(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE)
1. The corpus is before us. The police agency has got her examined and the medical certificate issued by Dr. H.K. Rathod, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, states that on the basis of appearance and fusion of epiphyses radiological bone, age appears to be between 18 (eighteen) to 20 (twenty) years.
2. The investigating agency has also inquired from Bhadli (Kotha) Group Gram Panchayat, Tal. Dantivada, District Banaskantha and a certificate has been issued by Talati-cum-Mantri dated 03.07.2012 to the effect that the birth of the corpus is not registered with the Panchayat Office during 1991-1999. The xerox copy of the certificate issued by Talati-cum-Mantri dated 03.07.2012 and the ossification test report issued by Medical Officer dated 03.07.2012 are taken on record.
2.1 The petitioner has produced a school leaving certificate at Annexure 'A', which indicates that the date of birth of the corpus is 01.03.1997.
2.2 We do not have any material to know as to on what basis, the date of birth of the corpus was entered in the general register of the school, on the basis of which this school leaving certificate has been issued indicating the date of birth of the corpus to be 01.03.1997, particularly, when the birth of the girl is not registered with local authority.
3. The situation that emerges, therefore, is that the school leaving certificate indicates that the corpus is minor. The basis of entry relating to the date of birth of the corpus in the school leaving certificate is not before us. The Panchayat has certified that the birth of the girl is not registered during 1991 to 1999 and the ossification test reveals that the age of the corpus is between 18 (eighteen) to 20 (twenty) years.
4. In our observation, the appearance of the corpus reflects more maturity; both physical and mental than that of a minor girl aged about 14 years. We are, therefore, inclined to act upon the ossification test report for the purpose of age of the corpus and therefore, the corpus is not a minor.
5. We have talked to the corpus and she states firmly on the earlier date as well as today that she does not want to go and stay with her parents, but, wants to go and stay with respondent No.4.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya indicated that the relationship between the corpus and respondent No.4 is within prohibited degrees. During dialog with the corpus, we find that she has not married to respondent No.4.
7. In the backdrop of the above fact-situation, we cannot entertain this petition preferred by the mother of the corpus and the corpus is free to go and stay with respondent No.4. The petition stands dismissed accordingly.
8. A copy of this order shall be furnished to learned APP during the course of the day.
Sd/-
[A.L.
Dave, J.] Sd/-
[A.J.
Desai, J.] #MH Dave Top