KAMMU Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent no.5 i.e. Jekam along with Sarjeena had filed Criminal Misc. No.9799 of 2009, stating that both the petitioners were major and that they have got married against the wishes of their parents. Thus, they apprehend danger to their life and liberty. It was further stated that the age of Sarjeena was 18 years. In order to support the fact that her age was above 18 years, a photocopy of the ration card was placed on record as P-1. An affidavit, in support of her age, was also filed. In view of the averments, a direction was issued to

(2.) Therefore, the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the uncle of Sarjeena, praying for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus to recover the detenue, namely, Sarjeena alleged to be minor of the age of 14 years and 5 months at the time of marriage but more than 15 years at the time of filing of writ petition, from the custody of respondent No.5-Jekam son of Md. Mummal, resident of VPO Mahun, Tehsil Ferozepur Jhirka, District Mewat, alleging himself to be the husband of Sarjeena.

(3.) The contest appears to be between her uncle and her husband. Surprisingly, the father has not filed the petition. Subsequently an application has been moved by the father to be impleaded as a party. Thus, the assumption is that the said custody case has been filed by the uncle on behalf of the father viz a viz the custody of the girl to the respondent No.5 who is stated by the girl to be her husband. In order to show that the Date of Birth of Sarjeena was 02.01.1995, reliance was placed on the Birth Certificate as maintained by the Child Development Project Officer, Punhana (Mewat) P-1, as well as, School Leaving Certificate P-2.