Full Breakdown
Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside Municipal Order Changing Monalisa Bhosle’s Birth Date
By Drooid · · How we work
Background & Context
Monalisa Bhosle gained attention after videos of her selling rudraksha beads at the 2025 Maha Kumbh Mela went viral, leading to film offers and a large social-media following. In March 2026 she married co-actor Farman Khan in Kerala, an interfaith union opposed by her family. Her father then approached the Block Medical Officer at Maheshwar Community Health Centre, claiming Bhosle was born on December 30 2009, not the January 1 2008 date on her birth certificate issued on June 5 2025. The municipal authority cancelled the original entry and recorded the later date, which would have made Bhosle 16 rather than 18 at the time of her marriage, potentially exposing her husband to prosecution under the POCSO Act.
Timeline
- May 30 2025 – Mother’s affidavit stating a home birth on January 1 2008.
- June 5 2025 – Birth certificate issued with the January 1 2008 date.
- May 28 2015 – Aadhaar card records the January 1 2008 date.
- January 10 2026 – PAN card reflects the January 1 2008 date.
- March 11 2026 – Bhosle and Khan marry; the corrected birth date would render her a minor.
- March 31 – Maheshwar Chief Municipal Officer orders cancellation of the original entry and records December 30 2009.
- Wednesday (date not specified) – Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court quashes the March 31 order and directs a fresh hearing.
Data & Statistics
- Two competing birth dates: January 1 2008 (certificate, Aadhaar, PAN, voter ID) vs. December 30 2009 (hospital register cited by the father).
- The correction would shift Bhosle’s legal age by nearly two years, affecting voting eligibility, contract capacity, financial autonomy, and marital choice.
- No school record exists to resolve the dispute.
Official Statements & Responses
The court held that the municipal authority’s failure to give Bhosle a personal hearing violated *audi alteram partem* and directed the Chief Municipal Officer to reconsider the father’s application after affording Bhosle a hearing.
The state, represented by Additional Solicitor General S. V. Raju, argued that the Madhya Pradesh Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2024 required notice only to the person who originally supplied the birth information—Bhosle’s father. The High Court rejected this, stating the affected individual must be heard.
Senior Advocate Vivek Krishna Tankha, appearing for Bhosle, asserted that the birth-certificate change was intended to portray her as a minor and facilitate a criminal case against her husband.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
The court did not determine which birth date is correct, noting the absence of school records and that the notification of the change was sent solely to Bhosle’s father. Both the municipal authority’s justification (hospital register as stronger evidence) and Bhosle’s claim (possible manipulation of her younger brother’s records) remain unadjudicated.
Verbatim Quotes
- “It is, thus, trite that any action prejudicial to a citizen, which is taken by the State or public authority without affording him an opportunity of being heard, would be unfair and arbitrary,” — Justice Gajendra Singh
What’s Next
The High Court ordered the Maheshwar municipal authority to re-examine the father’s application after providing Bhosle a comprehensive hearing. The validity of Bhosle’s marriage and the criminal proceedings against Khan will be addressed in separate legal forums.