IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 219 CRWP-10069-2025 Date of decision : 26.09.2025 NEERAJ SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS UT CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. Naresh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Samir Rathaur, Addl. Public Prosecutor, U.T. Chandigarh. for respondents No.1 to 3. Respondents No.4 & 5 in person. ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH . J.(Oral) 1. In response to notice, respondents No.4 and 5 have appeared. 2. Learned State counsel representing the respondents No.1 to 3 has informed that the detenue is minor and she is in custody of her parents, whereas petitioner is a relative of alleged husband of the detenue, namely Satyam. 3. It has also been submitted by learned State counsel that against Satyam, the FIR under POCSO Act has already been lodged at the instance of respondents No.4 and 5. 4. In view of above in the present case it is apparent that there is a big question mark with raged to claim of the petitioner, that the detenue is VIPIN KUMAR 2025.09.29 22:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order CRWP-10069-2025 2 a legally wedded wife of the nephew of petitioner. With regard to age of detenue the petitioner has relied upon the entry in Aadhar card of the detenue, whereas the claim of respondents No.4 & 5 is on the basis of being parents. Aadhar card is not proof of age, whereas the respondents No.4 & 5 being natural father and mother have special knowledge with regard to age of the detenue. In addition to above the claim of respondents No.4 & 5 is supported with medical evidence, as the detenue has been subjected to age determination test. Thus, the detenue is prima facie a minor, and therefore her marriage with Satyam cannot be held to be valid. Since the detenue is in custody of her natural parents, the custody of respondents No.4 and 5 cannot be held to be illegal. In view of above, it is hereby held that this petition at the instance of maternal uncle of so called husband of detenue is not sustainable and deserves dismissal. 5. Thus, this petition is not sustainable and the same is hereby dismissed. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 26.09.2025 vipin Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether Reportable : No VIPIN KUMAR 2025.09.29 22:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order