The court reinforced that individuals, including minors, cannot be detained in protective custody against their will, emphasizing the importance of personal liberty and the right to choose one's spouse.

JUDGMENT

Neeraj Tiwari, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. Present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed seeking quashing of impugned charge sheet dated 03.02.2023 in Session Trial No. 22 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 581 of 2022, under Section 363 , 366, 376 IPC and 5(j)(ii)/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station-Kotwali Orai, District-Jalaun as well as order dated 01.02.2023 passed by Child Welfare Committee, Jalaun.

3. Pursuant to order of this Court dated 23.11.2023, applicant, namely, Manoj Kumar @ Monu Katheriya is present before this Court, duly identified by his counsel, Sri Kartikeya Shukla. Victim-Mangala along with child aged about four months are also produced before this Court by S.I. Vinod Kumar Singh (PNO- 892260399) and M/e184 Ragini (PNO 182370410),) P.S. Kotwali, Orai, District Jalaun.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that opposite party No. 4 (mother of victim) has lodged FIR dated 30.10.2022 against the applicant, upon which, applicant was also arrested and ultimately, was enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 07.08.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 31467 of 2023. He next submitted allegations levelled against the applicant in the aforesaid FIR is absolutely frivolous and in fact, applicant and victim are having love affair and have also solemnized marriage on 01.11.2022. He next submitted that against her wish, the victim has been sent to Government Children's Home(Girls) by opposite party No. 3 vide order dated 01.02.2023 on the basis of the fact that her age as per the Medical report is 16 years, as the victim is unducated. She was also blessed with a female child on 02.08.2023. He next that in the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has clearly mentioned that her age is 19 years. He next submitted that though the FIR dated 30.10.2022 has been lodged by opposite party No. 4, but she did not came before opposite party no. 3 for custody of the victim. He also submitted that it is a peculiar case and being husband of the victim applicant is fully entitled for custody of victim as well as his child. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court dated 31.07.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. under Section 482 No. 12047 of 2020: Satish Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 others.

5. He next submitted that once, opposite party No. 4 herself is not ready to accept her custody, therefore, in light of law laid down by the Courts as well as peculiar facts of the case, applicant (husband of victim) is fully entitled to take custody of child along with his wife. Victim has given statement before this Court that she is aged about 19 years and on her own will, solemnized marriage with applicant and presently, she wants to live with him along with her child. Her statement has been recorded in the order sheet and also verified by Sri Kartikeya Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant.

6. Learned AGA could not dispute the other facts except age of victim.

7. I have considered the submission raised by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Similar issue was before this Court in the matter of Satish Kumar (supra) in which Court has framed the question, which is quoted below;

"Formulating moot question of law, as to whether girl's freedom could be numbed, butchered or sacrificed in the name of minority, though she has changed her marital status after tying marital knots with Satish Kumar; in the garb of pendency