- (1.) S. K. Phaujdar, J. The present peti tion for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus has been filed by one Yogesh Chandra for production -of Aditi Singh Tbmar, daughter of Shri Akhilendra Singh Tomar in Court. Sri Yogesh Chandra has alleged that he is the husband of Aditi and she had been wrongfully detained by her father, Sri Akhilendra Singh Tbmar, and she should be set free from that illegal custody. It has been stated that Yogesh and Aditi got married on 23-1-1998 in the Ram Temple at Renukoot, District Sonbhadra. How ever, the father of the girl did not accept the marriage. When the couple came to Varanasi for registration of the marriage, they entered into an agreement of mar riage before a notary in which date of birth of the girl was shown as 29-1 -79, as per her High School Certificate. However, regist ration of the marriage was denied as the girl was suspected to be under age. There ad been a report to the police at the instance of the father of the girl and police had taken the boy and the girl to the police station wherefrom the father of the girl managed to take her daughter with him.
(2.) ON the date of presentation of this petition, appearance was made on behalf of the father of the girl, and it was asserted on his behalf that the girl was born on 29-1-1981 and not in 1979. It was further stated that there was no marriage between the boy and the girl, as asserted by Yogesh. The original High School certificate was shown to the Court which indicated the date of birth of the girl as 29-1 -1981. Accordingly the Court directed the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad to indicate to the Court as to what was the date of birth of the girl according to their records. An affidavit has been sworn by an officer of the Parishad to indicate that the recorded date of birth of Aditi ts 29-1-1981. In the absence of any other material on record and claim being laid by or are invalid for reasons stated in clauses (i)to (v ). On a fair reading of the Section the position is clear that a detention order shall not be deemed to be invalid or inoperative' merely because one or some of the grounds is or are invalid for the reason stated in clauses (i) to (iv) of Section 5-A or for any other reason whatsoever as provided in clause (v) thereof. It is further laid down in the Section that it is not, therefore, possible to hold that the Government or officer making such order would have been satisfied as provided in Section 3 with reference to the remaining ground or grounds and made the order of detention. Thus, it is not possible to hold that the satisfaction of the Government or officer making the order of detention could be affected in any way in a situation where an order of detention is found invalid in respect of one or more of the grounds mentioned in the order for any reason whatsoever. Clause (b) of Section 5-A further clarifies the position by providing a deeming clause that the Govern ment or officer making the order of detention shall be deemed to have made the order of detention under the said Section after being satisfied as provided in that Section with refer-enceto the remaining ground or grounds. The resultant position is that the contention raised by Sri D,s. Misra that the order of detention is vitiated on account of the first two incidents being stale and relevant material relating to the second incident not having been placed before the detaining authority when he was passing the order of detention, is not sus tainable and the detention order cannot be said to be invalid on that count. [para 10] (b) National Security Act, 1980, Sec tion 3 (2)-Representation-Kept pend ing with Central Govt. for 75 days-Delay unexplained-Continued detention rendered if legal. From the statement in the counter-af fidavit quoted above, it is manifest that no attempt whatsoever has been made to ex plain the delay in disposing of the repre sentation. No averment is made why the Central Government felt it necessary to call for the report of the Advisory Board. It is relevant to state here that the Central Government is to consider the representation independently on due application of mind to the relevant material and dispose of the same ex-peditiously and with reasonable dispatch both the parties on the school certificate in proof of age, this Court has to rely on the school certificate only and the true facts have come through the affidavit of the officer of the Parishad. It is, therefore, established that Aditi is aged about 17 years and odd months now, and is yet to attain majority. On the date of the alleged marriage, she was yet to complete 17 years. She being a minor on the date of the al leged marriage, was unfit to give her con sent and very rightly registration of the marriage was refused. When she is a minor, there is no necessity of calling her to Court to see what she wished and what is her say about the marriage. The father is not only the natural guardian of the minor but is also the best well-wisher of the girl, and when the girl is in the custody of the father, it may not be deemed to be an illegal custody and a writ of habeas corpus may not issue at the instance of a person who had taken chance of the minority of the girl and had allegedly undergone some rituals in the name of an alleged marriage. In the circumstances of the case, it is, therefore, necessary that some costs be also awarded against the present applicant, Yogesh.
(3.) IN view of the above, while dismiss ing the present petition, I direct that Yogesh is to pay a cost of Rs. 3,000/- to the father of the girl Aditi, within a period of 15 days, failing which it will be realized by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra, as fine. A copy of this order may be given/to either of the parties within two days of making of a proper application there for. Petition dismissed. .;