Minor Girl’s Marriage Cannot Justify Release From Protection Home: Allahabad High Court Refuses Habeas Corpus

“When Age is Proven by School Records, Medical Opinion Cannot Override It” –  Allahabad High Court refused to issue a writ of habeas corpus for the release of a minor girl lodged in a Protection Home under orders of the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), Deoria, despite her plea that she was married and wished to live with her husband. Bench comprising Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Sanjiv Kumar upheld the validity of her custody, ruling that a minor girl cannot be released to a person—husband or otherwise—if it would expose her to carnal relations and further offences under the POCSO Act.

The Court observed: “The detenue being a minor, now aged 15 years, 7 months and 13 days, cannot be set at liberty as the petitioners seek... She cannot be left to herself like a major.”

“School Certificate Is Conclusive Proof of Age under Section 94 JJ Act – Medical Opinion Must Yield”

A key issue before the Court was the determination of the girl’s age, which the petitioners disputed in order to argue for her release. The detenue, referred to as ‘A’, had eloped and allegedly married Petitioner No. 1, Sanny Kumar, against whom an FIR had been registered under Sections 363, 366, 376, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 5(j)(ii)/6 of the POCSO Act. The FIR stated her age as 14 years.

The police produced a transfer certificate and scholar’s register from Chandra Shekhar Azad Inter College, confirming her date of birth as 14.03.2010. This made her about 14 years old at the time of the incident on 12.04.2024.

Despite a medical board estimating her age as 17 years, the Court held:

“There being a flawless record of her age in the school certificate, there is no authority with this Court to rely on medical evidence... Medical determination of age, being opinion evidence, must give way to authentic and well-proven documentary and oral evidence.”

The Court relied heavily on Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and reiterated the well-settled law from Mahadeo v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 14 SCC 637 and Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 263, affirming that the rules for age determination of juveniles apply equally to victims under the POCSO Act.

“Detenue’s Wish to Stay with Husband Cannot Override Statutory Protection” – Welfare Over Consent, Court Rules

Though the girl expressed a clear desire to remain with her husband and not return to her parental home, the Court found that granting her such liberty would lead to illegal consequences, including potential fresh offences under the POCSO Act.

“If we set the detenue at liberty now and permit her to go along with her husband... it would expose her to carnal relations, which... would render the husband liable for offences under the POCSO Act and Section 64 BNS on fresh counts.”

The Bench firmly reiterated that a minor cannot be allowed to make independent decisions about residence, particularly when such decisions lead to statutory violations and health risks, especially since she had recently delivered a child.

“Negligence at Protection Home Cost Infant’s Life” – Court Orders Monthly Judicial and Medical Supervision

The Court took serious note of an allegation of negligence by the Protection Home staff, where the detenue’s infant child, born on 09.11.2024, died on 17.01.2025 allegedly due to lack of medical care.

The Court expressed grave concern:

“The child cannot be brought back to life, but the detenue, who is said to be in a state of depression... requires utmost care and caution about her health and well-being, both psychological and emotional.”

Accordingly, the Court issued sweeping directions for judicial and medical oversight to protect the minor’s physical and emotional health.

Continued Custody Till 2028 With Monthly Monitoring

While partly allowing the habeas corpus petition, the Court refused release and instead ordered:

“The detenue will be housed in the Protection Home until 13.03.2028 and no further. On the said date, she will be released unconditionally with liberty to go wherever she likes and stay with whomsoever she wants, including her husband.”

Other directions include:

• Chief Medical Officer, Deoria to nominate a doctor to visit the detenue monthly and attend to her on call.

• District Judge, Deoria to appoint a senior lady judicial officer to monitor the detenue’s physical and emotional condition, with liberty to involve a counsellor or psychiatrist.

• Any lapses by the Protection Home administration to be reportable to the High Court.

• Superintendent of the Protection Home made personally accountable for any violation of these directions.

A Decisive Statement on Child Protection Amid Claims of Marriage

This judgment underscores the principle that the statutory protection of minors prevails over all other personal claims, including alleged marriages and individual consent. The Court, by balancing welfare, law, and precedent, delivered a nuanced yet uncompromising ruling that will guide similar cases under POCSO and Juvenile Justice frameworks.

“When a minor’s freedom is sought to be exercised in a manner that leads to criminality, the law cannot stand aside.”

Date of Decision: 27 October 2025