This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The material facts are that the alleged detune, in this case, is Mst. Nasreen Akhtar, daughter of Mst.
Rabia Bibi, the applicant. Mst. Rabia Bibi lodged a report on 7th February 1970, at Police Station Daska, District Sialkot, wherein she alleged that Mst. Nasreen Akhtar, her daughter, had been abducted by Zilladar Khan and four others. In consequence, a case under sections 363 and 366 of the Pakistan Penal Code was registered at the said police station. Apprehending arrest Zilladar Khan and four others approached. This Court for bail vide Criminal Misc. No. 901 of 1970. The same was listed for hearing on 12th February 1970 before my learned brother Mushtaq Hussain Munir, J. It was contended in the said petition that the case against them was false and that Mst. Nasreen Akhtar, the alleged abductee, was 17 years of age and had married Zilladar Khan of her own free will on 28th January 1970, whereas the report was lodged on 7th February 1970. Learned Judge admitted Zilladar and others to bail. On the 3rd of April 1970, Mst. Rabia Bibi filed a habeas corpus petition (Criminal Misc. 'No. 1961/H of 1970) alleging that Zilladar Khan and others were illegally detaining her daughter, Mst. Nasreen Akhtar. My learned brother Mushtaq Hussain Munir, J. By the order of even date directed that this petition should be heard along with Criminal Misc. No. 901 of 1970. On 9th April, both the petitions were placed before me and learned counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Misc., No. 901 of 1970, undertook to produce Mst. Nasreen Akhtar in his Court on 14th April 1970. Accordingly she was produced in the Court and her statement was recorded. In her statement she stated in unequivocal terms that no one had abducted her and that she had voluntarily married Zilladar Khan and was staying with him as his wife of her own free will. She admitted that she had signed the nikahnama Exh. A. She placed on the record a certificate of her age; which showed that she was between 18 or 19 years of age. I have seen the girl. In my opinion, she is more than 16 years of age. She is quite grown up. No evidence has been brought on the record by the mother or the police to show that she was under 16 years of age at the the of the alleged abduction.
2. According, to Muslim Law the minority of a male or a. Female terminates when he or she attains puberty. Puberty is presumed on the completion of fifteen years according to law by which the parties are governed. Under the Majority Act of 8751 minority ceases on the completion of eighteen years. Section 2 to the said Act, however; makes an exception in matters relating to marriage, dower, adoption and divorce. Thus for the purpose of the marriage the rule of Muslim Law must apply in the instance case. According to which any person, who has attained puberty, is entitled to at in the matter of marriage on attaining the age ob 16 years. Mst. Nasreen Akhtar, according to the evidence on the record, is between 18 to 19 years of age. Therefore, she was competent to contract marriage both under the Majority Act of 1875 and under the Muslim Law. As such her marriage is valid. It is to be noted' that Mst. Nasreen Akhtar is not in the illegal custody of her husband, therefore, no case for the issuance of writ of habeas corpus is made out. The result is that there is no force in this petition, which is dismissed.
3. Before parting with this order, I would like to add that e of the girl and her statement made in this in view of the age Court that she had married of her own free will and was staying with her husband voluntarily, the Superintendent of police of the District would not permit the mock prosecution of the accused.