The welfare of the minor is paramount, and the natural guardian of a minor Hindu girl who is married is her husband. Constitutional rights under Article 21 are crucial in determining the outcome of such cases.

JUDGMENT

Harnaresh Singh Gill, J. - This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 49 dated 1.3.2020 registered under Section 346 IPC and later on added Sections 363, 366 IPC, Police Station Sanauli, District Panipat (Annexure P-1) and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. As per office report, respondent No. 2 has been served but no one has put in appearance on his behalf.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had solemnized marriage with respondent No. 3-Gulista on 20.3.2020 and the marriage certificate has been annexed as Annexure P-2. He further submits that as per the affidavit of respondent No. 3-Gulista (Annexure P-4) dated 20.6.2020, she herself fled away with the petitioner and thereafter performed marriage willingly. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-20909- 2014, titled Madan Lal and others versus State of Punjab and another decided on 14.9.2015 and Jitender Kumar Sharma versus State and another, (2010) 4 RCR(Cri) 20.

3. Learned State counsel submits that respondent No. 3-Gulista has got recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., before Sub Divisional Judicial Maigstrate, Panipat on 4.8.2020, in which she stated that she has performed marriage with Vikas (petitioner) and has been residing with him.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. On 13.7.2020, the State sought time to record the statement of the wife of the petitioner (respondent No. 3) to ascertain whether she had willingly solemnized the marriage with the petitioner and whether she was living with the petitioner on her own accord and the case was adjourned for 22.7.2020.

6. Pursuant to the order dated 13.7.2020, the statement of respondent No. 3-Gulista under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Against Women, Panipat on 14.7.2020, wherein she specifically stated that she has been residing with the petitioner who is her husband.

7. On 22.7.2020, it was informed that the statement of the wife of the petitioner-respondent No. 3 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was not recorded and the case was adjourned to 18.8.2020.

8. Pursuant to the order dated 22.7.2020, statement of respondent No. 3-Gulista under Section 164 Cr.P.C., was got recorded before Sub Divisional Judicial Maigstrate, Panipat on 4.8.2020, in which she stated that she has performed marriage with Vikas (petitioner) and has been residing with him.

9. Respondent No. 3-Gulista was alleged to be minor at the time of performing marriage but the fact remains that she has performed marriage with the petitioner with her own free will. Even though the girl at the time of marriage was a minor and under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, though the parents are the legitimate legal guardians and since it is a marriage which is voidable in terms of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 but since the couple has chosen their life partners against the wishes of their parents and are carrying on this relationship living together, this Court can take the cognizance of the fact as per Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, as the welfare of the ward is of paramount importance, which cannot be ignored. It is not disputed that respondent No. 3 has solemnized marriage with the petitioner and their marriage certificate has also been placed on record as Annexure P-2. Thus, the petitioner being the husband is in relationship with respondent No. 3 and in terms of Sections 19 and 21 of the Guardians and Wards Act read with Sections 6, 10 and 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 has a right to hold as the natural guardian of the minor Hindu girl who is married to him which as per the statute is the girl's husband. Thus, it cannot be said that there is any element of taking away or enticing her. Moreover, while looking from another angle, it is admitted case that the petitioner and respondent No. 3 are residing together.

10. To the mind o