Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Habeas Corpus Plea, Upholds School Records For Age Determination In Custody Dispute

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by a father seeking custody of his daughter, holding that she is a major and not under any unlawful confinement, after relying on school and matriculation records to determine her age.

The division bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf emphasised that, under the statutory scheme, school records take precedence over birth certificates issued by municipal authorities in cases of age determination.

The petition was filed by Harcharan Ahirwar, who alleged that his daughter was missing and was being wrongfully confined by a man named as respondent No. 4. Acting on the petition, the court directed the production of the girl before it. The Investigating Officer, along with a lady constable, produced the girl in court and submitted a report stating that she was not a minor, as claimed by her father, but had attained majority.

According to the report, the girl’s date of birth was recorded as April 7, 2006 in her Class X certificate, and this was further corroborated by the scholar register of the first school she attended. Both documents consistently reflected the same date of birth. On the other hand, counsel for the petitioner argued that her birth certificate recorded her date of birth as October 8, 2008, which would make her a minor.

The court examined the statutory framework governing age determination, particularly Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, along with Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007. It noted that the law clearly lays down a hierarchy of documents for determining age, giving primacy to school records and matriculation certificates. Only in their absence can reliance be placed on birth certificates issued by municipal authorities or panchayats.

Quoting the statutory provision, the bench observed that where there is doubt regarding age, the first step is to seek the date of birth certificate from the school or the matriculation certificate from the examination board. It is only when such documents are unavailable that other forms of evidence, including municipal birth certificates or medical tests, may be considered.

The court further referred to precedents of the Supreme Court, including the judgment in Abuzar Hussain @ Gulam Hossain v. State of West Bengal, which clarified that school and matriculation records are to be treated as the primary evidence of age. This position was reiterated in a more recent judgment in P. Yuvaprakash v. State of Tamil Nadu, where the apex court affirmed that the statutory mandate under Section 94 must be strictly followed.

Applying these principles, the High Court held that the matriculation certificate and school register, both of which recorded the girl’s date of birth as April 7, 2006, had to be accepted as the correct evidence of age. Consequently, the girl was held to be a major.

During the proceedings, the girl also informed the court that she had voluntarily married respondent No. 4 and was residing with him in her matrimonial home. She categorically stated that she did not wish to return to her parental home and that she was not under any form of wrongful confinement.

Taking note of her statement, the bench observed that no case of illegal detention or coercion was made out. It held that since the girl was a major and had expressed her free will, there was no ground to grant relief in a habeas corpus petition.

“No further order is called for in this petition,” the court concluded, while disposing of the matter.

Case Title: Harcharan Ahirwar v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: April 28, 2026

Bench: Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf