MP HC sets aside order changing Mahakumbh-fame Monalisa’s date of birth

Indore: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted relief to a young woman who shot to fame during the 2025 Mahakumbh in Prayagraj, setting aside an order by a municipal officer that changed her date of birth.

The Indore bench directed the Chief Municipal Officer (CMO) of Maheshwar town in Khargone district to reconsider, in accordance with the law, an application filed by the woman’s father seeking a change in her date of birth, after giving her an opportunity to be heard.

Justice Gajendra Singh, while disposing of a writ petition filed by the woman and her husband, said on Wednesday that she had not been informed about the application submitted by her father seeking a change in her date of birth and had not been given an opportunity to present her case.

After considering the facts of the case, the court said the woman was not informed about her father’s application for correction of her date of birth and was not given an opportunity to be heard, resulting in a violation of the principle of natural justice.

The court accordingly set aside Order No. 405/Na.Pa./2026 dated March 31, 2026, passed by the CMO, Maheshwar, Khargone district, which had corrected the woman’s date of birth by cancelling the entry dated June 5, 2025. The CMO had exercised the 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 Rules, 2024.

The High Court directed the Maheshwar CMO to reconsider the application filed by the woman’s father after giving her a proper opportunity to be heard and to decide it in accordance with the law.

The woman shot to overnight social media fame after a video of her selling ‘rudraksha’ garlands at the Prayagraj Mahakumbh Mela went viral because of her striking features.

She and her husband had approached the High Court seeking relief over the cancellation of her original birth certificate by the Maheshwar Municipal Council.

According to their petition, the couple married in an interfaith ceremony in March 2026, following which the woman’s original birth certificate was cancelled without following the prescribed legal process. An FIR was subsequently registered against her husband at Maheshwar police station on the basis of a complaint filed by her father.

The FIR was registered under Sections 137(2) (kidnapping), 81 (fraudulent marriage or sexual intercourse by providing false assurance of marriage), 83 (enticing a minor girl by taking her away) and 87 (kidnapping or abduction) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), as well as provisions relating to child marriage.

The case was also registered under Section 9 (Child Marriage by an Adult Male) of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and relevant provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The woman belongs to a tribal community.

The petition said the couple got married at a temple in Kerala on March 11, 2026.

It alleged that the woman’s family opposed the relationship after the marriage and had her original birth certificate cancelled without following the legal procedure required to establish that she was a minor at the time of the marriage.

According to the petition, the woman’s date of birth is January 1, 2008. The same date is recorded in her birth certificate issued by the Maheshwar Nagar Panchayat, as well as in her Aadhaar card, PAN card and other government documents.

The couple alleged that an FIR was registered against the woman’s husband on the basis of altered records and that their interfaith marriage was given a communal twist by linking it to ‘love jihad’, posing a threat to their safety.

Lawyers representing the state government and the woman’s father opposed the petition filed by the couple.

They argued that the woman’s actual date of birth, according to the maternity register maintained at the Maheshwar Community Health Centre, is December 30, 2009, which would mean she was a minor at the time of the marriage.

The lawyers submitted that the woman’s earlier birth certificate had been issued solely on the basis of a presumed affidavit from her parents and was subsequently amended in accordance with the applicable regulations after the actual hospital records were obtained.

They also argued that the matter involved a serious dispute over facts that could not be adjudicated through a petition filed by the couple under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue directions, orders or writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights.

Senior advocate Vivek Krishna Tankha appeared for the woman and her husband.