Disposed

Prem Narayan v. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh HC15 Feb 2022WP/3378/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a habeas corpus petition regarding a minor girl who refused to return to her parents. The court, relying on the school register over an ossification report, directed the escort to send the girl and her unborn child to Nari Niketan, Bhopal, for care and counseling.

What did the court decide?

The corpus was directed to Nari Niketan, Bhopal. The Superintendent is to ensure her care, attend to counseling, and submit monthly health reports to the District Judge.

Prem Narayan Vs the State of Madhya… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Madhya Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE

¶3

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA ON THE 15^th OF FEBRUARY, 2022

¶4

WRIT PETITION No. 3378 of 2021

¶5

Between:-

¶6

1. PREM NARAYAN S/O DEVI SINGH , AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOURER R/O VILLAGE AGARIYA CHOPDA, P.S. UMRAOGANJ TEHSIL AND DISTT. RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)

¶7

2. SUGAN BAI W/O PREM NARAYAN , AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE VILLAGE AGARIYA CHOPDA PS UMRAOGANJ (MADHYA PRADESH)

¶8

.....PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SHRI RAVINDRANATH CHATURVEDI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND

¶11

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THRO. THE SECRETARY MANTRALAYA VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

¶12

2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE POLICE HEAD QUARTER S DISTT.RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)

¶13

3. S H O POLICE HEADQUARTERS PS UMRAOGANJ DISTT.RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)

¶14

4. RAKESH GURJAR S/O NARAYAN SINGH GURJAR , AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, VILL.BADALIYA PS SUNDARSI (MADHYA PRADESH)

¶15

5. SAJAN BAI W/O NARAYAN SINGH GURJAR , AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, VILL.BADALIYA PS SUNDARSI (MADHYA PRADESH)

¶16

6. MAKHAN GURJAR S/O NARAYAN SINGH GURJAR , AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, VILL.BADALIYA PS SUNDARSI (MADHYA PRADESH)

¶17

7. SAPNA GURJAR S/O NARAYAN SINGH GURJAR , AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, VILL.BADALIYA PS SUNDARSI (MADHYA PRADESH)

¶18

.....RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SHRI PRADEED SING, PANEL LAWYER)

¶20

This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The corpus has been produced by Shri Hari Om Astaya, S.H.O Umraoganj,

¶23

2 District Raisen, Constable-04 Shri Sandeep Raghuvanshi and lady Constable-797 Ms. Chanchal Chouhan, Mahila Thana, Raisen. She has been brought from the house of Bhagwan Singh Gurjar (Cousin) and Sona Bai, Baretha, Village Birgod, District Shajapur.

¶24

A specific question was put to the corpus that wherein she wants to go. It is submitted before this Court that she wants to go with the respondent No.4 Rakesh Gurjar and Bhagwan Singh Gurjar present before this Court who is stated to be cousin of the corpus, with whom she was residing.

¶25

It is pointed out by the State counsel that serious allegations have been leveled by the corpus against her father. Therefore, she has refused to go at her fathers' place. The date of birth of the corpus as per the scholar register is 05/11/2005. The date of incident is 03/12/2021. Admittedly she was minor as per school records. The ossification test was conducted in pursuance to the direction given by this Court, wherein she was apparently shown to be major in ossification report dated 04/01/2022 and was reported to be above 16 years of age.

¶26

In terms of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashwini Kumar Saxena Vs. State of M.P reported in (2012) 9 SCC 750, the scholar register should be considered as first document for verification of the age, relevant para is as under:

¶27

"34. Ã¢Â€ÂœAge determination inquiryÃ¢Â€Â contemplated under section 7A of the Act r/w Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules enables the court to seek evidence and in that process, the court can obtain the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available. Only in the absence of any matriculation or equivalent certificates, the court need obtain the date of birth certificate from the school first attended other than a play school. Only in the absence of matriculation or equivalent certificate or the date of birth certificate from the school first attended, the court need obtain the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat (not an affidavit but certificates or documents). The question of obtaining medical opinion from a duly constituted Medical Board arises only if the above mentioned documents are

¶28

¶29

unavailable. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, then the court, for reasons to be recorded, may, if considered necessary, give the benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his or her age on lower side within the margin of one year.

¶30

35. Once the court, following the above mentioned procedures, passes an order; that order shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or juvenile in conflict with law. It has been made clear in subsection (5) or Rule 12 that no further inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board after examining and obtaining the certificate or any other documentary proof after referring to sub-rule (3) of the Rule 12. Further, Section 49 of the J.J. Act also draws a presumption of the age of the Juvenility on its determination.

¶31

36. Age determination inquiry contemplated under the JJ Act and Rules has nothing to do with an enquiry under other legislations, like entry in service, retirement, promotion etc. There may be situations where the entry made in the matriculation or equivalent certificates, date of birth certificate from the school first attended and even the birth certificate given by a Corporation or a Municipal Authority or a Panchayat may not be correct. But Court, J.J. Board or a Committee functioning under the J.J. Act is not expected to conduct such a roving enquiry and to go behind those certificates to examine the correctness of those documents, kept during the normal course of business. Only in cases where those documents or certificates are found to be fabricated or manipulated, the Court, the J.J. Board or the Committee need to go for medical report for age determination."

¶32

In the present case, as per the scholar register, the corpus is apparently a minor. As she had categorically refused to go to her parents house and wants to reside with respondent No.4, therefore, this Court is left with no other option but to sent her to Nari Niketan. The State counsel has pointed out that Nari Niketan, Bhopal will be a feasible place for keeping her, looking to the fact that she is carrying a child aged about 4 months. He has further assured this Court that all

¶33

¶34

protection and care will be taken at Nari Niketan, Bhopal.

¶35

Accordingly, the same escort which has produced the corpus before this Court is directed to take her to Nari Niketan, Bhopal and the Superintendent of Nari Niketan, Bhopal is directed to take care of corpus aged about 16 years and her child aged about 4 months. The Superintendent of Nari Niketan should ensure that no problem should be caused to the corpus or the child. Superintendent of Nari Niketan is directed to do counseling of corpus (minor).

¶36

The purpose of filling of Habeas Corpus was to search the corpus. The Corpus has already found and she has shown her willingness not to go to her parents' place. In such circumstance, the purpose of filling of habeas corpus is over.

¶37

A report on a monthly basis be submitted to the District Judge, District Bhopal by the Superintendent of Nari Niketan regarding the health status of the corpus Maya Bai and the child. He is directed to appoint a responsible officer to carry out the periodical inspection with respect to the corpus and the child once in every three months till she attains the majority.

¶38

A typed copy of this order be supplied to the concerned for necessary compliance.

¶39

Accordingly, this petition is disposed of.

¶40

(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE

¶41

Prar

¶42

Digitally signed by PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI Date: 2022.02.15 18:32:34 +05'30'

Prem Narayan v. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Narayan v. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases