The Andhra Pradesh High Court has affirmed that a minor’s autonomous expression, even in contentious familial contexts, must be central to any custody determination under Article 226. This judgment redefines the balance between parental rights and a child’s right to dignity and self-determination under the Constitution.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Thageeru Manjula, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking the production of her minor daughter, Thageeru Keerthi, before the Court and her release from alleged illegal custody. The petitioner alleged that Keerthi, aged 17, was kidnapped on 9 December 2025 by Eruvaram Chandu, the seventh respondent, after being forcibly married to her maternal uncle on 9 November 2025. Despite lodging a police complaint, the petitioner claimed no effective action was taken to locate her daughter.
Procedural History
9 November 2025: Keerthi was married to her maternal uncle, Hemasekhar, by her parents.
9 December 2025: Keerthi left home and married Eruvaram Chandu at Vakulamatha Temple, allegedly with mutual consent.
December 2025: Petitioner lodged FIR; police allegedly failed to act.
8 January 2026: High Court directed production of Keerthi.
21 January 2026: Keerthi appeared before the Court in chambers, accompanied by police officials.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus to compel production of Keerthi and her return to parental custody. The petitioner also sought to implead Keerthi as a respondent under Section 151 CPC.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a minor’s voluntary expression of desire to live with a person of her choice, despite parental opposition and prior forced marriage, can override the legal presumption of parental custody under Indian law.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that Keerthi was a minor and her natural guardians - her parents - had an absolute right to her custody under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890. They contended that her alleged marriage to Chandu was void ab initio, as she was underage, and that her departure from home constituted abduction. The petitioner relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal to assert that courts must protect minors from exploitation, even if the minor appears to consent.
For the Respondent
The Advocate General acknowledged the factual complexity but did not contest Keerthi’s assertion of majority. The State did not oppose the Court’s proposal to place her in a One Stop Centre, emphasizing that the welfare of the child must be paramount under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The State argued that forcing a minor to return to an environment she perceives as hostile could violate her fundamental rights under Article 21.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a two-pronged analysis: first, on the issue of age, and second, on the legal implications of a minor’s autonomy.
On age, the Court examined conflicting documents: the petitioner’s birth certificate (08.05.2008) versus Keerthi’s school records and Aadhaar card (08.05.2007). The Court held that entries in statutory birth registers, made by public officers in discharge of official duty, carry a presumption of genuineness under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, as affirmed in CIDCO v. Vasudha Gorakhnath Mandevlekar and Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit. The Court concluded that Keerthi was a minor until 8 May 2026.
"The presumption of correctness attached to entries in statutory registers prevails over school records, particularly in the absence of proof that the latter were recorded at the instance of the guardian."
On custody, the Court rejected the notion that parental authority is absolute. It recognized that while parents are natural guardians, the child’s right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 includes the right to be free from coercive familial control. The Court emphasized that forcing a minor to return to a home she believes threatens her life would violate her dignity and autonomy.
The Court further clarified that while Keerthi’s marriage to Chandu was legally void due to her minority, her expressed desire to live with him could not be dismissed as mere rebellion. The Court declined to validate or invalidate either marriage, stating that such determination must await her attainment of majority.
The Verdict
The petitioner’s request for custody was denied. The Court held that a minor’s voluntary refusal to return to parental custody, especially under perceived threat, cannot be overridden by parental rights alone. Keerthi was placed in the custody of the One Stop Centre, Tirupati, until she attains majority on 8 May 2026. Thereafter, she is free to choose her residence and ratify any marriage.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Custody Decisions Must Prioritize the Minor’s Voice
Practitioners must now treat a minor’s expressed wishes as a decisive factor in habeas corpus and custody matters, even when parents claim legal entitlement.
Courts cannot mechanically enforce parental custody without evaluating the child’s psychological and physical safety.
Failure to consider the child’s perspective may constitute a violation of Article 21 and the principle of best interests of the child under the Juvenile Justice Act.
One Stop Centres Are Now De Facto Safe Havens for At-Risk Minors
The Court’s directive to place Keerthi in a One Stop Centre establishes a precedent for interim protection in cases of familial conflict.
Legal practitioners should routinely seek placement in such centres when minors allege coercion, forced marriage, or threats to life.
Child Welfare Committees must be notified immediately in such cases, as mandated by the judgment.
Marriage Validity Is Deferred Until Majority
Courts will not adjudicate the validity of marriages involving minors until they attain majority.
Minors may ratify or repudiate such unions upon turning 18, making it imperative to preserve evidence and maintain custody records.
Lawyers should advise clients to avoid initiating civil or criminal proceedings against minors for marriage-related matters before they reach majority.
