HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 2098 of 2025 Court No. - 16 HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State- opposite party nos.1, 3 and 4 and perused the record. 2. The present application has been filed seeking setting aside the orders dated 10.03.2025 passed by the Child Welfare Committee, Hardoi in Case No.Pro.No.2064/POCSO/Child Welfare Committee/Hardoi/2025 and 13.10.2025 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Hardoi in Appeal No.76 of 2025. 3. Opposite party no.5, who is the father of the child, moved an application, which has been allowed by the Child Welfare Committee, Hardoi vide order dated 10.03.2025 on the ground that as per the educational certificate, the date of birth of the child is 15.05.2011; thus, she is minor and the father being the natural guardian has been handed over the custody of the girl. Being aggrieved against the said order, the applicant, who is claiming to be the husband of the girl, has filed an appeal before the appellate authority, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 13.10.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is the husband of the daughter of opposite party no.5 and as per the medical certificate, she is 18-19 years of age. It is submitted that marriage of the daughter of opposite party no.5 with the applicant has taken place in Arya Samaj Mandir, Hardoi on 11.02.2025, therefore, custody of the girl cannot be Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Balwant Rai, Annapurna Agnihotri, Sudhir Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sanjeev Kumar @ Rajeev .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others .....Opposite Party(s) denied in favour of the husband. It is further submitted that in the statement recorded under Section 183 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the girl has stated that she has married with the applicant and they are living as husband and wife. 4. After going through the record, the fact remains that a finding has been recorded by the Child Welfare Committee, Hardoi that as per the educational certificate, the date of the girl is 15.05.2011 and she is only 14 years of age and appears to be minor. Counsel for the applicant is unable to show any law contrary to the fact that in case the date of birth is recorded in the educational certificate, whether the medical certificate will prevail or the date of birth recorded in the educational certificate will prevail. The law is settled that the date of birth mentioned in the school certificate is a piece of evidence, which should be taken into consideration. Application is devoid of merit. It is accordingly rejected. December 11, 2025 Rao/- NA528 No. 2098 of 2025 2 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench