Decided in Favour of :
Petitioner
Petition Allowed

C.K. Buch, J.—Rule. Mr. Vinay Pandya, learned AGP and Mr. D.G. Nanavati, learned Counsel waive service of rule on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to 4 respectively.

2. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for appropriate writ, order or direction to be issued to Respondent No. 3 authority or Vadodara Municipal Corporation to correct the name in the Birth Certificate of adoptive one year old baby from “Surbhi” to “Rene”.

3. It is contended by the Petitioner that the child was born at the Home for women protection. It is, therefore, obvious that, either the name of the mother or father would not be intimated to the Corporation about the birth of the child. The Administrators managing the affairs of the protection home tentatively arranged to enter her name as “Surbhi” in the Birth Certificate of the Vadodara Municipal Corporation on 09.10.2006. There is no dispute as to the date of birth, i.e. 26.09.2006, and accordingly the Birth Certificate was issued by respondent Corporation. Since the petitioner was not having any child, the petitioner and his wife, Bhargaviben showed their willingness to adopt one year old baby “Surbhi” from State Home for Women, Vadodara. After necessary formalities, the child was ordered to be handed over to the petitioner by order dated 09.08.2007 passed by the Principal District Judge, Vadodara, passed under Section 9(4) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 which is at Annexure. B at Page No. 13 of the petition and the Certificate of Guardianship was also granted on 27.08.2007, which is at Annexure. C at page No. 18 to the petition. The formal deed of adoption has been executed by the Suprintendent of State Home for Women, Nizampura, Vadodara.

3.1 Later on, the parents wanted to change the name of the baby child “Surbhi” to “Rene”. Considering the nature of relief prayed for by the petitioner in the present petition, it appears to be genuine. It is relevant to refer to the portion which is quoted in the Adoption Deed, which is reproduced at page Nos. 20-21 as under:

“NOW, THEREFORE, THIS DEED OF ADOPTION WITNESSED that the opponent gave the child named “Surbhi @ Rene” in adoption to the applicants and the applicants have accepted and took the said child in adoption as their own child. That the ceremony thus of giving and taking in adoption has been duly performed in respect of adoption of child “Surbhi @ Rene” and now the applicants are the adoptive father and mother respectively of child “Surbhi @ Rene”.

NOW THIS DEED WITNESSES THAT and the parties do hereby declare that child “Surbhi @ Rene” has been duly adopted by the applicants would have all the legal rights legally as adopted daughter of the applicants.

It is HEREBY DECLARE THAT the said child “Surbhi @ Rene” will get the name of Applicant No.1 Soham Sanatbhai Shukla as her father and she will be named and called as Surbhi @ Rene Sohambhai Shukla, and she will now acquire all the legal rights in the family of the applicants as their own child”.

3.2 It is submitted by Mr. Modi, learned Counsel that after completing all the legal formalities, the petitioner decided to substitute the name of the child in the Birth and Death Register and, therefore, necessary correction was required to be made in the Register. The learned Principal District Judge, Vadodara has already passed order directing the respondent Corporation to enter the name of the child.

3.3 Mr. Modi has further submitted that in similar fact situation, this Court (Coram : D.N. Patel, J.) while dealing with such issue, in Special Civil Application No. 6227 of 2007 decided on 15.03.2007, after referring to Section 15 of the Register of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 has observed that it is possible to correct or cancel the entry in the Register of Births and Deaths. Section 15 of the said Act reads as under:

“Section 15. Correction or cancellation of entry in the register of births and deaths. If it is proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar that any entry of a birth o