Judgment : D. Murugesan, J. 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. 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. We have heard Mr. J.S. Parthasarathy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5 and 6, who also reiterated the same. We have heard Mr.R.Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the correct date of birth of the detenue is 13.06.1993. In support of his above submission, he has produced the record sheet maintained in Panchayat Union Elementary School at Siruvalur. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the detenue, being a minor cannot be directed to accompany the fifth respondent and the marriage allegedly solemnized between the detenue minor-Sudharani and fifth respondent-R. Sasikumar, itself is not valid in the eye of law. Therefore, he prays that the petition may be ordered directing the custody of the minor detenue girl to the father of the detenue, the petitioner herein. 4. As far as the issue relating to the illegal detention is concerned, since the detenue herself is present and she has also stated that the fifth respondent had not kidnapped or kept her in illegal custody, the question of illegal detention does not arise. We hasten to add that we have come to such a conclusion by taking note of the statement of the detenue only for the limited purpose of disposal of this habeas corpus petition. 5. 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. 6. 6. Before, we delve upon the issue as to whether the certificate produced by the petitioner viz., school record sheet would be the basis for disposal of this habeas corpus petition, it would be relevant to consider, as to how far the certificate of the Doctor could be taken into consideration in determining the age of a person. In fact, when the issue came up for consideration long back in the year 1916 before the Privy Council in the judgment in Md. Syedol Ariffin vs. Y.O.Gark, (AIR 1916 SC), the Privy Council has held that the Doctors Certificate as to the age is not a proof, as it is only an assertion of an opinion. The very same issue came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Nd, Ujran Gyssaub vs, State of U.P. (AIR 1964 SC 265), wherein the Apex Court has also observed that the Certificate of the Doctor is an assertion and it can vary. In Bhoop Ram Vs. State of U.P., ( AIR 1989 SC 1329 ), the Apex Court has held that the opinion of the Doctor with regard to the age is based only on an estimate and possibility of error of estimate creeping into the opinion cannot be ruled out. In fact, the above judgment is also quoted by the Division Bench of this Court in Seenivasagam vs. S.P.Sankaran and others, (1992 - L.W.- 2 (Crl.) 556). In view of the settled law, we are of the considered view that it would be unsafe to place reliance on the opinion of the Doctor to hold that the date of birth as certified by the Doctor is a criterion for determining the issue. 7. Therefore, it has to be kept in mind that the certificate issued by the Doctor, which was the basis for the information furnished by the detenue and the fifth respondent to the Registrar of Marriage, and therefore, the said information without any legal sanctity cannot be the sole criterion in determining the age of the detenue. 8. This leads us to the next question, as to whether in the absence of any certificate of birth issued by the competent authority, a school certificate could be relied upon. In this context, again we may usefully quote the judgment of the Apex Court in Bhoop Ram Vs. 8. This leads us to the next question, as to whether in the absence of any certificate of birth issued by the competent authority, a school certificate could be relied upon. In this context, again we may usefully quote the judgment of the Apex Court in Bhoop Ram Vs. State of U.P., ( AIR 1989 SC 1329 ), wherein it has been held that school certificate cannot be rejected on surmises that it is not unusual for parents to understate the age of their children at the time of school admission. For the purpose of consideration and to determine the age of the detenue , it would be proper for this Court to rely upon the school certificate, rather than the opinion of the Doctor. If the school certificate is taken into consideration, the detenues date of birth is 13.06.1993 and she is a minor. 9. In this context, we can also refer to the school transfer certificate issued in the name of one Ms. S. Thamarai Selvi, who is none other than the elder sister of the detenue. A perusal of the same would portray that the said Ms. Thamarai Selvi was detained in XII-Standard in the academic year 2005-2006 and in the said transfer certificate, her date of birth is mentioned as 05.03.1989. The certificate has been issued by the Head Master, Girls Higher Secondary School, Keelapaluvur, (Ariyalur-Educational District) Perambalur District. Hence, it cannot be accepted that the detenue, who is the younger sister of the said Ms. Thamarai Selvi would have born only on 22.05.1989. For all the above reasons, we are of the considered view that the detenue is only a minor. 10. We enquired the detenue. She is not willing to accompany her parents on the apprehension that her life might be in danger at the hands of her parents because, she has come out of the family and got married the fifth respondent. When such an apprehension is raised, it would not be proper in the interest of the detenue to direct her to accompany her parents. Equally, when this court has come to the conclusion that the detenue is only aged about 15 years, merely because she claimed that she had married the fifth respondent, no seal of approval for such marriage could be given and similarly direct the detenue to accompany the fifth respondent. Equally, when this court has come to the conclusion that the detenue is only aged about 15 years, merely because she claimed that she had married the fifth respondent, no seal of approval for such marriage could be given and similarly direct the detenue to accompany the fifth respondent. Under the above circumstances, this Court has no other option except to direct the detenue to be kept in Government Observation Home. 11. Accordingly, the detenue minor -Sudharani D/o.V.Saminathan, Nerunchikorai Village, Ariyalur Taluk and District shall be kept in Government Observation Home for Women, Kajamalai, near E.V.R. College, Trichy until she attains majority. The Women Sub Inspector of Police, Ariyalur, who is present in the Court is directed to take the custody of the detenue minor girl and entrust the custody to the Superintendent of the above said Government Observation Home as early as possible, in any case not later than 10.00 a.m. on 25.07.2008. The Superintendent of the above said Government Observation Home is directed not to allow either the parents of the detenue or the respondents 5 and 6 or their family members to visit the detenue without any specific order from this Court. The detenue shall be kept in the above said Government Observation Home until she attains majority and the date of birth for the purpose of calculation of the age of the detenue shall be 13.06.1993. In case of any subsequent development is noticed, either the Superintendent of the above said Home or the parents of the detenue shall approach this Court seeking appropriate remedy. With these observations, this habeas corpus petition is dismissed.