A birth certificate issued by a competent authority is considered more authentic and reliable proof of age than an examination hall ticket, unless rebutted by cogent and reliable evidence.

ORAL ORDER

1. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 11.05.2026, the medical examination of the corpus was undertaken. Ms.Vrunda Shah, learned APP would inform this Court that as per the medical examination of the corpus, she is found pregnant. Learned APP would further state that due to such reason, her ossification test could not be carried out and a final opinion in this regard is awaited.

2. Mr.Paresh Modi, learned advocate has entered his appearance on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 5 and has also submitted an affidavit-in-reply in support of their defence. Mr.Modi, learned advocate, would submit that as per the examination hall ticket issued in favour of respondent No.4 – corpus, her date of birth is shown as 17.01.2008, thereby she has completed 18 years of age. It is submitted that the corpus being major is entitled to take her own decision and as such, she has married to respondent No.5. It is further submitted that as per the wish of respondent No.4, she wants to live her matrimonial life with her husband, i.e., respondent No.5.

3. Per contra, Ms.Pratibha Kumavat, learned advocate for Mr.Ashish Dagli, learned advocate for the petitioner, would submit that the corpus is a minor and as per the birth certificate issued by the competent authority, which is annexed to this petition would show that her date of birth is 17.02.2009. It is submitted that once proof of the date of birth of the corpus is made available on record, this Court may not accept the submission of the corpus and respondent No.5 that she is a major. It is further submitted that Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has granted protection in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein.

4. This Court has interacted with the corpus on 11.05.2026 as well as today and she has very firmly replied that she does not want to go with her parents but wants to stay with respondent No.5. The corpus has further stated that her date of birth mentioned in the birth certificate is wrong.

5. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and upon perusal of the petition and the reply submitted by respondent Nos.4 and 5, prima facie, it appears that as per the birth certificate, the date of birth of the corpus is 17.02.2009, whereas as per the examination hall ticket issued by the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board, it is 17.01.2008. Ordinarily, the date shown in the birth certificate issued by the competent authority under the law can be considered as a more authentic and reliable proof of date of birth than any other document. Nonetheless, the said presumption is rebuttal one subject to cogent and reliable evidence coming forth on the record of the case. At present, no such cogent and reliable evidence have been brought on record by respondent Nos.4 and 5 to rebut the date of birth mentioned in the birth certificate.

6. Prima facie, considering the date of birth mentioned in the birth certificate, as on date, the corpus has not completed 18 years. At the same time, this Court is concerned with the safety and well-being of the corpus and her desire not to live with her parents cannot be brushed aside. But, at this stage, it is not proper to hand over the custody of the corpus to respondent No.5, who is also facing a complaint filed by the petitioner against him. The bare reading of FIR would suggest that respondent No.5 is alleged to have been involved in the offences which are non-bailable offence and at any point of time, he may be arrested.

7. Thus, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, at this stage, I am of the view that the corpus shall stay at the One Stop Center, Surat, w