The legal point established is that completion of 18 years is the age of majority as per the Majority Act, 1875, and individuals have the right to make their own decisions, including marriage, upon reaching this age.

S. Manikumar, J.

1. For the alleged detention of the petitioner's daughter Iswarya, who has crossed the age of 18 years, by respondent No.3, writ of Habeas Corpus has been filed.

2. According to the petitioner, the alleged detenue is now undergoing Bachelor of Engineering in Anna University, Trichirappalli. Whileso, on 30.08.2014, she was missing. The petitioner came to know that the detenue was in custody of respondent No.3. Immediately, he rushed to the Inspector of Police, Jeeyapuram Police Station. He was called for an enquiry by the police. According to the petitioner, at the time of enquiry, the third respondent, came with a group of people and affirmed custody of the petitioner's daughter. She was simply directed to react, as per their directions. Though the alleged detenue has just crossed the statutory period of 18 years, due to threat, she was not in a position to decide. Inspector of Police, Jeeyapuram Police Station, respondent No.2, informed the petitioner, since the alleged detenue had attained majority, she can decide her course of action.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it is the duty of the father to safeguard the custody of the alleged detenue and that the second respondent has a duty to enquire into the complaint, in a fair and reasonable manner, ascertaining as to where there was any undue influence or threat on the alleged detenue.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the Inspector of Police, Jeeyapuram Police Station, respondent No.2, ought not to have allowed the detenue to go along with the third respondent viz., Manohar. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the threshold of crossing the age of 18, children would not be in a position to decide their future course of action, particularly to lead life. He also submitted that on attainment of majority, children take extreme steps of deciding their own future, including marriage. He submitted that though the third respondent has stated that he was married to the alleged detenue, it is not true. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that there must be some directions to the police, to properly investigate the allegations of detention and if necessary, directions should be issued to the subordinate judiciary, whenever crime is reported.

5. On instructions, Mr. C. Mayilvahana Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that earlier, brother of the alleged detenue Mr. Varadarajan has lodged a complaint with the Inspector of Police, Jeeyapuram Police Station, respondent No.2, stating that the detenue was missing. Brother had also alleged that the respondent No.3 was detaining the detenue. He further submitted that on receipt of the complaint, an enquiry was conducted. During the enquiry, the alleged detenue, complainant Varadarajan, (Brother of the alleged detenue) the petitioner, Thiagarajan and respondent No.3 were present. The alleged detenue as well as the respondent No.3 gave their respective statements stating that they were married. Father of the alleged detenue is the petitioner, has also given a statement that he was enquired, and that the alleged detenue refused to go along with him. In the said statement, one Sri Padmavathi has signed as a witness. In the statement of respondent No.3, witnesses have affixed their signatures. Iswarya, alleged detenue has also given her statement. Mobile numbers of the witnesses were also written at the end of the statements.

6. As per the photocopy of the transfer certificate issued by S.V. Hindu Girls Higher Secondary School, Trichirappalli, the Date of Birth of the alleged detenue is 05.12.1995. From the entries in the said certificate and the statements, photocopies of which, produced before this Court, it could be deduced that the alleged detenue is a major.

7. Though Mr. L. Madhusudhanan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner expressed his deep concern over the decision making power and capacity of the persons, who had