The welfare of the child and the rights of single parents in cases of adoption were emphasized by the court in allowing the change of the father's name in the petitioner's passport.

Manmohan, J.

1. Present writ petition has been filed directing the respondent No.2 to issue Passport to the petitioner carrying the name of her stepfather in the column of father’s name.

2. Issue notice. Mr. Vivek Goyal, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner states that respondents have objected to change of petitioner’s father name on the ground that the birth certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation bears the name of the petitioner’s biological father, while her other documents i.e. Marriage Certificate, Election Card, Permanent Account Number, Aadhar Card, School Certificate etc. bear her stepfather’s name.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner states that petitioner would not like her biological father’s name to be reflected in the column of the father as the petitioner was born after the biological father had deserted the petitioner’s mother. She also states that the parents of the biological father turned out the petitioner and her mother from the matrimonial home soon after her birth.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner states that if the name of stepfather is not reflected in the Passport, it is likely to cause confusion and further complication everywhere including in petitioner’s career and job.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner lastly states that petitioner has no knowledge regarding the biological father and she is not even aware as to whether the biological father is alive or dead.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents states that para 4(II) of the Chapter of Passport Manual, 2010, provides that the name of step parent can replace the name of the father/mother in the passport of the step child, only in the event of death of biological father/mother.

8. In the opinion of this Court, the issue raised in the present writ petition is no longer res integra. Consequently, this Court does not deem it appropriate to give an opportunity to the respondents to file their counter affidavit. The Supreme Court in ABC Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) in Civil Appeal No.5003 of 2015 has held as under:-

“19. We are greatly perturbed by the fact that the Appellant has not obtained a Birth Certificate for her son who is nearly five years old. This is bound to create problems for the child in the future. In this regard, the Appellant has not sought any relief either before us or before any of the Courts below. It is a misplaced assumption in the law as it is presently perceived that the issuance of a Birth Certificate would be a logical corollary to the Appellant succeeding in her guardianship petition. It may be recalled that owing to curial fiat, it is no longer necessary to state the name of the father in applications seeking admission of children to school, as well as for obtaining a passport for a minor child. However, in both these cases, it may still remain necessary to furnish a Birth Certificate. The law is dynamic and is expected to diligently keep pace with time and the legal conundrums and enigmas it presents. There is no gainsaying that the identity of the mother is never in doubt. Accordingly, we direct that if a single parent/unwed mother applies for the issuance of a Birth Certificate for a child born from her womb, the Authorities concerned may only require her to furnish an affidavit to this effect, and must thereupon issue the Birth Certificate, unless there is a Court direction to the contrary. Trite though it is, yet we emphasise that it is the responsibility of the State to ensure that no citizen suffers any inconvenience or disadvantage merely because the parents fail or neglect to register the birth. Nay, it is the duty of the State to take requisite steps for recording every birth of every citizen. To remove any possible doubt, the direction pertaining to issuance of the Birth Certificate is intendedly not restricted to the circumstances or the parties before us.”

9. On 11th May, 2012, a Division Bench of this Court in Ms. Teesta Chattoraj