1

Court No. - 4

Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 3437 of 2018

Petitioner :- Simran And Another

Respondent :- Rajesh Thakur And 3 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Kameshwar Singh

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.

Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A.

appearing for the State of U.P. and Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned

counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2.

This habeas corpus writ petition has been filed with prayer to

set petitioner no. 1-Simran at liberty.

In compliance of order of this Court dated 04.09.2018,

detenue Simran has been produced before this Court by Smt. Ragini

Rai, Police Constable (P. No. 112772813) and Sri Sandip Kumar

Yadav, Police Constable (P. No. 112090962) both from District –

Ballia. On being quizzed by the Court, the detenue petitioner no. 1-

Simran stated that her age is about 19 years and she had left her

parental home on her one own accord, and solemnized marriage

with petitioner no. 2-Preetam Kumar Jaiswal voluntarily. She has no

intention of returning to her parents home and she wants to live with

petitioner no. 2 has his wife.

Record shows that in respect of petitioners' claim that

detenue-petitioner no. 1 Smt. Simran is major, the petitioners have

brought on record two documents, namely photostat copy of Adhar

Card of petitioner no. 1 (copy whereof has been brought on record

as Annexure-5) in which date of birth of petitioner no. 1 is recorded

as 09.08.1998 and a photostat copy of radiological/ossification test

2

report of petitioner no. 1-Smt. Simran (Annexure-3) according to

which she on the date of her medical examination i.e. 30.11.2017,

was aged above 18 years.

On the other hand Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 contends that copy

of Adhar Card which has been appended as Annexure-5 to the writ

petition is a forged document and true copy of the Adhar Card of

petitioner no. 1-Simran has been brought on record as Annexure

CA-1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 1 and

2. As per date of birth of petitioner no. 1 recorded in her highschool

certificate (copy whereof has been brought on record as Annexure-

CA-2), she is aged about 16 years and hence she cannot be allowed

to go with petitioner no. 2 as the age of petitioner no. 1 as per her

date of birth recorded in her High School certificate shall prevail on

her age ascertained by her ossification test report.

In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that in view

latest pronouncement of Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4532 of

2018 arising out of SLP (C) No. 8001 of 2018 – Suhani and

Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others (decided on 26^th April,

2018), age of a person ascertained on the basis of his or her

radiological examination shall prevail. In view of above, petitioner

no. 1 can be safely held to be major on the basis of her age

determined by her radiological examination, report whereof has

been brought on record as Annexure-3 to the writ petition.

When we quizzed petitioner no. 1-Smt. Simran about the

person who had given her the Adhar Card, she stated that her

parents had given it to her and denied that the same is a forged

document.

3

We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the

material brought on record and considered the statement made by

petitioner no. 1-Smt. Simran before us.

From the facts deposed by petitioner no. 1-Smt. Simran

before this Court it is apparent that she had left her parental home

on her own accord and solemnized marriage with petitioner no. 2-

Preetam Kumar Jaiswal voluntarily. The only dispute which

survives between the parties is whether on the date of incident

petitioner no. 1-Smt. Simran was minor as contended by learned

counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 or major as pleaded by learned

counsel for the petitioners.

We have perused the documents brought on record to prove