V SAMINATHAN Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the father of the minor girl S.Sudharani, the detenue. He has approached this Court with the grievance that his daughter minor Sudharani was born on 16.06.1993 and she is now aged 15 years that his minor daughter had developed love affair with the fifth respondent R.Sasikumar, when she was working along with him in a private textile shop at Coimbatore that on 02.06.2008 at about 10.00 a.m., she went to visit her elder sister Ms. Kanngai, but did not return home in the evening that on enquiry he came to know that the fifth respondent had abducted and took her to Tanjore at about 11.00 a.m., with the connivance of the sixth respondent against her wish that though a police complaint was lodged on 06.06.2008, the same was registered only on 09.06.2008 in Cr.No.396 of 2008 that subsequently no effective investigation was carried on and that therefore, having no other remedy, he is constrained to approach this Court.

(2.) PURSUANT to the notice, Mr. J.S. Parthasarathy, learned counsel, who is appearing for the respondents 5 and 6, has submitted that the detenue girl is produced. We have enquired the detenue girl. On enquiry, she has stated that she has completed 10th Standard in the year 2004 itself that after her schooling, she is working in a private textile shop at Coimbatore for over a period of three years and that she is a major. She claimed that her date of birth is 25.05.1989. She has further stated that when she and the fifth respondent were working in the same shop, they had developed love affair and decided to marry and that they got married on 18.06.2008 and the same was registered in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Peravurani. In support of her above contention, she produced the marriage certificate, wherein her date of birth is noted as 22.05.1989. Placing reliance upon the above certificate, she claimed that her date of birth as found in the certificate of marriage was furnished on the basis of the Certificate issued by a Doctor to the effect that she was born on 22.05.1989. Therefore, she claimed that she is a major and entitled to take decision on her own as to the marriage and she having married the fifth respondent, she should be sent along with her husband, the fifth respondent.

(3.) HOWEVER, the question that arises is, to whom the custody of the detenue minor Sudharani is to be entrusted. There is a rival claim as to the date of birth of the detenue. The petitioner has produced the school records. Contrary to the above, the detenue had produced her marriage certificate evidencing her date of birth as 22.05.1989. Insofar as the determination of date of birth is concerned, the first and foremost document would be the extract from the register maintained by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, in case, such birth is registered and in the absence of such registration of birth , in our opinion, the date of birth as found in the school records must be taken into consideration.