S. N. SAXENA, J. ( 1 ) KM. Razda daughter of Mohd. Haneef has come to this Court for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the petitioner in Court and set her free. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, respondents No. 1 and 3 had enticed her away on 21/ 22. 9. 1992. Her father Mohd. Haneef had lodged a First Information Report regarding the same with the police against respondents 1 and 3. Respondent No. 1 Noor Mohd. was son of the respondents 2 and 3 who were husband and wife. The police of police station Kharkhoda arrested respondent No. 1, Noor Mohammad, and respondent No. 3, Smt. Rasso and challaned them under sections 363/365, I. P. C. They, however, were released on bail by the Sessions Judge of Meerut. The date of birth of the petitioner according to the school record in which she had studied was 1. 5. 1979. She thus, was aminoron the date of this incident. Mohd. Haneef sent a number of applications to the police authorities of Meerut district including the S. S. P. Meerut requesting for tracing out the petitioner but in vain. His request to Inspector General of Police, D. P. also did not bear any result. Finding no way-out, she instituted this writ petition as mentioned above through her father. ( 3 ) NOTICES were issued to the opposite parties. Respondent No. 1, Noor Mohammad, who gave his age as 25 years, filed counter affidavit. He described himself as Pairokar of respondents No. 2 and 3, viz. , his parents. According to him, petitioner Smt. Razda was a major lady aged about 20 years having full sense of discretion to distinguish between good and bad and also was at liberty to take independent decision for her personal life. She had fallen in love with him and the relations between them had become intimate which were no secret to the family members of both the families. The family members were willing for the marriage of the two but the father of the petitioner made financial demand from his parents for marrying Razda to him. She ultimately had willingly accompanied him for entering into wed-lock. Her father, however, had lodged a false First Information Report with the police resulting in the registration of a false case against the respondents. She ultimately had willingly accompanied him for entering into wed-lock. Her father, however, had lodged a false First Information Report with the police resulting in the registration of a false case against the respondents. Razda and Noor Mohmmad on 7. 1. 1992 got their marriage performed according to Muslim rites and were living since then as duly wedded couple, vide Annexure C. A. 1, which is a copy of the Nikahnama. Thereafter, both of them performed marriage agreement and also swore affidavits. Razda has got a pregnancy of about 16 weeks from Noor Mohd. He and his family members were threatened with dire consequences by Razdas father due to which they took recourse to necessary criminal proceedings. The Habeas Corpus Petition was based entirely upon wrong allegations and, therefore, liable to be dismissed. ( 4 ) SMT. Shakila Wife of Mohd. Haneef and mother of Razda filed rejoinder affidavit in which she reasserted the pleas raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition. She swore that her eldest daughter was 19 years of old and out of her six children Razda was at No. 4. She denied that Razda had fallen in love with Noor Mohammed. The police according to her was in collusion with the respondents. Razda being a minor was not competent to contract the alleged marriage, which in any view of the matter was void in the eye of law. ( 5 ) RESPONDENT No. 1, Noor Mohammed, filed supplementary counter affidavit along with a few documents to show that Razda was major and had in a legal and valid manner married him. ( 6 ) SRI Ganga Bishun, S. I. Police, who had investigated the case on the basis of the F. I. R lodged by Razdas father also filed counter affidavit wherein he justified the criminal proceedings against the respondents. In para 6 of his counter affidavit he swore that according to the certificate from the school in which Razda had studied, her date of birth was 1. 5. 1979. ( 7 ) SMT. Shakila, the mother of Razda, filed supplementary affidavit along with the copy of the school leaving certificate of Razda in order to show that her date of birth was 1. 5. 1979. Its original was available with the learned counsel for the petitioner and was examined by this Court during arguments. 5. 1979. ( 7 ) SMT. Shakila, the mother of Razda, filed supplementary affidavit along with the copy of the school leaving certificate of Razda in order to show that her date of birth was 1. 5. 1979. Its original was available with the learned counsel for the petitioner and was examined by this Court during arguments. ( 8 ) IT was found necessary to obtain medical evidence regarding the age of Razda and therefore she was sent for her medical examination to the chief Medical Officer, Allahabad, who had got her medically examined by the chief Medical Superintendent, Duffer in Hospital, Allahabad. The X-ray of her waist and elbow joints also were taken and the Chief Medical Officer, after taking into consideration the same and her appearance, coined that on the date of her medical examination i. e. 17. 9. 