State of U.P. and others v. Counsel for

which seeks the habeas corpus in terms that the first petitioner be released in favour of her husband, Sajid, the second petitioner. The first petitioner, the detenue is not a chattel to be released in favour of her husband. We disapprove this kind of a prayer, which, in fact, detracts from the substance of the relief that the petitioners seek. The first petitioner, Smt. Aafarin, says that she is a major and aged about 18 years. The second petitioner is also a major, aged about 22 years.

4. Shorn of unnecessary detail, the two petitioners fell in love and 2 HABC No. 566 of 2025 decided to marry. The first petitioner, the detenue, does not appear to have had the blessings of her parents to the proposed marriage. Her father wanted to marry her off forcibly to some other man, against her will and wish. Accordingly, the petitioners entered into matrimony, according to Muslim rites on, 21.04.2025. There is a nikahnama of that date on record, annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition.

5. The petitioners made an application for registration of their marriage on 24.04.2025 under the Uttar Pradesh Marriage Registration Rules,

2017. It is averred in paragraph no. 12 that an application was made by the petitioners to the Superintendent of Police, Bijnor on 24.04.2025, with a request to provide protection to them, as they apprehend possible injury to their life and limb. The first petitioner's mother proceeded to lodge a First Information Report ('FIR' for short) against the second petitioner, his brother Nawazish and another, Qutubuddin, giving rise to Case Crime No. 99 of 2025, under Section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ('BNS' for short), Police Station Nehtaur, District Bijnor.

6. The petitioners impugned the said FIR by means of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 9406 of 2025, where, this Court granted stay of arrest, while disposing of the writ petition, for a period of six weeks, subject to cooperation in the ongoing investigation. In connection with the aforesaid FIR, the first petitioner-detenue was recovered by the Police, as they say in their counter affidavit, and her statement recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS' for short). In her statement under Section 183 BNSS, the detenue said that she had gone along with the second petitioner of her freewill and wants to get married.

7. The first informant of the case, that is to say, the first petitioner's 3 HABC No. 566 of 2025 mother, made an application before the Child Welfare Committee ('CWC' for short), seeking the first petitioner's custody on the ground that she was a minor. The CWC directed that the first petitioner be handed over to her mother. The day the CWC made their orders, that is to say, on

13.05.2025, the first petitioner was opined to be 17 years 6 months of age. This was apparently on the basis of some school-leaving certificate.

8. While in the custody of her mother, the first petitioner again eloped with the second petitioner and this led to the first petitioner's brother-in- law, Qasim, to lodge an FIR, giving rise to Case Crime No. 150 of 2025, under Section 137(2) BNS, Police Station Nehtaur, District Bijnor. After this FIR was registered, the first petitioner, the detenue, appeared of her own before the Police and her statement was recorded under Section 183 BNSS. The statement of the prosecutrix recorded in pursuance of the investigation into the second FIR before the learned Judicial Magistrate (as copied in the Case Diary, a photostat copy whereof is annexed at Page Nos. 10 and 11 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State) reads : " -/?) +I?)-?/ +9-?} m-}- /?9? 183 -I)99 ........... +9I) +I}I I+ ?9 ?)=?9I+ ?/ ?/ ?}+I9 -?)? )9M9 )+/ ?- )M9  9I- 17 =?} 08 /?9 )O 9?+- -/?) ? /? ? /O9I   18 =?} 7 /?9 9I /O9O 9=?;K )O  / 9=? ;I 9I /O9O ? K /Om /I -??; { m /K ? 8=I +?9 { m /K 21/5/25 K 9??} 11 - O O ;I 9 9O (-9)K O ) ;I /Im /K 10 12 -?9II K -9)K O 9  , ]/K? 9=?;K )O ?) ?; ?//? -?m 9=?;I )O 9?? / O ] 9 /O ?) ?; ?//? -?m /I 9?? / O 9?- ?/;I 99I 10 12 ?/), ?+9 ? -  /I 5 6 ?/) m 9?? / 9O ?/;I /O ?) ?9 = K} /I?9 9 +)I / } 9O 9 ;I 9Im 9?? / O 9?- I? { 9 9I O 9?- 99)? 9I, 9?? / = m/ 9-I O ?=yo O 9 m/ 9)? 9I 9 K ?/}=?9I )9K ?9-I { m /I 99I9?; ?)? ?9-I { m 9?? / -I 9)? ?9-? 9Im /O9O 9 =?;O /O9O ?=yo 9I /I)O K +I9? = I=9 )9K ?;/?m /I O /O9O 9=?;K +9O??) 9-O 9Im 9 I  )9K 9)? m "

