W.P.(CRL) 2569/2026 Page 1 of 4 $~59 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010396562026 + W.P.(CRL) 2569/2026 USHA KUMARI & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Krishna Mohan, Advocate. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, SC for State. Mr. Sameer Alam and Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Advocates for R-6. SI Dilsukh, PS-Begumpur. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 23.09.2026 1. Petitioner No. 1, Usha Kumari, and Petitioner No. 2, Saurabh Kumar, state that they have married each other and apprehend threats and interference from the parents of Petitioner No. 1. Accordingly, they have approached this Court seeking directions to the Respondents to provide adequate protection to their life and liberty. 2. On 24th August, 2026, the Court passed the following order: “1. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (State of National Capital Territory of Delhi). Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 (State of Bihar) be served, in addition through Standing Counsel and Resident Commissioner for the State in Delhi. Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 (private respondents) be served through the State of Bihar. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking police protection, apprehending threats from the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/09/2026 at 12:07:11 W.P.(CRL) 2569/2026 Page 2 of 4 relatives of petitioner No. 1. 3. It is stated in the writ petition that petitioner No. 1 left her parental home on 16.07.2026, and met with petitioner No. 2. They thereafter travelled to Rajpura, Punjab, and after that to Delhi. It is further stated that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 got married against the will of their parents. A photograph has been annexed of a purported marriage ceremony conducted on 14.08.2026. They claim to be living in Delhi at the moment, but facing threats from the members of the family of petitioner No. 1, including Respondents Nos. 6 and 7. 4. In paragraph (iv) of the writ petition, the petitioners have averred as follows: “iv. It is most pertinent to mention that the parents of complainant recorded false date of birth i.e. 3-3-2010 in birth certificate issued by Govt. of Bihar and 17-8-2011 in her Aadhar Card and fourteen years in School record of the complainant. These all dates of birth are false fabricated, however, the exact age of the complainant is about 20 years. After the marriage they both are living as wife and husband.” 5. The Aadhar Card of petitioner No. 2 has been filed with the writ petition, in which his date of birth is mentioned as 01.01.2008. 6. It has further been stated in the petition that the father of petitioner No. 1 has lodged a complaint with the jurisdictional police station in the State of Bihar, alleging kidnapping of his daughter by petitioner No. 2. Mr. Sanjay Lao, learned Senior Counsel for GNCTD, states that such an FIR has been lodged against Petitioner no. 2 and his father by the jurisdictional police station in the State of Bihar. 7. Mr. Lao submits that the facts disclosed by the petitioners themselves indicate that the petitioner No. 1, according to her school records, is approximately 14 years of age, whereas according to her Aadhaar Card and birth certificate, she is 15 and 16 years of age, respectively. Although it is the contention of the petitioner that her age is, in fact, more than 20 years, no documents have been annexed in support of this contention. 8. Mr. Lao draws my attention to Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, which provides as follows: “94. Presumption and determination of age.— (1) Where, it is obvious to the Committee or the Board, based on the appearance of the person brought before it under any of the provisions of this Act (other than for the purpose of giving evidence) that the said person is a child, the Committee or the Board shall record such observation stating the age of the child as nearly as may be and proceed with the inquiry under Section 14 or Section 36, as the case may be, without waiting for further confirmation of the age. (2) In case, the Committee or the Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought before it is a child or This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/09/2026 at 12:07:11 W.P.(CRL) 2569/2026 Page 3 of 4 not, the Committee or the Board, as the case may be, shall undertake the process of age determination, by seeking evidence by obtaining— (i) the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, if available; and in the absence thereof; (ii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat; (iii) and only in the absence of (i) and (ii) above, age shall be determined by an ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the Committee or the Board: Provided such age determination test conducted on the order of the Committee or the Board shall be completed within fifteen days from the date of such order. (3) The age recorded by the Committee or the Board to be the age of person so brought before it shall, for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to be the true age of that person.” 9. Applying the said principles to the present case, Mr. Lao points out that the school records are the first piece of evidence, which according to the petition itself, shows that petitioner No. 1 is aged 14 years. Even according to the birth certificate, which is the next piece of evidence, her age is 16 years. There is no documentary material to establish the petitioners’ contention that petitioner No. 1 is, in fact, 20 years old. Similarly, even petitioner No. 2, according to the Aadhaar Card filed by him, is 18 years of age. Neither of the petitioners is thus of marriageable age. 10. In these circumstances, he submits that the State will produce the petitioner no. 1 before the Child Welfare Committee for age determination and, having regard to the prima facie material showing that she is a minor, she will be housed in a Children’s Home until then. 11. Mr. Krishana Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioners, has drawn my attention to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Jitender Kumar Sharma v. State & Anr. [W.P.(CRL.) 1003/2010, decided on 11.08.2010] [hereinafter, “Jitender Kumar”], in which the custody of a minor wife, who was 16 years of age, was given to her husband, who was also a minor. However, Mr. Lao relies upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in Court on its own motion (Lajja Devi) & Ors. v. State & Ors. [2012 SCC OnLine Del 3937], where a similar issue has been considered in some detail. 12. The matter requires further consideration. 13. It is clear, even from the judgment in Jitender Kumar, cited on behalf of the petitioners, that during the pendency of the petition, the minor girl was sent to a children’s home. 14. In these facts, Mr. Lao submits that the same course be followed in This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/09/2026 at 12:07:11 W.P.(CRL) 2569/2026 Page 4 of 4 this case also. He submits that petitioner No.1 will be produced, at the latest, by tomorrow before the Child Welfare Committee [“CWC”], and a proper inquiry will be conducted. 15. As an interim measure, the State is permitted to proceed in accordance with law, and to place a Status Report before this Court, before the next date of hearing. 16. List on 09.09.2026. 17. A copy of the order be given dasti under the signature of the Court Master.” 3. Pursuant to the above directions, Petitioner No. 1 was produced before the Child Welfare Committee [“CWC”]. The State informs the Court that her age has since been verified and she has been found to be 15 years old. The CWC interacted with Petitioner No. 1 through video conferencing, during which she expressed her desire to meet her father and stay with her family. On being questioned regarding the allegations made against her parents, she stated that the allegations were false and that she had been made to level them. 4. In view of the above, no directions for protection are called for. As regards the custody of Petitioner No. 1, the CWC shall, after conducting the requisite inquiry, take an appropriate decision in accordance with law. 5. With the above direction, the petition is disposed of. SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2026 nk This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/09/2026 at 12:07:11