Kumbh Mela fame Monalisa, husband move MP High Court alleging State tampered with her age records

Kumbh viral girl Monalisa Bhosale and her husband Mohd Farmaan Khan have approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking intervention against an alleged fabricated criminal case and a coordinated attempt to invalidate their marriage by falsely portraying her as a minor [Monalisa Bhosle & Anr. v State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.]

Monalise Bhosle rose to fame for her striking appearance after videos of her selling beads at the 2025 Kumbh Mela went viral last year.

She married Farmaan on March 11 this year in Kerala. The event was widely publicised in the media. The couple claim to have met during a shoot of a Malayalam film and fell in love with each other, before getting married.

Their inter-faith marriage, however, has since drawn controversy with some sections asserting that Monalisa is only 16 years old and, therefore, has not attained the legal age to marry.

An inquiry was reportedly launched into the matter by the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) and concerns were raised about whether the marriage was illegal and whether charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) would be applicable.

The couple has now claimed in their petition that the dispute over Monalisa’s age was deliberately manipulated after their marriage.

As per the plea, Bhosle she was born on January 1, 2008, attained majority in January 2026, and voluntarily married Farmaan thereafter.

However, after the marriage, her family allegedly orchestrated the alteration of official records to reflect her birth year as 2009, thereby portraying her as a minor.

The petition contends that this alleged manipulation formed the basis of a criminal case registered in Madhya Pradesh in which Farmaan has been accused on the premise that she is a minor. It characterises the first incident report (FIR) as a “counterblast” to the marriage and an abuse of the criminal process.

"The Petitioners are presently under constant apprehension of coercive action, illegal detention, harassment and interference with their personal liberty,” further submits the petition.

The petition has sought restoration of Monalisa’s original birth records, which it claims were unlawfully cancelled or altered on government portals.

The petitioners have urged the Court to recognise the 2008 date of birth as the correct one as the same is reflected in multiple identity documents, including Aadhaar, PAN card, voter ID and birth certificate and were also verified by Kerala police prior to the marriage.

The plea has also sought directions for an independent and fair investigation into the alleged forgery of public documents and misuse of state machinery. It also calls for an inquiry into the role of a family member in influencing authorities and initiating criminal proceedings based on altered records.

The couple has also sought protection from arrest and other coercive steps, arguing that the criminal process was being used to harass them and disrupt their marital life.

They claim that despite residing in Kerala after their marriage, they have faced sustained pressure, including repeated visits by Madhya Pradesh police and questioning of persons associated with them, creating an atmosphere of fear.

“Owing to the continuing threats, intimidation and hostile circumstances, the Petitioners have been constrained to frequently change their place of residence within the State of Kerala and are unable to peacefully reside or carry on their professional and personal lives,” submits the plea.

As per the plea, Bhosle is an adult woman has the right to choose her partner and that such choice cannot be curtailed and that family opposition cannot justify police action.

The marriage has been communalised and labelled as “Love Jihad”, leading to public vilification of Farmaan, the plea has claimed.

The plea was filed through advocates Subhash Chandran and Anirudh KP.

The Kerala High Court had earlier granted interim protection from arrest to the couple in March in connection with the Madhya Pradesh case.

The protection was later extended till May 20, with the Court awaiting a response from Madhya Pradesh Police on the status of the investigation.