The determination of a person's age is crucial in deciding their legal rights, especially in matters related to marriage and detention.

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.