The marriage of the petitioners is valid under Muslim Personal Law, and parental objections do not negate their rights to protection and custody.

Judgment

Mr. Deepak Gupta, J.

The two petitioners Zakir Hussain & Tosifa belong to Muslim religion. They performed Nikaah (marriage) on 25.08.2022 as per Muslim Rites and Customs, against the wishes of their family members and then approached this Court by filing CRWP-8693-2022 under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of direction to official respondents to protect their life and liberty at the hands of private respondents. It was claimed that petitioner No. 1 was more than 29 years of age; whereas, petitioner No.2 was about 18 years of age, her date of birth being 01.01.2004 and after performing the marriage, they are living happily but are being threatened by private respondents.

2. Respondent No.4, who is the father of petitioner No.2 raised objection to the effect that respondent No.2 was a minor, her date of birth being 21.05.2007 and that the marriage inter-se the petitioners was not legal. Prayer was made on behalf of respondent No.4 not only to dismiss the petition but further to hand over the custody for petitioner No.2 to him (respondent No.4).

3. Vide order dated 09.09.2022, this court directed that petitioner No.2 be sent to Ashiyana, Sector-15, Chandigarh, whereas the official respondent N: 2 was directed to ensure that life and liberty of petitioner No.1 is protected.

4. Since dispute was raised regarding the age of petitioner No.2, so State of Haryana was directed to get the certificates placed on record, verified. Efforts for mediation were also made, but the same failed.

5. Attention of this Court has been drawn by Ld. Counsel for the petitioners towards four contradictory reports filed by the respondents. First such report dated 23.09.2022 is filed by way of an affidavit of Ms. Mamta Kharb, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, CAW Nuh and Tauru, as per which the date of birth of petitioner No.2 was verified to be 01.01.2004 on the basis of entry in the Aadhar Card and ‘Parivar Pehchan Patar’, although it was also disclosed that in the School Leaving Certificate, the father of petitioner No.2 had mentioned the age of petitioner No.2 in the admission form as 21.05.2007. In the two subsequent reports dated 11.10.2022 and 23.01.2023 both filed by Shri Ashok Kumar, DSP Headquarter Nuh, Tauru, date of birth of petitioner No.2 was stated to be 21.05.2007 on the basis of necessary enquiry pertaining to the identity documents. Faced with this situation, this Court vide order dated 08.12.2022 had directed the Superintendent of Police to conduct an enquiry in the matter and in case any of the parties is found to have forged any of the documents, then to initiate appropriate action. As per the report dated 09.09.2023 filed by way of an affidavit of Shri Narendra Bijarniya, IPS, Superintendent of Police, Nuh, he found that the Aadhar Card team had visited the village of petitioner No.2 and it was found that date of birth of the two daughters Tosifa and Suhana of respondent No.4 was mentioned as 01.01.2004, though they are not twins and that later on respondent No.4 got corrected the date of birth of petitioner No.2- Tosifa in the Parivar Pehchan Patar from 01.01.2004 to 21.05.2007 and that it was not got done with any mala fide intention.

6. Be that as it may, the date of birth of petitioner No.2 is a disputed question of fact and this Court does not intend to record any finding thereon, as it is not the appropriate forum to do so. The sole question, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is that whether petitioners deserve to be given necessary protection qua their life and liberty; and further, whether the custody of petitioner No.2 should be handed over to her father-respondent No.4 as requested by his counsel; or to her husband- petitioner No.1, as has been prayed by counsel for the petitioners by moving application bearing No. CRM-W-1656-2023.

7. Let it be assumed that date of birth of petitioner No.2 was 21.05.2007 as is contended on behalf of respondent No.4. Since Nikaah (marriage) was performed by t