9. A perusal of the said statement would show that the prosecutrix asserted that she was 18 years and 7 months of age. She had gone along with the second petitioner of her own accord and stayed with him in Delhi 4 HABC No. 566 of 2025 for 10-12 days and then in the village for 5-6 days. The two had solemnized their marriage in Delhi. She categorically said in her statement under Section 183 BNSS that she was happy staying with Sajid and does not want any proceedings to be taken against him or the other accused. Still, the first petitioner was produced before the CWC.

10. On occasion before the CWC, the first petitioner's mother submitted an affidavit dated 17.06.2025, saying that she was not willing to take the first petitioner's custody anymore. The CWC, therefore, passed an order dated 23.06.2025, directing the petitioner to be housed in the Rajkiya Bal Grih (Balika), Gautam Buddh Nagar, situate at B.-11, Sector 62, NOIDA. This order was made by the CWC on a finding that the first petitioner was aged 17 years 8 months and 12 days, and still a minor.

11. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf the State, it is stated that according to the school records certified by the Principal, Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Mirzapur, District Bijnor, the first petitioner's date of birth is 09.10.2007. Thus, on the date of incident i.e. 20.04.2025, she was still a minor. In the counter affidavit, it is averred in paragraph no. 10 that investigation into Case Crime No. 99 of 2025 is over and a charge-sheet has been filed on 14.06.2025 under Section 137(2) BNS. The stand taken is that the CWC has rightly passed an order for the first petitioner to be interned in the Rajkiya Bal Grih (Balika), Gautam Buddh Nagar, because, on the date of the order, she was a minor.

12. When this petition came up before this Court, on 04.08.2025, a Division Bench passed the following order : Vakalatnama filed by Sri Sailesh Kumar Srivastav, Advocate on behalf of respondent nos. 6 and 7 is taken on record. 5 HABC No. 566 of 2025 In pursuance to the previous order passed by this Court, the corpus has been produced before this Court by Sri Hari Prakash Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station Nehtaur, District Bijnor who has produced the corpus and has also identified the corpus. It has been stated by the Additional Government Advocate, on the basis of case diary, that the corpus is in the custody of Nari Niketan after an order to that effect was passed by the Child Welfare Committee relying on the school records produced before it. The order of the Child Welfare Committee determining the age of the corpus has not been produced before this Court to enable this Court to ascertain the validity of the aforesaid order. In her statement under Section 183 B.N.S., the corpus has stated that she voluntarily went with petitioner no. 2 and no coercion was applied on her. Before this Court, the corpus has stated that she has voluntarily gone with Sajid and has voluntarily married him. It has been stated that no coercion was applied by anybody including Sajid on the corpus and she has gone and married Sajid on her own sweet will and volition. The corpus has stated her age to be 18 years and 7 months and has also expressed her wish to go with her husband, i.e., the petitioner no. 2. As the returns have not been filed by the State, therefore, we presently are not passing any orders to release the corpus. The AGA is granted two days' time to file a complete return which shall include the order passed by the different authorities resulting in the present custody of petitioner no. 1 before the Nari Niketan. Put up again as fresh on 8th August, 2025. Till orders are passed by this Court, the corpus shall be retained in Nari Niketan, NOIDA, Gautam Budh Nagar and is not required to be presented on the next date fixed in the case. However, the Investigating Officer shall be personally present in the Court on the next date fixed in the case. 6 HABC No. 566 of 2025

