The judgment emphasizes the paramount consideration of personal liberty, the right to choose a life partner, and the reliance on medical age assessment over school documents.

The gist of the issue raised by way of this petition is reflected in order dated 18.11.2016. The order is extracted here below for brevity sake : -

1. The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing respondent No. 4 (Superintendent, Children Protection Home (Women), Sultanpur, to release the petitioner.

2. It has been pleaded that the petitioner willingly got married to Arvind. The marriage has not been accepted by respondent no.5, therefore, in abuse of process of the law and process of the court, criminal proceedings were initiated vide Crime No.579 dated 15.7.2016, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Pratapgarh. In the course of investigation statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code, placed on record as Annexure-5. In the statement it has been stated by the petitioner that she stayed in Pratapgarh with her Mama (respondent no.5). She called Arvind by borrowing telephone from a lady at Allahabad. It has been stated by the petitioner that she already knew Arvind. Petitioner told Arvind to keep her with him or else the petitioner would get First Information Report registered. Arvind, however, said that the petitioner should return home. The petitioner responded by saying that she is going to commit suicide. On this Arvind asked her to come to the railway station. The petitioner went to Jaipur alone. Arvind stays in Jaipur. Arvind came to the station to receive her. The petitioner got married to Arvind of her own free will. It has clearly been stated that Arvind is not at fault and petitioner has neither been induced nor coerced by Arvind. The petitioner had physical relations with Arvind and wants to live with Arvind.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to document placed on record as Annexure-7 to demonstrate that the petitioner has attained age of 19 years. It has been pleaded that confinement of the petitioner in a Women Protection Home is depriving the petitioner of her liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It has been contended that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by judgment rendered in Writ Petition No. 156 (H/C) of 2015 titled Smt. Poonam v. State of U.P. and others decided on 17.9.2015.

4. Issue notice to serve respondent no.5 through Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Pratapgarh returnable on 29.11.2016.

5. Respondent no. 5 is directed to remain present in Court. Respondent no.4 is directed to produce the petitioner in court on the next date of listing.

6. Investigating officer of Case Crime No.579 of 2016 (supra) is directed to file his affidavit.

7. List on 29.11.2016."

2. In deference to above extracted order, the petitioner has been produced in court. On questioning by the court, the detenue states that she is married to her husband namely Arvind and wants to stay in her in-laws' house and not with respondent No. 5, who happens to be maternal uncle of the detenue.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 5 has filed short counter affidavit. In the affidavit, it has been pleaded that the detenue is a minor and therefore is required to be released in the company of respondent No.5.

4. Short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the investigating agency in court, which is taken on record. It is the case of the investigating agency that the investigation of Crime No. 579 of 2016 (supra) has been concluded. In the statement of the proescutrix/detenue, the prosecutrix has not supported the prosecution case. As per medical examination, age of the detenue has been found in between 18 to 22 years. Statement of the prosecutrix has been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which the prosecutrix has made it evident that Arvind did not kidnap her. In the statement, the detenue/prosecutrix has stated that she wants to live with Arvind and not go to her parental house.

5. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by jud