The court ruled that a Child Welfare Committee cannot rely on unverified school records for age determination when medical evidence indicates adulthood, rendering its jurisdictional order invalid.

JUDGMENT :

SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.

The present petition has been filed for a writ of Habeas Corpus for

release of petitioner no. 1 from what is alleged to be an illegal detention by the State respondents. The petitioners claim to be married and that

petitioner no. 2 is the husband of petitioner no. 1.

It is claimed in the writ petition that the date of birth of petitionerno. 1 is 01.01.2004 and petitioners married according to Hindu Rites and Customs on 25.04.2025 at Arya Samaj, Damodar Puram, Subhash Nagar, Bareilly. It has been stated that petitioner no. 1 voluntarily left her parental home and married petitioner no. 2 and no force or coercion was applied on her either to leave her parental home or marry petitioner no. 2. On 27.04.2025, the respondent no. 4 who is the father of petitioner no. 1 lodged a first information report registering Case Crime No. 95 of 2025 under Section 137 (2) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023(hereinafter referred to as ' BNS '). It was stated in the first information report that petitioner no. 1 was aged 16 years and 9 months. The first information report was challenged by the petitioners before this Hon'ble Court through Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 9227 of 2025 in which an order dated 08.05.2025 was passed restraining the respondents from arresting the petitioners for a period of two months. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced below:-

"4. Be that as it may, the writ petition is disposed off with a direction to the Investigating Officer to record the statement of the girl under Section 180 BNSS and also produce the petitioner No.1 before the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate for recording her statement under Section 183 within two weeks from today. In the event, the petitioner No.1 appears before the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate within stipulated period, the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned shall record her statement under and also ensure her medical age determination and thereafter the Investigating Officer shall proceed in accordance with law.

5. For a period of two months, the respondents are restrained to arrest the petitioners pursuant to impugned first information report."

(Emphasis supplied)

In pursuance to the order dated 08.05.2025 passed by this Court, the statement of petitioner no. 1 was recorded under Section 180 BNSS wherein the petitioner no. 1 stated that she was aged about 21 years, had voluntarily gone with the petitioner no. 2 and that petitioners had married in Arya Samaj, Damodar Puram, Subhash Nagar, Bareilly and were living as husband and wife. Petitioner no. 1 was also medically examined. The medical report dated 28.05.2025 submitted by the Medical Officer, District Women Hospital, Shahjahanpur reported that the radiological age of petitioner no. 1 was 19 years. The statement of petitioner no. 1 was also recorded under Section 183 wherein she reiterated her statement given under . Subsequently, petitioner no. 1 was produced before the Child Welfare Committee, Shahjahanpur which by its order dated 09.06.2025 declared that petitioner no. 1 was a minor and directed that she be kept at Government Children Home (Girls) Sindhi Kheda Ashray Griha Paara, Lucknow. The Child Welfare Committee while passing the aforesaid order relied on the transfer certificate issued by the Purva Madhyamik Shankarpur Pitarhigh, Shahjahanpur which noted the date of birth of petitioner no. 1 as 10.07.2008. The certificate was verified by the Principal of the aforesaid institution when the Principal was summoned by the Child Welfare Committee. The Child Welfare Committee held that while determining the age of petitioner no. 1, the date of birth as recorded in the school records had to be given priority over radiological examination. A counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent has been filed by the Additional Government Advocate annexing the different school records and the medical report of petitioner no. 1.

The writ petition was subsequently amended including the prayer t