Monalisa, who rose to prominence online during the Kumbh Mela and came to be known as the “Mahakumbh viral girl,” is back in the spotlight after authorities confirmed she was a minor when she got married earlier this year.

Police in Madhya Pradesh’s Khargone district have registered a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act against her husband, Farman. He has also been charged under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) relating to criminal conspiracy and child marriage, along with sections of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

According to official hospital documentation reviewed during the inquiry, Monalisa was born on December 30, 2009. This would make her just over 16 years old at the time of her marriage on March 11. The age determination was confirmed by the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST), which examined the records as part of its intervention in the matter.

Monalisa, who belongs to the Pardhi tribal community, first gained attention during the Kumbh Mela in Prayagraj, where she was seen selling rudraksha garlands. A video recorded by a content creator spread rapidly across social media platforms, transforming her into an overnight internet sensation.

Investigation and Alleged Document Forgery

The inquiry into the marriage began in Kerala, where the ceremony took place at the Nainar Deva Temple. Temple officials reportedly told investigators that the couple’s ages were verified using Aadhaar cards submitted at the time of the wedding.

However, the marriage was later registered at a Gram Panchayat office using a birth certificate that investigators have described as fabricated. The certificate, purportedly issued by the Maheshwar Municipality, listed Monalisa’s birth date as January 1, 2008 — nearly two years earlier than the date reflected in government hospital records.

Authorities have been directed to revoke the disputed birth certificate.

Political Allegations and Commission Action

The National Commission for Scheduled Tribes has also taken note of claims suggesting the involvement of certain political figures and organisations in facilitating the marriage. Advocate Pratham Dubey, who raised the matter before the Commission on March 17, alleged that leaders associated with the CPI(M) in Kerala and members of the Popular Front of India played a role in the events leading up to the wedding.

He further contended that the marriage was orchestrated to create a counter-discourse around the controversial “Love Jihad” narrative.

In response, the Commission has summoned the Directors General of Police from both Kerala and Madhya Pradesh to appear before it in New Delhi on April 22. It has also instructed both state police chiefs to submit status reports every three days until the case reaches a conclusion.