1 1834.11-wp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1834 OF 2011 Smt.Meenadevi Harishchandra Rai ... Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents. K.M.Mhatre for the petitioner. P.S.Hingorani, APP for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Harideep Singh for respondent Nos.3 and 6. Respondent No.6 present in person. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR AND P.D.KODE, JJ. DATED : 30th August 2011. P.C. : Pursuant to the previous order passed by this Court, respondent No.6 has been produced before the Court by the Officer In- charge of the Samata Nagar Police Station. According to the learned A.P.P., respondent No.6 was major on the date on which she married with respondent No.3 on 12th February 2011. On inquiry, it revealed that respondent No.6 was the student of Jamnadas Adukiya Balika Vidyalaya, Kandivali (West), Mumbai. It is further revealed that the 2 1834.11-wp date of birth of respondent No.6 recorded in the school records is 23rd October 1992. In that sense, the day on which respondent No.6 got married with respondent No.3 i.e. 12th February 2011, respondent No.6 was already major. Respondent No.6 has stated across the bar that she got married to respondent No.3 with full understanding and without any force and coercion. She further states that she intends to stay with respondent No.3 and does not want to meet her mother, the petitioner herein, any more. 2. We allowed respondent No.6 and the petitioner to interact between themselves in our chamber for a while. In spite of that, respondent No.6 is firm in her stand that she wants to stay with respondent No.3 who is her husband and does not want to meet the petitioner at all. 3. The petitioner, however, is relying on the birth certificate, which is at page 13 Exh.A, which reveals that respondent No.6 was born on 23rd October 1993. This birth certificate is issued by the In- charge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, District- Sitamari in the State of Bihar. Ordinarily, the official certificate issued under the signature of Medical Officer ought to prevail. However, in the present case, it is noticed that the petitioner herself had filed personal affidavit in the school while seeking admission for respondent No.6 in the concerned school stating that the correct date of birth of respondent No.6 is 23rd October 1992. The petitioner cannot be permitted to resile from that position, that too, in the proceeding of habeas corpus before us. In the circumstances, we will proceed on the basis that respondent No.6 was already major on the date of her marriage i.e. 12th February 3 1834.11-wp 2011. Since the relief claimed in this petition is worked out, it will be open to the petitioner to pursue such other remedy as may be available to her. The same will be proceeded in accordance with law uninfluenced by the observations made in this order which are only for the limited purpose of considering the relief claimed in this petition. In the result, petition is disposed of on the above terms. ( P.D.KODE, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)