- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
(2.) Pursuant to order of the Court dated 10.4.2013, detenue has been produced before the Court under police custody from Rajkiya Mahila Shardanlya Evam Praveshalya, Mathura.
(3.) We find from the record that the order dated 10.4.2013 has not been complied with by the learned counsel for the petitioner as no steps have been taken by him for service upon respondent no.4, the father of the girl, who is claimed to be minor by him. Even though the Court below on the basis of School Leaving Certificate as well as on the basis of medical certificate found her to be below 18 years of age, yet she claims to be of 19 years of age. We, therefore, do not take her statement that she is 19 years of age, as correct, she prima facie being a minor.;