Punjab & Haryana High Court Imposes Cost On Runaway Couple For Manipulation Of Aadhar Card Details
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently dismissed a runaway couple's protection petition with costs for manipulation of date of birth as mentioned in their Aadhar Card. The couple, hailing from Faridabad, submitted before the Court that they had married each other and wished to reside together. However, it was alleged that the girl's family was against their relationship and...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently dismissed a runaway couple's protection petition with costs for manipulation of date of birth as mentioned in their Aadhar Card.
The couple, hailing from Faridabad, submitted before the Court that they had married each other and wished to reside together. However, it was alleged that the girl's family was against their relationship and had even lodged a false FIR against the boy, under Section 346 (Wrongful confinement in secret) of IPC.
It was submitted that both of them had attained the age of majority and as a proof of their date of birth, they produced copies of Aadhaar cards.
A Single Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan however refused to give protection to the couple, on noting that the girl's date of birth was manipulated in the documents, seemingly to prove that she is a major.
The couple claimed to have married on January 29, 2021. As per the documents placed on record, the girl had attained the age of majority only a week before the date of marriage, i.e. on January 23, 2021.
The typed copy of the girl's Aadhar Card indicated her date of birth as January 23, 2003. However, the Judge noted that the photocopy of the Aadhar Card only mentioned the year of the girl's birth and not the full date.
The Judge observed,
"Typed copy of aadhaar card of petitioner No. 1 is attached as Annexure P-2 wherein date of birth is mentioned as "DOB: 23.1.2003". On the basis of the said date of birth, it is claimed that at the time of marriage, she has attained majority.
On perusal of photo copy of aadhaar card of petitioner No. 1, it is evident that date of birth is not mentioned and year of birth is mentioned as 2003. It appears that typed copy has been manipulated in order to portrait the picture to the Court that both the petitioners are major."
Taking strong exception to such manipulative conduct, the Judge observed that it is not a fit case for interference and dismissed the petition with cost of Rs. 25,000/-.
Case Title: Nikita Sharma & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Read Order