JUDGMENT S.N. Saxena, J.
1. The detenue in this case was interrogated by me and she stated that she was more than 18 years old and had willingly married Tara Singh. She further disclosed that she had not studied in any school and wanted to live with Tara Singh. According to the father of the detenue, she is a minor girl aged about 14 years only and therefore, not competent to enter into wedlock. The evidence adduced by her father consisted of a school leaving certificate, cecording to which she was born on 8-6-1980. This certificate showed that she joined the school on 8-9-1989 and left it on 12-7-1991. The said certificate was issued on 21-2-1994 while the First Information report of the occurrence, giving rise to this case had been lodged on 22nd January, 1994. She came to this Court today from Nari Niketan where she was sent on 25-7-1994. The purpose of her stay in Nari Niketan was to enable her to get rid of any pressure upon her. Her statement that she was wholly illiterate and had not studied in any school appears to be correct. No reliance, therefore, can be placed upon the school leaving certificate. On behalf of the petitioner reliance has been placed upon the medical report, according to which she on 12-2-1994 was about 17 years old. The Doctor in his opinion observed on the basis of the X-ray findings that the age of the detenu was below 18 years and about 17 years.
2. Besides the X-ray evidence, there is a report about her general medical examination by a lady Doctor which showed that her age could be even more than 18 years as the lady Doctor had found well developed secondary sex characteristics which suggested that the margin in the medical opinion about her age was on the upper side. Besides the aforesaid evidence, both the parties have filed affidavits in support of their contentions about the age of the detenu. They are, however, highly interested persons and it would not, therefore, be proper to place reliance upon their affidavits. In view of the medical evidence, I am of the opinion that the detenu is more than 18 years old.
3. The learned Counsel for the opposite party relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court report in AIR 1987, Supreme Court at page 1329, wherein the school leaving certificate was held to be a reliable piece of evidence. The same, however, in this case, cannot be deemed to be so due to the reasons already given above, particularly because the detenu had not at all joined any school for receiving education.
4. Learned Counsel for the opposite party relied upon another decision of this Court reported in 1989 J.I.C. at page 413 Smt. Nahid and Anr. v. Mohd. Islam and Anr., wherein it was held that in the absence of clear proof or evidence of age, a Habeas Corpus petition was not liable to be maintained. This decision too was not of any help to the opposite party because it stood proved as a fact that the detenu was slightly more than 18 years old.
5. In view of the above, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and it is hereby declared that the detenu Smt. Kaljeet Kaur is at liberty to live any where according to her choice including the house of her husband Tara Singh. No order, under the circumstances of the case is passed about the costs which shall be born by the parties. The Superintendent, Nari Niketan is directed to release the detenue from her custody.