13. It is for the reason that notwithstanding the issue of a rule nisi on

09.07.2025, modification of the rule on 04.08.2025 has led to a situation, where the detenue is not before the Court today. We do no think that her presence is, indeed, necessary. Their Lordships of the Division Bench, in the order dated 04.08.2025, have clearly recorded the detenue's stand, where she has stated that she was not coerced into going with Sajid, but had gone of her freewill. It was also recorded that before the Division Bench the detenue has said that she had married Sajid. The detenue had asserted that her age is 18 years and 7 months.

14. Subsequently, another order was passed by the Division Bench on

25.08.2025, which reads : The counter affidavit filed today by the State does not show that on what basis the Child Welfare Committee determined the age of the corpus as below 18 years. The respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 as well as the Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Gautam Budh Nagar are directed to get the petitioner No.1 i.e. the corpus medically examined for determination of her age. The order is being passed inasmuch as nothing has been produced before this Court to show that the corpus was got medically examined by the respondents. The medical report shall be produced through an affidavit on the next dated fixed in the case. Put up again as fresh on 08.09.2025.

15. Their Lordships having opined that the CWC did not determine the first petitioner's age and directed her medical examination to be done for the purpose. An affidavit of compliance, after the order of 25.08.2025, dated 06.09.2025, has been filed. Along with the affidavit, there is a medico-legal report from the Chief Medical Officer, Gautam Buddh Nagar, where, after necessary investigation to determine her age, a board 7 HABC No. 566 of 2025 of three doctors, one of whom was a Radiologist, the first petitioner has been opined to be aged about 19 years. Going by the school records, which the CWC seems to have casually believed without examining its veracity, the petitioner is a major as on date. In the school records, her date of birth recorded is 09.10.2007. The petitioner has almost turned a major.

16. We are of opinion that the school-leaving certificate, on which the Police and the first petitioner's parents rely, is ex facie not a very dependable evidence. The reason is that according to the school-leaving certificate itself, the petitioner left school, passing her Class VIII, on

31.03.2021. The certificate has been issued on 22.04.2025, about time when the offence was reported to the Police. Moreover, there is nothing to show on what basis the age of the first petitioner was recorded in the school records. Whether the age was recorded on the basis of a birth certificate issued from a hospital, a local authority or municipal corporation or a school of previous attendance, or it was just on the basis of word of mouth furnished by the person who got the first petitioner admitted to school are matters not all indicated by the certificate or by evidence of a person competent to prove the certificate. If it was on the basis of a mere word of mouth, it is not dependable. All these facts have not been pleaded to in the counter affidavit. We do not find the date of birth recorded in the school-leaving certificate, or the certificate itself, to be a dependable document. To the contrary, the medico-legal certificate issued by the board of doctors under the authority of the Chief Medical Officer, Gautam Buddh Nagar has categorically opined the prosecutrix to be aged about 19 years. 8 HABC No. 566 of 2025

17. Considering the totality of circumstances, we hold the first petitioner to be a major, entitled to her liberty. There is absolutely no justification to detain her in the Rajkiya Bal Grih (Balika), Gautam Buddh Nagar.

18. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Writ Petition succeeds and stands allowed. The rule nisi is made absolute. The Superintendent, Rajkiya Bal Grih (Balika), Gautam Buddh Nagar is ordered to set the first petitioner- detenue at liberty forthwith. The first petitioner shall be free to to go wherever she likes and stay with whomsoever she wants, including the second petitioner, Sajid, her husband.

