The central legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the verification of the birth certificate and the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 to determine the custody rights of a minor.

JUDGMENT :

Anand Pathak, J.

1. Regard being had to the commonality of the issues involved, both the cases are heard analogously and disposed of by this common order.

2. Respondent No. 4/petitioner of Writ Petition No. 18895/2020 filed the petition in the nature of habeas corpus for issuance of writ against the respondents for production of her daughter (corpus) as according to the petitioner, she is the mother of corpus who was allegedly removed from her custody by respondent No. 4 (appellant herein) and therefore, she was seeking her production and appearance before this court and sought her custody. Appellant in the case (as respondent No. 4 in petition) opposed the prayer on the ground that she is major and emotionally involved with the appellant and both intend to marry, therefore, she is competent and legally entitled to take her independent decision. It was the grievance of the petitioner in the case that date of birth of the corpus is 26.07.2003 which can be verified from the birth certificate issued by the Government Maternity Home, Laxmiganj, Gwalior, whereas corpus when produced before the court stated her date of birth as 06.11.2002, based upon school record.

3. After getting verification report regarding authenticity of birth certificate issued by the Government Maternity Home, Laxmiganj, Gwalior, learned writ court directed the authorities to keep the corpus at Nariniketan, Gwalior, because birth certificate issued by the Government Maternity Home was found to be correct and therefore, learned writ court finding the corpus minor, directed the respondents/authorities to keep the corpus at Nariniketan, Gwalior, till she attains the age of majority i.e. 18 years as per the date of birth of the corpus mentioned in the certificate issued by the Government Maternity Home. Petitioner (as mother) was allowed visitation rights.

4. Being crestfallen by the said order passed by the writ court, appellant preferred this appeal on the ground that he is in emotional relationship with the corpus and she has already married to appellant on 06.12.2020, therefore, she intends to live with appellant and learned writ court erred in passing the impugned order treating the corpus as minor. He referred Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and submitted that according to him, corpus is major and deserves to be released from Nariniketan so that she can move freely with the present appellant.

5. Learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State opposed the prayer on the ground that once verification of authenticity of birth certificate has already been taken care of by the learned writ court, therefore, at this stage, inquiry as contemplated under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 would complicate the situation because the birth certificate from the school is actually the birth certificate given by the parents of the child at the time of admission and therefore, any entry in the register of primary school cannot be conclusive proof regarding age of minor.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 (petitioner of the writ petition) opposed the prayer of appellant on the ground that she is mother of corpus whereas the appellant is 35 years old man and has criminal history of sexual offences and is trying to allure the minor girl of the petitioner and trying to elope with her and being mother, she has every legitimate right to contest the same. It is further submitted that after inquiry/verification of age from the Government Maternity Home, claim of the mother regarding date of birth of corpus was found correct, therefore, at this juncture, no interference be made in the findings given by the learned writ court based upon inquiry. Therefore, she prayed for dismissal of this case.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing and perused the record.

8. This is a case where mother is contesting for the custody of minor daughter (corp