The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, after hearing arguments on admission, granted interim protection to Monalisa Bhosle and Farman Khan in WP No. 18924 of 2026. The bench, presided over by Justice Gajendra Singh, observed that, considering the submissions of counsel for the parties present, no coercive action against the petitioners pursuant to the FIR registered at Police Station Maheshwar, District Khargone be initiated till the next date of hearing.
The petitioners contend that Monalisa Bhosle’s birth certificate was manipulated to portraying to criminalise their interfaith marriage. They allege that the National Commissioner for Scheduled Tribes asserted that Bhosle was a minor, aged sixteen years, at the time of the marriage in March 2026, and that a forged birth certificate was used to facilitate the wedding. Consequently, a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act was registered against Farman Khan.
The petition further claims that Bhosle’s father conspired to alter her birth records with the intention of criminalising the marriage and subsequently lodged an FIR for kidnapping. In response to the impending arrest, the couple first approached the Kerala High Court seeking a stay on any coercive measures. The Kerala High Court granted an interim stay and later provided transit bail to Farman Khan to enable him to seek bail before the competent court in Madhya Pradesh.
Thereafter, Farman Khan filed an application for anticipatory bail before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The court denied the anticipatory bail plea, holding that the dispute over the wife’s date of birth is a subject matter of trial and cannot be entertained at the anticipatory bail stage. The order noted that the question of whether the birth certificate is genuine or forged must be resolved through evidence during the trial.
Subsequent to the Kerala High Court’s interim protection, that court vacated its order after being informed that the police were unable to trace or locate the petitioner using the contact number or address supplied in the petition. The Kerala High Court’s decision to withdraw protection was based on the inability of authorities to effectuate service or locate the parties concerned.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s interim order restrains any arrest, detention or coercive steps by the police in relation to the FIR at Maheshwar Police Station until the matter is taken up for further hearing. The relief is intended to preserve the status quo while the allegations concerning the authenticity of Monalisa Bhosle’s birth certificate and the consequent charges under the POCSO Act are examined.
Counsel for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Vivek Krishna Tankh along with Advocate Jerry Lopes, argued that the FIR is mala fide and aimed at thwarting a lawful interfaith union. The State, represented by Additional Advocate General Rahul Sethi and Government Advocate Sunit Kapoor, maintained that the allegations require investigation and that interim protection could impede the probe.
The court, while granting the interim protection, did not express any opinion on the merits of the allegations or the validity of the birth certificate. It limited its order to a directive restraining coercive action, leaving the substantive questions to be determined at trial.
The next date of hearing has not been specified in the order, but the protection remains operative until the court revisits the matter. The parties are directed to appear before the court on the scheduled date for further arguments on the maintainability of the petition and the relief sought.