19. The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent, Rajkiya Bal Grih (Balika), Gautam Buddh Nagar through the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar. October 8, 2025 I. Batabyal (Sanjiv Kumar,J.) (J.J. Munir,J.) ISHAN BATABYAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

which seeks the habeas corpus in terms that the first petitioner be released in favour of her husband, Sajid, the second petitioner. The first petitioner, the detenue is not a chattel to be released in favour of her husband. We disapprove this kind of a prayer, which, in fact, detracts from the substance of the relief that the petitioners seek. The first petitioner, Smt. Aafarin, says that she is a major and aged about 18 years. The second petitioner is also a major, aged about 22 years.

4. Shorn of unnecessary detail, the two petitioners fell in love and 2 HABC No. 566 of 2025 decided to marry. The first petitioner, the detenue, does not appear to have had the blessings of her parents to the proposed marriage. Her father wanted to marry her off forcibly to some other man, against her will and wish. Accordingly, the petitioners entered into matrimony, according to Muslim rites on, 21.04.2025. There is a nikahnama of that date on record, annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition.

5. The petitioners made an application for registration of their marriage on 24.04.2025 under the Uttar Pradesh Marriage Registration Rules,

2017. It is averred in paragraph no. 12 that an application was made by the petitioners to the Superintendent of Police, Bijnor on 24.04.2025, with a request to provide protection to them, as they apprehend possible injury to their life and limb. The first petitioner's mother proceeded to lodge a First Information Report ('FIR' for short) against the second petitioner, his brother Nawazish and another, Qutubuddin, giving rise to Case Crime No. 99 of 2025, under Section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ('BNS' for short), Police Station Nehtaur, District Bijnor.

6. The petitioners impugned the said FIR by means of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 9406 of 2025, where, this Court granted stay of arrest, while disposing of the writ petition, for a period of six weeks, subject to cooperation in the ongoing investigation. In connection with the aforesaid FIR, the first petitioner-detenue was recovered by the Police, as they say in their counter affidavit, and her statement recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS' for short). In her statement under Section 183 BNSS, the detenue said that she had gone along with the second petitioner of her freewill and wants to get married.

7. The first informant of the case, that is to say, the first petitioner's 3 HABC No. 566 of 2025 mother, made an application before the Child Welfare Committee ('CWC' for short), seeking the first petitioner's custody on the ground that she was a minor. The CWC directed that the first petitioner be handed over to her mother. The day the CWC made their orders, that is to say, on

13.05.2025, the first petitioner was opined to be 17 years 6 months of age. This was apparently on the basis of some school-leaving certificate.

8. While in the custody of her mother, the first petitioner again eloped with the second petitioner and this led to the first petitioner's brother-in- law, Qasim, to lodge an FIR, giving rise to Case Crime No. 150 of 2025, under Section 137(2) BNS, Police Station Nehtaur, District Bijnor. After this FIR was registered, the first petitioner, the detenue, appeared of her own before the Police and her statement was recorded under Section 183 BNSS. The statement of the prosecutrix recorded in pursuance of the investigation into the second FIR before the learned Judicial Magistrate (as copied in the Case Diary, a photostat copy whereof is annexed at Page Nos. 10 and 11 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State) reads : " -/?) +I?)-?/ +9-?} m-}- /?9? 183 -I)99 ........... +9I) +I}I I+ ?9 ?)=?9I+ ?/ ?/ ?}+I9 -?)? )9M9 )+/ ?- )M9  9I- 17 =?} 08 /?9 )O 9?+- -/?) ? /? ? /O9I   18 =?} 7 /?9 9I /O9O 9=?;K )O  / 9=? ;I 9I /O9O ? K /Om /I -??; { m /K ? 8=I +?9 { m /K 21/5/25 K 9??} 11 - O O ;I 9 9O (-9)K O ) ;I /Im /K 10 12 -?9II K -9)K O 9  , ]/K? 9=?;K )O ?) ?; ?//? -?m 9=?;I )O 9?? / O ] 9 /O ?) ?; ?//? -?m /I 9?? / O 9?- ?/;I 99I 10 12 ?/), ?+9 ? -  /I 5 6 ?/) m 9?? / 9O ?/;I /O ?) ?9 = K} /I?9 9 +)I / } 9O 9 ;I 9Im 9?? / O 9?- I? { 9 9I O 9?- 99)? 9I, 9?? / = m/ 9-I O ?=yo O 9 m/ 9)? 9I 9 K ?/}=?9I )9K ?9-I { m /I 99I9?; ?)? ?9-I { m 9?? / -I 9)? ?9-? 9Im /O9O 9 =?;O /O9O ?=yo 9I /I)O K +I9? = I=9 )9K ?;/?m /I O /O9O 9=?;K +9O??) 9-O 9Im 9 I  )9K 9)? m "