1993, she was about 17 years old. According to his opinion thus the petitioner would have been about 16 years of age on 21/22. 9. 1992 when this incident is said to have taken place. ( 9 ) THE question of the age of Razda may be considered first. She was referred for medical opinion as till then copy of her school leaving certificate had not been filed by the petitioner. This evidence along with an affidavit of Smt. Shakila, the mother of Razda, was filed on 21. 9. 1993. Respondents contention that the school leaving certificate had not been proved and therefore could not be read in evidence is avoid of merit. Its original was perused by this Court and the affidavit of Smt. Shakila proved that the school leaving certificate had been issued by the Head Master of Panya Junior High School Phaphunda, district Meerut, and it also had been counter-signed by Zila Basic Shiksa Adhikari, Meerut, on 20. 9. 1993. It is also important to mention that S. I. Ganga Bishun in his counter affidavit has disclosed that during investigation he had come to know from school record that the date of birth of Razda was 1. 5. 1979. Neither his affidavit nor that of Smt. Shakila has been rebutted by the respondents. Reliance, therefore, can safely be placed upon them and with the help of the said evidence, the petitioner has been able to prove successfully that Razda was born on 1. 5. 1979. 5. 1979. Neither his affidavit nor that of Smt. Shakila has been rebutted by the respondents. Reliance, therefore, can safely be placed upon them and with the help of the said evidence, the petitioner has been able to prove successfully that Razda was born on 1. 5. 1979. She, thus, was 13 years and about 4 months old on 21/22. 9. 1992 when her father had lodged the aforesaid F. I. R. ( 10 ) RESPONDENTS have relied upon the Nikahnama, affidavit of Noor Mohammed and the medical evidence to show that Razda was about 20 years old when this incident had taken place. It was, however, not possible to place reliance upon respondents evidence and the medical evidence which was opinion evidence only. Unfortunately the medical examination report does not contain the details of the secondary sex characteristics such as development of breasts, absence or presence of axillary and pubic hairs, the colour and the sparse or thick growth of the said hans due to which it was not possible to infer that the margin of about two or three years in the medical opinion about her age was on the lower side or the upper side. As already mentioned above, according to the medical evidence itself she was about 16 years old at the time of this incident. This evidence thus was not inconsistent with the evidence adduced by the petitioner about her age. It was well settled proposition of law that entry in scholars register about the date of birth was a reliable piece of evidence while the margin of about two or three years on either side was possible in the age assessed by a doctor. ( 11 ) RESPONDENTS contention that there was a tendency to reduce the age on the part of the parents while admitting their children for education and, therefore, the school leaving certificate of the petitioner could not be relied upon as believable evidence, was devoid of merit. The school leaving certificate shows that Razdas father was a labourer and she had studied in the school for about two years only. She did not belong to that class of society from which come educated girls for different services after proper education. The aforesaid argument could have some force in the case of the said educated girls but it carried no weight so far as the daughter of a labourer was concerned. She did not belong to that class of society from which come educated girls for different services after proper education. The aforesaid argument could have some force in the case of the said educated girls but it carried no weight so far as the daughter of a labourer was concerned. He, in the ordinary course, would have disclosed the correct date of birth of Razda. ( 12 ) IN view of the above discussion, I am of opinion that Razda, on 21/22. 9. 1992, was a minor and had not even attained the age of puberty. Her alleged marriage with Noor Mohammad, therefore, was null and void and Noor Mohammad had got no right to keep her in his custody. She, no doubt, his in family way but that did not entitle Noor Mohammad to keep her as his wife. Her de facto guardian was her father while her natural guardian was her mother. There is, however, no dispute between the father and mother of Razda regarding her custody and there was, thus, no force in the contention of the respondents that she could not, in any case, be given in the custody of her father. ( 13 ) RAZDA was a minor girl and, therefore, this Court did not find it proper to record her statement. ( 14 ) THE writ, petition, in view of the above findings, was liable to be allowed. The writ petition is allowed with direction that Razda, who is present in the court room, shall forthwith be given in the custody of her father, Mohd. Haneef. Parties themselves shall bear their costs of this petition. 24. 9. 1993 Learned counsel for the respondents prayed for permission for leave to appeal but I do not find it a fit case for appeal and the permission, there fore, is refused. Petition allowed. .