SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(All) 3545

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, SANJIV KUMAR, JJ.
Muskan and Another – Petitioner 
Versus
State of U.P. and others – Respondents
Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 963 of 2025 
Decided On : 11-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Ved Prakash Tripathi.
For the Respondent: G.A.

The age of a victim must be determined primarily using valid school records or certificates, with medical tests as a secondary option; unreliable documents cannot dictate age determinations.

Headnote:(A) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Section 94(2) - Habeas corpus petition seeking release of detenue claiming to be major and unlawfully detained - Court held that documentary evidence regarding age was unreliable, prioritizing medical opinion for age determination - Petition allowed, detenue ordered to be set at liberty as per her wishes. (Paras 30, 36, 37)

(B) Evidence - Age determination in judicial proceedings - Court stressed preference for date of birth certificates from school or equivalent over other documents; ossification test could be used when documents are inadequate. (Paras 30, 32)

Table of Content
1. affidavits submitted by involved parties. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 7)
2. petition for habeas corpus regarding muskan's detention. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 14)
3. details of fir filed by petitioner's father. (Para 13 , 16)
4. challenges to the validity of records regarding muskan's age. (Para 17 , 18)
5. court's inquiry into educational documents' reliability. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 27 , 28 , 29)
6. legal standards for age determination under juvenile justice act. (Para 30 , 32 , 33)
7. court's determination of muskan's age as eighteen. (Para 34)
8. muskan's choice to reunite with her husband. (Para 35 , 36)
9. final order of habeas corpus and directions. (Para 37 , 38 , 39)

JUDGMENT :

1. A short counter affidavit has been filed by Smt. Rajni Dixit, Principal, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Junior High School, Bithoor, Kanpur Nagar.

2. Another counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Manoj Kumar Rajput, respondent no. 5, who is the detenue’s father.

3. A short counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the State by Mr. Deepak Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate. It is an affidavit of one Ranveer Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station- Chaubeypur, District- Kanpur Nagar.

4. Let all the aforesaid affidavits be taken on record and numbered by the office.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners waives his opportunity to file a rejoinder.

6. Accordingly, we proceed to hear the matter forthwith.

7. Heard Mr. Ved Prakash Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sanjay Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 5 and Mr. Deepak Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4.

8. Respondent no. 6, is present in person before this Court and he too has been heard.

9. This habeas corpus writ petition has been filed by Muskan, wife of Abhishek Rajput alias Abhishek Kumar and daughter of Manoj Kumar, through Abhishek Rajput, her husband, who is the second petitioner in this petition claiming that the first petitioner Muskan is unlawfully detained in the custody of the Government Children Home (Girls), Unit-1, Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur Nagar, pursuant to an order of the Child Welfare Committee, Kanpur Dehat dated 14.08.2025. A copy of the said order has been produced during hearing, which is taken on record and shall form part of it.

10. The petitioners, particularly the second respondent, seek the issue of a writ of habeas corpus requiring, by a rule nisi, the respondents to produce the first petitioner, Muskan, before the Court and set her at liberty. The petitioners’ case is that Muskan, the first petitioner, and Abhishek Rajput, the second petitioner, have fallen in love and married each other, as per details shortly to be mentioned.

11. The case of the petitioners is that Muskan is a major aged about nineteen years. She was born on 21.07.2006. Parties have placed on record copies of Muskan’s Aadhar Card which, they say, was issued on the basis of facts and particulars furnished by her parents. It indicates her date of birth on the Aadhar Card to be 21.07.2006. The second petitioner is a man aged about twenty one years, his date of birth being 01.01.2004.

12. According, to the petitioners they have married on 02.08.2025 at the Arya Samaj, Dabauli, Kanpur, according to Hindu rites. The marriage was solemnised in the presence of friends and the second petitioner’s brother. Parties’ marriage was registered in the office of the Marriage Registrar, Kanpur Nagar on 07.08.2025. A certificate of marriage dated 02.08.2025, from the Arya Samaj, above mentioned, and a copy of the certificate of registration of marriage, issued by the Marriage Registrar, Kanpur, are annexed together as annexure no. 2 to the writ petition.

13. The fifth respondent, who is the first petitioner’s father, is averse to the marriage. He is said to have beaten up the petitioners on 07.08.2025 and threatened to kill the second petitioner, his daughter’s husband. He has mad

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top