9. A perusal of the said statement would show that the prosecutrix asserted that she was 18 years and 7 months of age. She had gone along with the second petitioner of her own accord and stayed with him in Delhi 4 HABC No. 566 of 2025 for 10-12 days and then in the village for 5-6 days. The two had solemnized their marriage in Delhi. She categorically said in her statement under Section 183 BNSS that she was happy staying with Sajid and does not want any proceedings to be taken against him or the other accused. Still, the first petitioner was produced before the CWC.

10. On occasion before the CWC, the first petitioner's mother submitted an affidavit dated 17.06.2025, saying that she was not willing to take the first petitioner's custody anymore. The CWC, therefore, passed an order dated 23.06.2025, directing the petitioner to be housed in the Rajkiya Bal Grih (Balika), Gautam Buddh Nagar, situate at B.-11, Sector 62, NOIDA. This order was made by the CWC on a finding that the first petitioner was aged 17 years 8 months and 12 days, and still a minor.

11. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf the State, it is stated that according to the school records certified by the Principal, Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Mirzapur, District Bijnor, the first petitioner's date of birth is 09.10.2007. Thus, on the date of incident i.e. 20.04.2025, she was still a minor. In the counter affidavit, it is averred in paragraph no. 10 that investigation into Case Crime No. 99 of 2025 is over and a charge-sheet has been filed on 14.06.2025 under Section 137(2) BNS. The stand taken is that the CWC has rightly passed an order for the first petitioner to be interned in the Rajkiya Bal Grih (Balika), Gautam Buddh Nagar, because, on the date of the order, she was a minor.

12. When this petition came up before this Court, on 04.08.2025, a Division Bench passed the following order : Vakalatnama filed by Sri Sailesh Kumar Srivastav, Advocate on behalf of respondent nos. 6 and 7 is taken on record. 5 HABC No. 566 of 2025 In pursuance to the previous order passed by this Court, the corpus has been produced before this Court by Sri Hari Prakash Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station Nehtaur, District Bijnor who has produced the corpus and has also identified the corpus. It has been stated by the Additional Government Advocate, on the basis of case diary, that the corpus is in the custody of Nari Niketan after an order to that effect was passed by the Child Welfare Committee relying on the school records produced before it. The order of the Child Welfare Committee determining the age of the corpus has not been produced before this Court to enable this Court to ascertain the validity of the aforesaid order. In her statement under Section 183 B.N.S., the corpus has stated that she voluntarily went with petitioner no. 2 and no coercion was applied on her. Before this Court, the corpus has stated that she has voluntarily gone with Sajid and has voluntarily married him. It has been stated that no coercion was applied by anybody including Sajid on the corpus and she has gone and married Sajid on her own sweet will and volition. The corpus has stated her age to be 18 years and 7 months and has also expressed her wish to go with her husband, i.e., the petitioner no. 2. As the returns have not been filed by the State, therefore, we presently are not passing any orders to release the corpus. The AGA is granted two days' time to file a complete return which shall include the order passed by the different authorities resulting in the present custody of petitioner no. 1 before the Nari Niketan. Put up again as fresh on 8th August, 2025. Till orders are passed by this Court, the corpus shall be retained in Nari Niketan, NOIDA, Gautam Budh Nagar and is not required to be presented on the next date fixed in the case. However, the Investigating Officer shall be personally present in the Court on the next date fixed in the case. 6 HABC No. 566 of 2025

