A writ of Habeas Corpus may be issued when a detention order lacks jurisdiction or is passed mechanically, especially in cases where age determination is not substantiated as per law.

JUDGMENT :

SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.

The present petition has been filed for a writ of Habeas Corpus to release the petitioner no. 1 from Rajkiya Balgrih (Balika), Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur Nagar.

The petitioners claim to be married according to Hindu Rites and Customs and that petitioner no.2 is the husband of petitioner no. 1.

It is stated in the writ petition that the date of birth of petitioner no. 1 is 01.01.2005 and in support of the aforesaid averment, a mark- sheet allegedly issued by Rameshwar Singh, Janta Vidhyalaya, Khama Paraur, Kannauj as well as family register of petitioner no. 1 are annexed with the writ petition. The Aadhaar card of petitioner no. 1 annexed with the writ petition also discloses that the date of birth of petitioner no. 1 is 01.01.2005. The case of the petitioners is that petitioner no. 1 had gone

with petitioner no. 2 and married him in 2023 voluntarily and no force or coercion was applied on her. Respondent no. 5, who is the mother of petitioner no. 1 lodged a first information report on 25.01.2024 registering Case Crime No. 15 of 2024 under Sections 147 , 363, 366, 323, 506 IPC . The petitioner no. 1, after being recovered was subsequently handed over to respondent no. 5 but, it is alleged that she was again abducted by petitioner no. 2. It was claimed in the first information report that the date of birth of petitioner no. 1 was 11.05.2008. After recovery, the petitioner no. 1 was medically examined and the medical report opined that the age of petitioner no. 1 was 18 years or above. It is stated by the complainant that petitioner no. 1 had studied in Primary School Sarhati, District Kannauj and it transpires that the age of petitioner no. 1 was recorded in her school records as 11.05.2008.

In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the petitioner no. 1 admitted that she had voluntarily left her parental home and had married petitioner no. 2 and no force or coercion was applied on her. In her statement under Cr.P.C. recorded on 13.03.2024, petitioner no.1 stated her age to be 19 years. Subsequently, the Investigating Officer of Case Crime No. 15 of 2024 filed an application before the Special Judge (POCSO Act) / Additional Sessions Judge, Kannauj complaining that petitioner no.1 had eloped with petitioner no. 2 four times and had to be recovered every time which wasted the time of the Court and also of the administration. It was prayed that the petitioner no. 1 be kept in Naari Niketan as her date of birth was entered in school records as 11.05.2008. On the aforesaid application, the Special Judge (POCSO Act) vide his order dated 19.02.2025 directed that the matter be put up before the Child Welfare Committee. The Child Welfare Committee, initially, by its order dated 20.02.2025 sent the petitioner no. 1 in foster care of one Poonam Katiyar and Sub Inspector Ram Prakash. Subsequently, by its order dated 30.07.2025, the Child Welfare Committee directed that petitioner no. 1 be kept at Government Children Home (Girls), Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur Nagar. The copy of the order annexed with the counter affidavit filed by the Additional Government Advocate does not contain the date of the order but it has been averred in the counter affidavit that the order was passed on 30.07.2025. In the counter affidavit, the Additional Government Advocate has also annexed the transfer certificate of petitioner no. 1 issued by the Primary School, Sarhati which records the date of birth of petitioner no. 1 as 11.05.2008.

In its order dated 30.07.2025, the Child Welfare Committee notes that the petitioner no. 1 had stated that her date of birth in the school records was noted as 11.05.2008 on the statement of her father which she did not accept and petitioner no. 1 had refused to go with her parents because her father wanted her to marry somebody else.

Petitioner no. 1 was produced before this Court on 21.08.2025, on which date, the Court examined petitioner no.1 who stated that she did not wish to stay with her parents