J.J. Munir, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Janmed Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Vishvajyoti Sahai, learned AGA for the State.
(2.) This is a criminal revision from an order of the Judicial Magistrate, Shikohabad passed in Misc. Case No. 19/17 relating to Case Crime No. 342 of 2016, under sections 363, 366 IPC, P.S. Makkhanpur, Firozabad whereby pursuant to a direction of this Court dated 11.11.2016 passed in Writ Petition No. 53117 of 2016, the learned Magistrate has directed the revisionist's wife Smt. Sapna to be detained in the Nari Niketan holding her to be 16 years of age.
(3.) The submission of Sri Janmed Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist is that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in carrying out the direction of this Court, amongst others, to decide upon the appropriate custody of the alleged minor, the prosecutrix till she attains the age of majority took into consideration an application made on behalf of her mother dated 24.10.2016, whereby mother asked for her custody and another application made on behalf of the revisionist Ajeet, her husband who has lawfully married the prosecutrix according to Hindu rites. The revisionist contended in support of his application that the prosecutrix who is his wife, a major, and, has married him according to her freewill should be allowed to go with him. Learned counsel for the revisionist has pointed out that the Magistrate has mentioned while passing the impugned order that the mother of the victim who has reported him to the police vide case crime no. 342 of 2016, under Section 366, 363 IPC has said that a transfer certificate filed on behalf of the revisionist in these proceedings is absolutely fake and forged and that the prosecutrix is illiterate. Learned counsel for the revisionist has pointed out that going by the school leaving certificate from the Primary Vidyalaya Sandalpur that was filed by the revisionist before the Magistrate the age of prosecutrix is now more than 18 years, her date of birth recorded there being 10.07.1998. He points out, however, that the Magistrate has not bestowed any consideration to the said certificate; the Magistrate has not even held the school leaving certificate aforesaid to be forged which was on record before him.;