13. It is for the reason that notwithstanding the issue of a rule nisi on

09.07.2025, modification of the rule on 04.08.2025 has led to a situation, where the detenue is not before the Court today. We do no think that her presence is, indeed, necessary. Their Lordships of the Division Bench, in the order dated 04.08.2025, have clearly recorded the detenue's stand, where she has stated that she was not coerced into going with Sajid, but had gone of her freewill. It was also recorded that before the Division Bench the detenue has said that she had married Sajid. The detenue had asserted that her age is 18 years and 7 months.

14. Subsequently, another order was passed by the Division Bench on

25.08.2025, which reads : The counter affidavit filed today by the State does not show that on what basis the Child Welfare Committee determined the age of the corpus as below 18 years. The respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 as well as the Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Gautam Budh Nagar are directed to get the petitioner No.1 i.e. the corpus medically examined for determination of her age. The order is being passed inasmuch as nothing has been produced before this Court to show that the corpus was got medically examined by the respondents. The medical report shall be produced through an affidavit on the next dated fixed in the case. Put up again as fresh on 08.09.2025.

15. Their Lordships having opined that the CWC did not determine the first petitioner's age and directed her medical examination to be done for the purpose. An affidavit of compliance, after the order of 25.08.2025, dated 06.09.2025, has been filed. Along with the affidavit, there is a medico-legal report from the Chief Medical Officer, Gautam Buddh Nagar, where, after necessary investigation to determine her age, a board 7 HABC No. 566 of 2025 of three doctors, one of whom was a Radiologist, the first petitioner has been opined to be aged about 19 years. Going by the school records, which the CWC seems to have casually believed without examining its veracity, the petitioner is a major as on date. In the school records, her date of birth recorded is 09.10.2007. The petitioner has almost turned a major.

16. We are of opinion that the school-leaving certificate, on which the Police and the first petitioner's parents rely, is ex facie not a very dependable evidence. The reason is that according to the school-leaving certificate itself, the petitioner left school, passing her Class VIII, on

31.03.2021. The certificate has been issued on 22.04.2025, about time when the offence was reported to the Police. Moreover, there is nothing to show on what basis the age of the first petitioner was recorded in the school records. Whether the age was recorded on the basis of a birth certificate issued from a hospital, a local authority or municipal corporation or a school of previous attendance, or it was just on the basis of word of mouth furnished by the person who got the first petitioner admitted to school are matters not all indicated by the certificate or by evidence of a person competent to prove the certificate. If it was on the basis of a mere word of mouth, it is not dependable. All these facts have not been pleaded to in the counter affidavit. We do not find the date of birth recorded in the school-leaving certificate, or the certificate itself, to be a dependable document. To the contrary, the medico-legal certificate issued by the board of doctors under the authority of the Chief Medical Officer, Gautam Buddh Nagar has categorically opined the prosecutrix to be aged about 19 years. 8 HABC No. 566 of 2025

17. Considering the totality of circumstances, we hold the first petitioner to be a major, entitled to her liberty. There is absolutely no justification to detain her in the Rajkiya Bal Grih (Balika), Gautam Buddh Nagar.

18. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Writ Petition succeeds and stands allowed. The rule nisi is made absolute. The Superintendent, Rajkiya Bal Grih (Balika), Gautam Buddh Nagar is ordered to set the first petitioner- detenue at liberty forthwith. The first petitioner shall be free to to go wherever she likes and stay with whomsoever she wants, including the second petitioner, Sajid, her husband.

19. The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent, Rajkiya Bal Grih (Balika), Gautam Buddh Nagar through the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar. October 8, 2025 I. Batabyal (Sanjiv Kumar,J.) (J.J. Munir,J.) ISHAN BATABYAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad