Indore, The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Wednesday granted relief to a young woman, who made headlines during the 2025 Mahakumbh in Prayagraj, by quashing the Chief Municipal Officer’s order altering her date of birth.
The court, after considering the facts of the case, said, “In light of the above, petitioner no.1 was not intimated regarding the application of respondent no.3/ father for correction of date of birth and she was not provided any opportunity of being heard resulting in violation of principle of natural justice. Accordingly, the order No.405/Na.Pa./2026 dated 31.03.2026 passed by CMO, Maheshwar, District Khargone correcting the date of birth of petitioner no.1 by cancelling the entry dated 05.06.2025 in exercise of power under Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 read with Rule 11 of the Madhya Pradesh Registration of Births and Deaths Deaths Rules, 2024, is liable to be and is hereby set aside. 5 is directed to decide the application of respondent no. 3/ father of petitioner no. 1 after affording the petitioner no. 1 the opportunity of effective hearing as per the law,” it said. The petition stated that after the couple’s interfaith marriage in March 2026, the woman’s original birth certificate was cancelled without following the legal process. The FIR was filed under sections 137 , 81 , 83 and 87 , and child marriage of the BNS. The case was also registered under Section 9 of the Prohibition of Marriage Act and relevant provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act .
The HC’s Indore bench directed the CMO of Maheshwar town in Khargone district to decide afresh in accordance with the law on the application filed by the woman’s father for a change in her date of birth, after giving her an opportunity to be heard. Respondent no. The couple had filed a petition seeking relief regarding the cancellation of the woman’s original birth certificate by the Maheshwar Municipal Council. Following this, an FIR was registered against the woman’s husband at the Maheshwar police station on a complaint of her father.
Justice Gajendra Singh, while disposing of the writ petition filed by the woman and her husband, said she was not informed about the application filed by her father for a change in her date of birth and not given an opportunity to be heard.
The petition alleges that after the marriage, the woman’s family opposed the relationship and had her original birth certificate cancelled without following legal procedures to prove she was a minor at the time of the wedding. The couple alleged that an FIR was filed against the woman’s husband based on altered records, and their interfaith marriage was given a communal twist by linking it to ‘love jihad,’ posing a threat to their safety. Lawyers for the state government and the woman’s father objected to the couple’s petition. Senior advocate Vivek Krishna Tankha appeared for the woman and her husband. The woman shot to overnight social media fame after a video of her selling ‘rudraksha’ garlands at the Prayagraj Mahakumbh Mela went viral for her striking features. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
The couple married in a temple in Keralam on March 11, 2026, according to the petition. The petition states that the woman’s actual date of birth is January 1, 2008, and this date is also recorded in her birth certificate issued by the Maheshwar Nagar Panchayat, as well as her Aadhaar card, PAN card, and other government documents. They argued that the woman’s actual date of birth, according to the maternity register at the Maheshwar Community Health Centre, is December 30, 2009, which clearly indicates that she was a minor at the time of marriage. They stated that the case involves a serious dispute of facts that cannot be resolved through a petition filed by the couple under Article 226 of the Constitution. Article 226 empowers every HC to issue directions, orders, or writs or enforcing fundamental rights.
The lawyers stated that the woman’s previously issued birth certificate was based solely on a presumed affidavit from her parents and was amended in accordance with regulations after receiving the actual hospital records.
