Minor petitioner be handed over to parents: HC

Source: The Hitavada      Date: 04 Jun 2018 10:22:07


 

Legal Correspondent

In the matter related to petitioners preferred this writ petition for adequate protection and not to take any coercive action against them and family members of the petitioner Mohammad Imran by the police, the single bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court comprising Justice Sushil Kumar Palo has said in the order that “Hence the petitioner Pushpa Thakur is a ‘minor’. The petitioner Pushpa has been produced by Police Station Nainpur, therefore, the petitioner Pushpa has been found to be minor. She be handed over to her parents/natural guardians. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed."


The single bench of the MPHC has heard the petition filed by Pushpa Thakur and Mohammad Imran. The petitioners preferred this writ petition for adequate protection and not to take any coercive action against them and family members of Imran by the police. Allegedly, the petitioner Pushpa Thakur eloped with petitioner Mohammad Imran is ITI diploma holder and an Electrician. He has two elder sisters who are married. He is living with his father. The petitioners lived in the same vicinity. Both decided to live together as husband and wife and when the proposal of marriage was placed by Pushpa before her family members, they refused to accept her proposal of marriage with Mohammad Imran on the ground that he belongs to a different community. Her family members arranged marriage of Pushpa with another boy of village Dhiwani. Her family members including her father and brother became annoyed on Imran and they misbehaved with her, scolded and treated her with cruelty. On May 11, 2018, Pushpa had gone to her elder sister's house at Katni and from there she called Imran to save her life and to accompany her, therefore, he came to Katni on May 17, 2018.


From that date they started living together in live-in relationship as husband and wife and want to continue this relationship. Pushpa is a major. Her real date of birth is August 10, 1999 whereas as per Board of Secondary Education Certificate, her date of birth is August 9, 2000 which is prevailing in her Higher Secondary mark-sheet therefore, class-3,4 and 5 i.e. documents show date of birth to be August 10, 1999 which is real date of birth.
The petitioners claim that the registration of FIR against the petitioner is liable to be quashed and the right to live and personal liberty of the petitioner guaranteed under article 21 of the Constitution may be protected. The petitioners further claim that the respondent authorities be directed to ensure the security of the petitioners to protect their life and dignity.


A writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents authorities not to take any coercive action. On behalf of respondents/State, learned Govt. advocate vehemently opposed and contended that petitioner Pushpa is a minor; her real date of birth is August 9, 2000. She is minor even now. Therefore, she cannot be treated as "adult" as per law. It is also contended that determination of age of the petitioner can be done only according to sub-rule 3 of Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice(Care and protection of Children) Rules, 2007. It is also contended that the petitioner being a minor can not choose to live separately from the natural guardians till she attains the age of majority.


It would be appropriate to mention that in the case of Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2003). The Apex Court had held that the determining age both for child in conflict with law and child who is victim of crime or case of kidnapping and gang rape, age of prosecutrix determination age has to be done adopting the procedure under Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice(Care and protection of Children) Rules, 2007. He is living with his father. The petitioners lived in the same vicinity. Both decided to live together as husband and wife and when the proposal of marriage was placed by Pushpa before her family members, they refused to accept her proposal of marriage with Mohammad Imran on the ground that he belongs to a different community. Her family members arranged marriage of Pushpa with another boy of village Dhiwani. Her family members including her father and brother became annoyed on Imran and they misbehaved with her, scolded and treated her with cruelty. On May 11, 2018, Pushpa had gone to her elder sister's house at Katni and from there she called Imran to save her life and to accompany her, therefore, he came to Katni on May 17, 2018.


From that date they started living together in live-in relationship as husband and wife and want to continue this relationship. Pushpa is a major. Her real date of birth is August 10, 1999 whereas as per Board of Secondary Education Certificate, her date of birth is August 9, 2000 which is prevailing in her Higher Secondary mark-sheet therefore, class-3,4 and 5 i.e. documents show date of birth to be August 10, 1999 which is real date of birth.
The petitioners claim that the registration of FIR against the petitioner is liable to be quashed and the right to live and personal liberty of the petitioner guaranteed under article 21 of the Constitution may be protected. The petitioners further claim that the respondent authorities be directed to ensure the security of the petitioners to protect their life and dignity. A writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents authorities not to take any coercive action.


On behalf of respondents/State, learned Govt. advocate vehemently opposed and contended that petitioner Pushpa is a minor; her real date of birth is August 9, 2000. She is minor even now. Therefore, she cannot be treated as "adult" as per law. It is also contended that determination of age of the petitioner can be done only according to sub-rule 3 of Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice(Care and protection of Children) Rules, 2007. It is also contended that the petitioner being a minor can not choose to live separately from the natural guardians till she attains the age of majority.


It would be appropriate to mention that in the case of Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2003). The Apex Court had held that the determining age both for child in conflict with law and child who is victim of crime or case of kidnapping and gang rape, age of prosecutrix determination age has to be done adopting the procedure under Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice(Care and protection of Children) Rules, 2007.