Shikha Sharma, through Ravi Kumar as parokar seeking her release from detention at Nari Niketan/ Nirmal Chhaya.

6. Ravi Kumar, 28 years old, is a vegetable seller by vocation, earning about Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- per month. He and Shikha Sharma, aged about 16 years and 8 months and having studied upto 8th Class, fell in love. Shikha is the daughter of a driver, currently unemployed, and her mother is a house wife. Her elder sister Shilpi is a sales girl and the bread-winner having control over family affairs. Ravi and Shikha got married on 8: 12.2004 at Arya Samaj Mandir situated at Calcutta Gate; Jamuna Bazar, Delhi. Date of birth in the certificate issued by Arya Samaj Mandir, of Shikha is recorded as 10.4.1986. In fact her actual date of birth is 10.4.1988. The couple took a room on rent and stayed there.

7. Shilpi Sharma, elder sister of Shikha Sharma unhappy with the alliance lodged a report on 22.12.2004 which was entered as DD No. 12-A, stating that her sister was missing since 8.12.2004. She stated in the report that she suspected Ravi Kumar to have enticed, threatened and kidnapped her sister. She prayed for recovery of her sister. In the event, FIR No. 479/04 under Section 363 IPC was registered.

8. Ravi Kumar & Ms. Shikha were apprehended. Ravi Kumar was arrested for kidnapping. Shikha being a minor was sent to Nari Niketan as she was unwilling to go to her parents, with whom her relationship was estranged. Ravi's uncle also sought custody of Shikha. The Metropolitan Magistrate in these circumstances holding that Shikha's will is of lesser importance and considering that trial of Ravi Kumar is to go on and there were possibilities of her being pressurized so as to hamper outcome of the trial, directed her to be kept in Nari, Niketan.

9. In the meanwhile, upon statement of Shikha being recorded that they loved each other and she had herself called Ravi Kumar and on her own will got married, Ravi Kumar was granted bail on 8.4.2005. During the course of proceedings in W.P. (Crl.) No. 942/2005 vide orders dated 25.7.2005, noting that the girl was minor and in the custody of Nari Niketan, And interim directions were issued. Crl.Ms. No. 7469-7470/05 moved by Ravi Kumar in WP (Crl.) 942/2005 for Preponement and seeking relief of custody, were dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/-. Petitioner has moved Crl.M.A.no. 9089/05 seeking waiver of cost.

10. W.P. (Crl.) No. 1446/2005 came to be subsequently filed by Shikha Sharma, through Ravi Kumar as parokar. Question of maintainability of the petition was raised in view of the pendency of the earlier petition and both petitions were directed to be listed together. Production warrants were issued for Shikha. Petitioner Ravi Kumar was also directed to be present in Court. Notice was also issued to the complainant Ms. Shilpi Anand. On 27.9.2005, the comp