ORDER : 1. This writ petition for Habeas Corpus is filed seeking direction to respondents 2 to 5-police officials to produce the corpus by name Marlapati Aswitha, who is a minor, aged about 17 years, who is in the custody of unofficial respondents 6 to 8, before the Court and then to set her at liberty. 2. Heard Sri M.M.M. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader attached to the office of learned Advocate General for respondents 1 to 5. Though notices were ordered to unofficial respondents 6 to 8, the same are not yet returned. 3. As the corpus is produced before the Court and as the writ petition is being disposing of as per the wish expressed by the corpus, the appearance of respondents 6 to 8 is dispensed with. 4. The petitioner is the father of the corpus, who is a minor girl by name Marlapati Aswitha. According to the petitioner, the corpus is a minor, aged about 17 years and her date of birth was 28.07.2008. It is stated that his daughter has been studying in Vahini Junior College by staying in a hostel at Tiruvuru and she was found missing from the said hostel from 18.10.2025 and thereafter her whereabouts are not known. It is further stated that even though a report was lodged with the police to that effect, that no effort is made by the police to trace her. Therefore, they have approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition seeking the aforesaid relief. 5. When the matter came up for hearing at the admission stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the extract of birth register issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, the date of birth of the corpus was 28.07.2008 and she is a minor at present and the petitioner, who is her father and natural guardian, is entitled to have her custody and thereby prayed to direct the police to produce her before the Court and to give her custody to the petitioner. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleaders, on instructions, submits that the other school certificates produced by the petitioner himself with the writ petition show that her date of birth was 28.06.2007 and if the said date is taken into consideration, she is a major. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleaders, on instructions, submits that the other school certificates produced by the petitioner himself with the writ petition show that her date of birth was 28.06.2007 and if the said date is taken into consideration, she is a major. He further submitted that the enquiries made by the police revealed that the corpus was in love with the 6 th respondent and she eloped with him and married him on 24.10.2025 in a temple at Jangareddigudem and that she is now living with the 6 th respondent. 7. As two apparently conflicting documents, which are the extract of the birth register and the SSC certificate of the corpus are filed containing two different dates of birth as birth register shows that her date of birth was 28.07.2008 and SSC certificate shows that her date of birth was 28.06.2007, to ascertain the correct date of birth and to determine whether she is a major or a minor, on 24.11.2025, when the matter came for admission, we have directed the respondent-police officials to produce the corpus before this Court today. Pursuant to the said direction given by this Court, the police have produced the corpus before this Court today. It is stated by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions, that she was found in the house of respondents 6 to 8 at Jangareddigudem of Eluru District and she is now produced before this Court today. 8. We have interacted with the corpus in isolation in our Chamber. She asserted that her date of birth as per her school certificates is 28.06.2007 and that she is a major and as she is in love with the 6 th respondent and as her parents refused to perform her marriage with him, that she herself voluntarily went away from the hostel with the 6 th respondent and married him in a temple and that she is now residing with respondents 6 to 8 at Jangareddigudem. 9. We have also interacted with the parents of the corpus, who are present today in the Court in our Chamber in the presence of the corpus. They asserted that the correct date of birth of the corpus was 28.07.2008 and as such, she is a minor at present. 9. We have also interacted with the parents of the corpus, who are present today in the Court in our Chamber in the presence of the corpus. They asserted that the correct date of birth of the corpus was 28.07.2008 and as such, she is a minor at present. Therefore, to ascertain the correct date of birth of the corpus and to determine whether she is a major or a minor, we have meticulously subjected the documents that are produced before this Court to strict judicial scrutiny. 10. As can be seen from the extract of the birth register issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, it is evident that the date of birth of the corpus was 28.07.2008. If the said date is taken into consideration, at present, she is only aged about 17 years two months and she is a minor. As per the SSC certificate that is produced, her date of birth is shown as 28.06.2007 and if the said date is taken into consideration, she is now a major. It is well settled law that when there is inconsistency in the date of birth of a person in the birth register extract and the school certificate, that the birth register extract will prevail over the school certificates. The reason is that the birth register is maintained by a public servant in discharge of his official duty and under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, presumption of genuineness is attached to the same. Therefore, it prevails over the date of birth mentioned in the school certificates. Further, even in the birth certificate issued by the hospital authorities i.e. Sri Lalitha Padmavathi Nursing Home also, the date of birth of the corpus is shown as 28.07.2008. So, the birth date mentioned in the birth register extract appears to be correct. The Supreme Court in the case of CIDCO v. Vasudha Gorakhnath Mandevlekar , (2009) 7 SCC 283 held at para 18 of the judgment as follows: “18. The deaths and births register maintained by the statutory authorities raises a presumption of correctness. Such entries made in the statutory registers are admissible in evidence in terms of Section 35 of the Evidence Act. The deaths and births register maintained by the statutory authorities raises a presumption of correctness. Such entries made in the statutory registers are admissible in evidence in terms of Section 35 of the Evidence Act. It would prevail over an entry made in the school register, particularly, in absence of any proof that same was recorded at the instance of the guardian of the respondent.” In arriving at the said conclusion, the Apex Court relied on the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit, AIR 1988 SC 1796 . 11. Therefore, in view of the ratio laid in the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, reliance is to be placed on the birth register extract and it is to be taken into consideration rather than the SSC certificate as the birth register extract prevails over the school registers. So, the date of birth mentioned in the birth register coupled with the birth certificate issued by Sri Lalitha Padmavathi Nursing Home is to be taken into consideration to arrive at a conclusion to determine the correct date of birth of the corpus and to ascertain whether she is a minor or a major. If the said date of birth in the birth register mentioned as 28.07.2008 is taken into consideration, it is obvious and evident that she is now aged about 17 years and two months and that she is a minor. 12. As the corpus is a minor at present, it is not permissible under law to allow her to stay with the 6 th respondent, even though it is stated that she married him and even though she has expressed her intention to stay with him, when we have interacted with her personally. At the same time, she also refused to accompany her parents and live with them. Inspite of the fact that we have persuaded her to stay with her parents till she attains her age of majority, as she flatly refused to accompany them and live with them, it is not permissible to direct her to stay and live with them also against her wishes. Therefore, the only alternative that is left is to direct to keep her in a safe shelter home. The corpus has also expressed her willingness to stay in the shelter home till she attains her age of majority. 13. Therefore, the only alternative that is left is to direct to keep her in a safe shelter home. The corpus has also expressed her willingness to stay in the shelter home till she attains her age of majority. 13. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, the 5 th respondent-Station House Officer of Yetapaka Police Station, who has produced the corpus today in the Court, is hereby directed to keep her in Prajwala JMJ Open Shelter for Girls, Vijayawada, till she attains her age of majority. After she attains the age of majority, she shall be produced before the Court for the purpose of passing appropriate orders. As the corpus is now studying in Vahini Junior College, Tiruvuru, if she intends to appear for the examinations, she shall be permitted to write examinations by the concerned. If the parents of the corpus are willing to meet her, when she is in the Shelter Home, if the corpus agrees to meet them, the concerned authorities shall permit the parents to meet the corpus and spend time with her. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. The copy of the order shall also be sent to the Chairman, Child Welfare Committee, NTR District, Vijayawada, for taking appropriate steps. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Writ Petition, shall stand closed.