A. K. Roopanwal, J. - (1.) This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 13. 10. 2008 passed by the C. J. M. , Meerut, in Case Crime No. 627 of 2008, u/s 363, 366a I. P. C. , Police Station Daurala, District Meerut, whereby the Magistrate rejected the application of the revisionist and Vijay Laxmi, the victim, and directed that the victim be given in the supurdagi of her father Ramveer Singh (O. P. No. 2 ). It appears from the record that a case at Crime No. 627 of 2008, u/s 363, 366a I. P. C. was registered against the revisionist at Police Station Daurala, District Meerut. In this case the revisionist Kiran Pal @ Rinku filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 16910 of 2008 before the High Court for quashing the FIR. In the writ petition father of the victim Vijay Laxmi was respondent no. 3. A dispute arose in the writ petition between the parties regarding the age of the victim. The High Court, in the circumstances of the case, on 18. 9. 2008 directed the C. J. M. , Meerut, to record the statement of the victim, get her age medically ascertained from the C. M. O. , Meerut, and thereafter pass an appropriate order under section 98 Cr. P. C. considering the medical report, her statement and other evidence produced by the parties. In compliance of the order of the High Court dated 18. 9. 2008 the C. J. M. afforded an opportunity of adducing evidence to both the parties, recorded statement of the victim and obtained the medical report from the C. M. O. , Meerut. The revisionist relied upon the educational record of Km. Vijay Laxmi in which her age was shown to be 5. 11. 1989. The father of the victim (O. P. No. 2) also filed the educational record of Km. Vijay Laxmi in which her date of birth was shown to be 5. 12. 1992. The medical report of the C. M. O. showed that she was above 18 years of age. The girl stated that she does not want to go to her parents. The trial court got the educational record produced by the parties verified from the U. P. Board and found that the educational record relied upon by the revisionist was forged. He relied upon the educational record relied upon by the father of the girl and gave preference to this record over the medial report as well as the statement of the victim. After hearing the parties and perusal of the whole record the C. J. M. by a detailed order disposed of the application of the revisionist and Vijay Laxmi and directed that the custody of the girl shall remain with her father (O. P. No. 2 ). Affidavits between the parties have been exchanged. I have heard Mr. Kuldeep Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State, Mr. I. K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for O. P. No. 2 and perused the record. Relying on 1995 (1) JIC 189, Pushpa Devi @ Rajwanti Devi Vs. State of U. P. and others, and 1997 JIC 473 (Allahabad) Smt. Raj Kumari Vs. Superintendent Woman Protection House, Meerut and others, it has been argued by Mr. Kumar that the custody of the girl should not have been given to her father against her wish. When she had declined to go with her parents, she should have been left to her wishes and should have been allowed to go with the revisionist with whom she wanted to go. To the above argument, it was argued by Mr. Chaturvedi that the Magistrate has rightly passed the order. The girl was a minor and O. P. No. 2 being her natural guardian was entitled to receive her custody. In 1995 (1) JIC 189 the High court did not enter into the question as to when a particular minor is to be set at liberty in respect of her person or whether she shall be governed by the directions of her parents. It was held by the High Court that the question of custody of a minor will depend upon various factors such as her marriage. Thus, the above case cannot help the revisionist and it cannot be argued that in the light of the statement of the girl, in all eventualities, she should have been released in favour of the revisionist. A case for the release of the girl in his favour has to be independently made out from the facts of the present case. In the same way 1997 JIC 473 (Allahabad) also does not help the revisionist. In this case also the minor girl was detained in Nari Niketan against her wishes and she was released from that detention considering the fact that she was a lady of matured understanding. In this case those factors were not considered in which a minor girl could be released in favour of her parents. Thus, the custody in the present case has to be decided on the facts of the present case. It is borne out from the record that the educational record relied upon by the revisionist was a forged one. The educational record produced by the father of the girl, which was rightly accepted by the court below, showed that the girl was below 16 years of age on the date of the occurrence. In the availability of this record there could be no propriety at all to consider the medical evidence and it was rightly ignored by the trial court. As the girl was a minor, she was not supposed to give her consent for the marriage. Moreover, the marriage certificate has also not been proved to be a reliable one. There was also no evidence to show that the revisionist was employed anywhere so as to give proper care to the girl. Thus, in view of the above factors, handing over the custody of the girl to her father cannot be said to be unjustified or improper as it was necessary for the welfare of the girl, which is the paramount consideration for deciding the custody of a minor girl. Hence, I do not find any merits in this revision. The revision is dismissed. .;