The Kerala High Court reserved orders on the anticipatory bail plea of social media personality Monalisa Bhosle and her husband Mohammed Farmaan Khan, while orally observing that the couple was fortunate to be in Kerala amid alleged threats arising from their interfaith marriage in Madhya Pradesh.
The Kerala High Court reserved its verdict on the anticipatory bail application filed by social media personality Monalisa Bhosle and her husband Mohammed Farmaan Khan, who are facing criminal proceedings arising out of allegations that Bhosle was kidnapped and that their marriage is legally invalid.
Justice Kauser Edappagath heard extensive submissions from both sides before indicating that an order is likely to be pronounced on June 3. The matter has attracted significant public attention due to the couple’s widely publicised interfaith marriage and the controversy surrounding Bhosle’s age at the time of the wedding.
During the course of the hearing, Justice Edappagath orally observed that the couple appeared fortunate to currently be residing in Kerala considering the threats they allegedly face in their home State of Madhya Pradesh over their interfaith marriage.
Advocate M Sasindran, appearing for the couple, argued that both fundamentalist groups and State authorities were attempting to challenge the marriage by falsely portraying Monalisa Bhosle as a minor. According to the counsel, Bhosle had already attained the age of majority when she married Khan and subsequent attempts were made to manipulate official records in order to create a contrary narrative.
Sasindran said,
“My basic submission is that the entire State machinery has been set in motion against the petitioners to portray the second petitioner as a minor. The entire State machinery and fundamentalist groups are behind us,”
Justice Edappagath remarked,
“Lucky that you are in Kerala,”
Sasindran replied,
“Yes, and that is the only reason why we are alive now,”
Opposing the anticipatory bail plea, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the Madhya Pradesh government, argued that the marriage itself was legally unsustainable. The ASG submitted that the ceremony was conducted in a Hindu temple despite one of the parties, Farmaan Khan, being a Muslim.
He said,
“This marriage took place in a Hindu temple. Under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, a marriage can be solemnised between two Hindus. One party here is Muslim. Therefore, it is not a valid Hindu marriage,”
The State further alleged that the marriage certificate was procured on the basis of allegedly forged documents and that additional criminal charges relating to forgery may soon be incorporated into the kidnapping case already registered against Khan.
He submitted,
“There is prima facie material to show that a false birth certificate was obtained (by Khan). The marriage certificate subsequently obtained on the basis of that birth certificate, amounts to deceiving authorities into registering the marriage,”
A central issue before the Court concerns Monalisa Bhosle’s age at the time of marriage. The Madhya Pradesh government maintained that Bhosle’s actual date of birth falls in December 2009, which would make her a minor at the time of the marriage solemnised on March 11, 2026.
According to the State, she was therefore legally incapable of entering into a valid marriage. The Madhya Pradesh government argued before the Kerala High Court that if Monalisa Bhosle was indeed a minor, then her cohabitation with Mohammed Farmaan Khan was based on the belief that their marriage was legally valid. ASG SV Raju contended that this could have legal implications.
However, Justice Kauser Edappagath questioned the State’s position, noting that the alleged victim herself had never accused Khan of any wrongdoing. When the ASG maintained that he was only presenting facts, the Court observed that the absence of any complaint from Monalisa appeared inconsistent with the State’s allegations, highlighting a key issue in the ongoing dispute over her age and the validity of the marriage.
The Court before reserving its verdict remarked,
“I am clearing my doubt. I am asking you a question. You say you are pointing out a fact, but that fact doesn’t appear to be correct because the victim has no complaint,”
The High Court had earlier granted interim protection from arrest to the couple after prima facie observing that their marriage appeared to have been legally solemnised and that they were living together as husband and wife. The interim order protected them from coercive action while the Court examined competing claims regarding the legality of the marriage and Bhosle’s age.
Monalisa Bhosle became widely known during the 2025 Kumbh Mela after videos showing her selling prayer beads and religious items gained enormous popularity on social media platforms. Her sudden rise to internet fame brought national attention, and news of her subsequent marriage to Mohammed Farmaan Khan in Kerala was extensively covered by the media.
However, controversy erupted shortly thereafter when allegations surfaced claiming that Bhosle was only 16 years old when the marriage took place. The allegations raised questions regarding the legality of the marriage and whether provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) could potentially be attracted.
The dispute intensified when Bhosle’s father lodged a kidnapping complaint with police authorities in Madhya Pradesh. Apprehending arrest in connection with the FIR, the couple approached the Kerala High Court seeking anticipatory bail. They denied all allegations and asserted that Monalisa was legally an adult at the time of marriage.
The State of Madhya Pradesh objected to the maintainability of the plea, arguing that the FIR had been registered in Madhya Pradesh and that the petitioners ought to have sought anticipatory bail before a competent court in that State. The couple, however, contended that they feared threats to their safety if they returned to Madhya Pradesh and therefore approached the Kerala High Court for protection.
Apart from the anticipatory bail proceedings before the Kerala High Court, several related legal disputes are currently pending before different courts.
A private complaint has been filed before a POCSO court in Thiruvananthapuram seeking action not only against Farmaan Khan but also against several political figures, including CPI(M) leaders MV Govindan, V Sivankutty and Rajya Sabha MP AA Rahim, alleging their involvement in facilitating the marriage.
The trial court has sought a report from the Madhya Pradesh Police regarding the ongoing investigation into allegations concerning Monalisa’s age. Additionally, the couple has moved the Madhya Pradesh High Court through a writ petition alleging that official records relating to Monalisa Bhosle’s age were tampered with in an attempt to falsely establish that she was a minor.
With arguments from all sides now concluded, the Kerala High Court has reserved its judgment on the anticipatory bail plea.
The forthcoming order is expected to address not only the immediate question of protection from arrest but may also have significant implications for the broader dispute concerning the validity of the marriage, the age determination controversy, and the criminal proceedings currently underway in multiple jurisdictions.
Monalisa Bhosle and Mohammed Farmaan Khan were represented before the Court by Advocates M Sasindran, Satheeshan Alakkadan and Mrinal Chand M, while Additional Solicitor General SV Raju and Special Prosecutor V Sajith Kumar appeared for the State of Madhya Pradesh.
