1. Habeas Corpus petition — FIR under Sections 363 and 366, IPC — dispute regarding the age of the woman and her voluntary marriage. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 1430
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, CJI., A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.
Suhani - Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4532 of 2018 (Arising Out of SLP(C) No. 8001 of 2018)
Decided On : 26-04-2018
Important Points
The determination of a person's age is crucial in deciding their legal rights, especially in matters related to marriage and detention.
Subject
Civil Law - Family Law
Act Referred
Headnote
Habeas Corpus - Age Determination - Marriage - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a habeas corpus writ petition filed for the production of the petitioner's wife, who was alleged to be illegally detained by a third party. The High Court had directed the petitioner's wife to stay in a shelter home based on the determination of her age.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court, after considering the medical examination report from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, concluded that the petitioner's wife was a major and had voluntarily entered into marriage with the petitioner. As a result, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner were quashed.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the determination of the petitioner's wife's age, her marital status, and the legality of her detention.
Ratio Decidendi: The crucial legal principle established was that the determination of a person's age, especially in the context of marriage and detention, is a significant factor in deciding their legal rights and entitlements.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's order was set aside. The criminal proceedings against the petitioner were quashed, and any pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- family law
- practice and procedure
- evidence
Advocates Appeared:
Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Rajeev Upadhyay and Akhilendra Singh, Advocates, For the Appellants; Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, AAG, and Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Advocate, For the Respondents
Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Rajeev Upadhyay and Akhilendra Singh, Advocates, For the Appellants; Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, AAG, and Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Advocate, For the Respondents
Table of Contents
2. Whether the woman was a minor based on educational certificates or a major based on medical evidence and voluntary marriage. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Radiological examination by AIIMS estimated the woman's bone age between 19-24 years, establishing her as a major. (Para 6 , 7 )
4. Criminal proceedings under Sections 363 and 366, IPC are unsustainable if the person is a major who voluntarily entered into marriage. (Para 8 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court order set aside — woman permitted to accompany husband — criminal proceedings under Sections 363 and 366, IPC quashed. (Para 8 , 9 )
6. How is the age of a person determined when school certificates are contested in court?
The court may rely on medical examinations, specifically radiological bone age estimation conducted by specialized institutions like AIIMS, to determine if a person has attained majority. (Para 6 , 7 )
7. What is the effect of a person being a major on criminal proceedings under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC?
If the person is found to be a major and has voluntarily entered into marriage, criminal proceedings for kidnapping or abduction under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC are liable to be quashed. (Para 8 )
8. Does a major woman have the right to choose her residence in a habeas corpus proceeding?
Yes, a woman who is a major and has voluntarily married is entitled to accompany her husband and cannot be compelled to reside in a Nari Niketan. (Para 7 )
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal, by special leave, calls in question the defensibility of the order dated 5.12.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 52290/2017. The said petition was filed for issuance of a direction to produce the present petitioner No. 1 before the Court on the foundation that she is the wife of the petitioner No. 2 and has been kept in illegal detention by the respondent No. 3.
3. It is necessary to mention here that at the behest of the respondent No. 4 - the father of the petitioner No. 1, an FIR was lodged under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code. It was contended before the High Court that the petitioner No. 1 was about 19 years of age and that her statement was recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 wherein she had stated that she had entered into wedlock with the petitioner No. 2.
4. On behalf of the contesting respondent No. 3, a certificate issued by the Secondary School Examination (C.B.S.E.), showing the date of birth of the petitioner No. 1 as 25.9.2003 was filed. The High Court computed the age and came to the conclusion that she was 13 years and 8 months old, and on that basis, treated her as a minor. However, she expressed an unequivocal desire not to accompany her parents. The High Court directed that she would be allowed to reside in the Nari Niketan, Allahabad.
5. When the matter was listed before this Court on 6.4.2018, this Court directed the authorities to produce the petitioner No. 1 on 23.4.2018. On 23.4.2018, it was thought apposite that she should be examined by the concerned department of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, and a further direction was issued that she should be allowed to reside alongwith escorts in the U.P. Bhawan, New Delhi, which was acceded to by Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned AAG for the State of Uttar Pradesh.
6. We have received the report from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, which has examined the petitioner No. 1. The radiological examination and the final report/opinion on the same reads as follows:-
"Radiological Examination
X-Rays advised for age estimation:- X-Ray Medial End of Clavicle, Sternum AP & Lat. view, Pelvis AP view, L.S. Spine-Lat. View, Wrist & Elbow-AP & Lat. View, Shoulder-AP view, were done in Radiology Department.
Report of Radiological Examination-
All epiphysis at elbow, shoulder and wrist joint fused, suggestive of age 16.5 years.
Fusion of iliac crest epiphysis, suggestive of age 19 + 1 years.
Medial end of clavicle not fused, suggestive of age 22-27 years.
S1 of sacrum not fused with S2, suggestive of age 17-24 years.
Imp.:-Estimated Bone age is between 19-24 years.
Final Report/opinion:
Considering the findings of physical, dental & radiological examinations we are of the considered opinion that the bone age of petitioner Miss Suhani is between 19-24 years."
7. In view of the conclusion arrived at by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner No. 1 is a major, and the High Court was not correct in directing her to stay in the Nari Niketan, Allahabad. The petitioner No. 1 admits the factum of marriage, before us. Therefore, she is entitled to accompany the petitioner No. 2, who is her husband.
8. In view of our conclusion that she is an adult and she had gone voluntarily with the petitioner No. 2 and entered into wedlock, the criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner No. 2 stands quashed. We have passed this order of quashing the proceedings to do complete justice.
9. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
