Allahabad HC Disproves Allegation of Minority Made by Girl’s Father; Sets Her Free To Make Her Own Decisions

Must Read

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found...

Lack of Independent Witness Doesn’t Vitiate Conviction: Supreme Court

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Dhiman v State of Himachal Pradesh clarified the law in...

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi,...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent...

Supreme Court Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and...

Follow us

The High Court of Judicature, Allahabad, on an order dated 17th September 2020, set Neha Verma free and gave her the liberty to choose who she wanted to live with as she was legally 18 years old and an adult.

Facts of the Case

The present Habeas corpus writ petition was filed by the second petitioner, Ramu claiming that the first petitioner (Neha Verma) – whom he was married to according to Hindu rites on the 14th of January, 2020 at the Arya Samaj, Chowk, at Prayag. However, her father (Mewa Lal), had asked the custody of her stating that she was sixteen and a half years old by producing the birth certificate at the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi and following the same she was detained unlawfully.

On 3rd September 2020, she was initially produced at the court (as per the order dated 1st September 2020), she had affirmed the marriage with Ramu and wanted to go with her husband stating that she was 18 years old and had the right to choose her path and take decisions in her life. She has expressly declined to go with her father.

Submissions Before the Court

The learned Counsel for the respondent no.4 had disputed the first petitioner’s age and had said that she was a minor and was only about sixteen and a half years old according to the birth certificate obtained from the A.D.O. panchayat, Kaushambi that was dated, 22nd January 2020.

However, the said certificate mentioned her birth date as 15th May 2004 and it was only obtained after her marriage which raised suspicions. When asked for previous schooling records, her school-leaving certificate that was also obtained after her marriage with Ramu had the date 15th May 2004 as her birth date. However, it is to be noted that other columns such as the age of the scholar during the time of school-leaving (which was one of the most decisive columns) was left blank. And all other important documents from the Primary Vidyalaya, Nandauli, in Kaushambi were also left blank. When the Headmaster and the S.R. Registrar were called upon and were asked as to why these columns related to her date of birth were left blank – they didn’t give any convincing answers. In the opinion of the Court, under the relevant section 94 (2) under the Juvenile Justice Act, ranking the medical evidence was collected regarding the first petitioner’s age in the Court.

Court’s Decision

In view of the above submissions at the Court, the bench of Justice J.J. Munir had directed that there was no valid certification of the first petitioner’s age based on the date of birth obtained from the School records and the Panchayat as it raised suspicions. So, the medico-legal report obtained by the Chief Medical officer, Kaushambi which stated that Neha Verma was about 18-19 years of age was considered final.

She was let free to choose her path – she chose her husband, Ramu. Further, the Court had stated that the first petitioner’s with her father, Mewa Lal is unlawful and cannot be permitted to continue. Also, the original records from the school, panchayat and primary school were to be lodged with the court and were directed to be retained in a sealed cover within 24 hours of the said order.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed an Order on 25th October...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found that Germany had violated the...

Lack of Independent Witness Doesn’t Vitiate Conviction: Supreme Court

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Dhiman v State of Himachal Pradesh clarified the law in case of lack of independent...

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Supreme Court Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. They heard...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Supreme Court Asks Petitioner to Approach Bombay High Court in PIL for CBI Probe in Disha Salian Case

On the 26th of October 2020, the Apex Court heard the PIL praying for a CBI probe into the death of Disha Salian. The...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -