ORDER
Subhashan Reddy, J.
1. This writ petition is filed to set aside the order dated 14-8-1992 passed by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Krishna, at Machilipatnam. The said proceedings were initiated under Andhra Pradesh Children Act, 1979. It may be relevant to state the background leading to the said proceedings.
2. Miss K. Annapurna, is the daughter of one Kuricheti Ramachandra Rao resident of Machilipatnam. The petitioner Adapa Murali Mohana Krishna is also resident of that place. From the facts it is evident that the writ petitioner and the said Miss K. Annapurna who is impleaded as respondent No. 4 herein by the Court orders dated 8-9-1992 fell in love with each other. They belong to different castes viz., writ petitioner a Naidu Kapu and the girl K. Annapurna, a Vysya. But the caste barrier did not stand in the way of the said two persons and they were deeply in love and nothing could perturb or disturb them. Efforts of the parents of Miss K. Annapurna, her paternal uncle, her brothers, sister-in-law to mould her mind and distance her from her lover-writ petitioner herein, have gone in vain. They did not even mind sending Miss K. Annapurna to a rescue home rather than allowing her marrying the writ petitioner. Of course, the father of Miss K. Annapurna was successful as the Magistrate purporting to exercise the powers under Section 43(2) of A.P. Children Act, 1979, has ordered K. Annapurna to be committed to the State Home for Child and Women Welfare situate near Sarathi Studios, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, on the ground that as on the said date she was a minor and that she would attain majority only on 19th August, 1993 and till that date she will be in the custody at the State Home mentioned supra. The reasons for doing so by the Court of Magistrate are mentioned in paragraph 6 of the impugned order which read:
“For the above said reasons I hold that Kum. Kurecheti Annapurna, D/o Ramachandra Rao is an uncontrollable and neglected child within the meaning of A.P. Children Act and I feel it proper to commit the child to the Children Home till she attains majority i.e., till 19-8-1993.” Not that she was neglected by the writ petitioner but she was neglected by her parents and her other close blood relatives for the reason that she did not accept their advice to forget the writ petitioner. Her father Ramachandra Rao in clear words has stated that she be committed to the State Home as she was immature being a minor and her love for the writ petitioner was not in her interests.
3. In so far as the age of K. Annapurna is concerned, dispute was raised. While according to her, she had already attained majority even before passing the impugned order and one medicial certificate corroborating the same, her father has filed her birth certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Machilipatnam municipality stating that she was born on 1-2-1975. In view of this conflict with regard to age, the learned Magistrate has referred K. Annapurna to the Siddartha Medical College, Vijayawada for her examination and determination of age. The certificate issued by the said Medical College opined that K. Annapurna was aged about 17 years but below 18 years. There is yet another document showing the date of birth of Annapurna as 20-8-1975. This is an entry made in the School Register. The learned magistrate has adopted the last of the dates i.e., 20-8-1975 as the date of birth of Miss K. Annapurna stating the reason that even though the birth certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths shows her date of birth as 1-2-1975, he is adopting her date of birth as 20-8-1975 “in order to be on safe side and to give some more time to get her mind matured, he is inclined to take the date of birth of Kum. Kurecheti Annapurna as 20-8-1975”.
4. While admitting the writ petition, I thought it fit that Miss K. Annapurna should be added as party and she was impleaded accordingly as respondent No. 4. I requested Ms. C. Suseela Devi, learned senior counsel to be a Court Guardian for Miss K. Annapurna and the said learned senior counsel was kind enough to accept the responsibility. The learned counsel has represented that instead of keeping the girl Miss K. Annapurna-respondent No. 4 herein, in the State Home for Child and Women Welfare, it is desirable in the interests of the said girl to be sent to Mahila Dakshina Samithi, which was substituted as respondent No. 3 for the original respondent No. 3 i.e., State Home for Child and Women Welfare. Respondent No. 4 was asked to be produced in the Court by the Women Protection Cell and she was produced after lunch recess on 8-9-1992 and R-4 was committed to the custody of Mahila Dakshina Samithi – the third respondent herein. Ms. Malleswari was appointed as counsel assisting the senior counsel Ms. C. Suseela Devi, from the panel of A.P. Legal Aid and Welfare Board.
5. The matter was mentioned before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. A. Ram Narayan both on 30th January, 1993 as also 1st February, 1993 and the matter was ordered to be posted and this came up for hearing before me yesterday i.e., 2-2-1993. Mr. T. Bali Reddy, represented on behalf of R-4’s father, Mr. Kurecheti Ramchandra Rao. I conducted the proceedings in camera in my chambers during the lunch recess on 2-2-1993 in the presence of w:it petitioner, his lady love Annapurna R-4, father of R-4, and learned counsel A. Ram Narayan appearing for the petitioner, Ms. C. Suseela Devi, Court Guardian for R-4, Ms. Malleswari who was assisting Suseela Devi and Mr. T. Bali Reddy appearing for R-4’s father-K. Ramachandra Rao.
6. It is contended by Mr. A. Ram Narayan learned counsel for the petitioner that R-4 has attained majority on 1-2-1993 even according to her father’s version and as evidenced by the certificate of birth issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths stating her date of birth as 1-2-1975 and that there is absolutely no legal basis to say that R-4 was born on 20-8-1975. The contention of Mr. T. Bali Reddy, is otherwise. He pleaded that there is no reason to disturb the finding recorded by the Court of Magistrate adopting the date of birth of R-4 as 20-8-1975. After hearing the arguments I examined both the writ petitioner and R-4 in the presence of counsels and persons mentioned above. While R-4’s father pleads sympathetically to keep his daughter R-4 in custody for another two years so that she may be matured enough to think over and over again with regard to proposal to marry the writ petitioner, Miss K. Annapurna – respondent No. 4 is adamant to hear father’s advice and says that she attained majority one year back and that she is still in love with the writ petitioner and that she is matured enough to decide herself what is good and bad and that she has decided to marry the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner repeated the same thing as R-4.
7. In so far as age factor is concerned, it is needless to mention that the medical certificates are only approximate and not accurate. They cannot fix up the exact date of birth. The features of body of human individuals vary depending upon several factors like social conditions, genetic factors, nourishment, etc. As such two medical opinions are bound to differ and that is what has happened in the instant case. One saying that the girl was already a major even before the impugned order and another mentioning that the girl was between 17 and 18 years of age during the month of August, 1992. May be in cases where there is no other cogent and clinching evidence one has to fall back upon the medical certificates regarding the age. But here is a case where there is clinching document i.e., the certificate of birth of R-4 issued by the Registrar of Births, a statutory authority. It is also needless to mention that the statutory authorities maintain the Birth Register as also the Death Register in accordance with the provisions of the Act and rules made thereunder and such an official act carries a statutory presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. Nothing is produced in the instant case to rebut the said statutory presumption and the entry in the School Register mentioning the age of R-4 as 20-8-1975 cannot come in aid to rebut the statutory presumption attached to the certificate issued by the Registrar of Births basing on the duly maintained register in that regard. It is also pertinent to mention that whenever a conflict arises as regards the age of a particular person the certificate issued by the Registrar of Births is taken as more authentic and conclusive rather than a mere and self serving statement of date of birth while admitting the students in the School. For several reasons the age of the students will be stated as less keeping in view the future prospects and also anticipating the chances of failure of the students in one class or the other. Such instances are not uncommon. In any event of the matter having regard to the material on record it is safe to accept the date of birth of R-4 as 1-2-1975 even as stated and admitted by her father, who in fact has filed the said certificate to contradict the earlier medical certificate that R-4 was a major.
8. In the circumstances I hold that the date of birth of R-4 as 1-2-1975 and if that be so, under the provisions of Indian Majority Act she has attained majority on the completion of 18 years i.e., on 1-2-1993. R-4 is now a major and is a free citizen. She is entitled to think herself and act accordingly. There is no material to say that she is a wayward or that she is mentally imbalanced. I found her to be well-built physically and sound mentally to take decisions on her own and has got sufficient maturity to know what is right and what is wrong. She may not be more educated but has studied upto intermediate and in no unmistakble terms and emphatically she states that she is deeply in love with the writ petitioner and she will only marry him and none else and the writ petitioner also responds to the same. If that is the situation there is no law which authorises to hold up the custody of R-4 with any custody Home, be it Governmental or otherwise for two more years as was pleaded by K. Ramachandra Rao, the father of Miss K. Annapurna-respondent No. 4 herein. R-4 has got a fundamental right to life and liberty which are the precious and cherished rights embodied under Part III of our Indian Constitution and I have got no alternative excepting ordering the release of R-4. She is dead-against joining her parents and is very anxious to join the writ petitioner and marry him immediately. If that is the situation the law of the land do not restrict the said love birds -writ petitioner and R-4 to unite themselves by a marital lock. The third respondent is directed to release Miss K. Annapurna – respondent No. 4 herein, tomorrow i.e., on 4-2-1993 and if she wants to marry the writ petitioner, I direct that no restriction be placed on her (respondent No. 4-K. Annapurna) wish in doing so. Before parting with the case, I am thankful for the assistance given to me to adjudicate this matter by viz., learned senior counsel Ms. C. Suseela Devi and Mr. T. Bali Reddy.
9. The writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. No order as to costs.