SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Guj) 936

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BIREN VAISHNAV, J.
Kiritkumar Arvindbhai Pandya – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat & others – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 4440 of 2017
Decided on : 15-11-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR M T SAIYAD
For the Respondent: MS SHRUNJAL SHAH, MR MEHUL SHARAD SHAH

The main legal point established is that the Registrar has the authority to correct birth entries under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, and compliance with adoption provisions for registered adoption deeds can be presumed under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The biological father's consent is not required for amending the birth certificate based on adoption.

Headnote:

BIRTH CERTIFICATE - AMENDMENT - Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 - The court allowed the petition to change the name of the father in the birth certificate based on the adoption deed and the cancellation of circulars requiring a court order for adoption. The court referred to Sections 14 and 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, which empower the Registrar to correct birth entries. It also cited Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, which presumes compliance with adoption provisions for registered adoption deeds. The court emphasized that the biological father's consent was not required for the amendment.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought to change the father's name on the birth certificate due to adoption by the mother's new husband. The respondent refused the amendment, citing circulars requiring a court order for adoption.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the circulars requiring a court order for adoption were canceled, and the Registrar had the authority to correct birth entries under Sections 14 and 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. The court also emphasized the presumption of compliance with adoption provisions for registered adoption deeds under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The court held that the biological father's consent was not required for the amendment.

Issues: The issues involved the refusal of the amendment based on canceled circulars and the requirement of the biological father's consent for the amendment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the cancellation of circulars requiring a court order for adoption, the authority of the Registrar to correct birth entries, and the presumption of compliance with adoption provisions for registered adoption deeds. The court emphasized that the biological father's consent was not required for the amendment.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petition to change the father's name on the birth certificate and directed the respondents to issue a fresh certificate within a specified period.

ORDER :

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Shrunjal Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.1 while Mr. Dharma Raval, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.2.

2. With consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. M.T. Saiyad for the petitioner, Ms. Shrunjal Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State and Mr. Dharma Raval, learned advocate appearing for Mr. Mehul S. Shah, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the record.

4. The prayer in this petition is to issue necessary amended birth certificate by changing the name of the father of the petitioner from “Ajaybhai Harivadanbhai Jadav” to “Arvindkumar Kantilal Pandya.” This prayer is made in light of the fact that, the father and the mother of the petitioner had decided to separate. The petitioner was residing with his mother Hemlataben who later on married to Mr. Arvindkumar Kantilal Pandya. The petitioner was adopted by way of an adoption deed by Mr. Arvindkumar Kantilal Pandya.

5. In light of the decision dated 15.06.2022 passed in Special Civil Application No.15757 of 2021 in the case of Chhayaben @ Hetalben Atulbhai Asodariya v. The Registrar of Birth and Death/Chief Officer, the petition needs to be allowed. Order dated 15.06.2022 reads as under:

    “1. By way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, being guardians of their minor son 'Devam', are seeking a direction upon the respondent authority, directing it to amend and/or correct or mention the name of petitioner no.2 in the column of "father name" in the Birth Certificate of their son, which is issued by the respondent.

2. The short facts giving rise to filing of the present petition, stated in nutshell, are as follows.

2.1 Petitioner No.1 earlier had married with one Shaileshbhai Vallabhbhai Jadvani and out of wedlock of petitioner no.1 with the said Shailesbhai, a son 'Devam' was born on 13.06.2012. Pursuant to that, on 20.06.2012, his birth was registered with the respondent authority at serial No.665 in the Register, which is maintained by the respondent authority under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (for short "the Registration Act").

2.2 Since matrimonial disputes cropped-up between the petitioner no.1 and her husband, they decided to get separated and, therefore, they had executed a Deed of Divorce on 06.04.2016 as per their prevailing customs and thereby marriage of petitioner no.1 with her husband came to be dissolved by the said deed.

2.3 The petitioner no.1 got married with petitioner no.2 at Surat. After marriage of petitioner no.2 with the petitioner no.1, the petitioner no.2 also agreed to take all responsibilities of minor son of petitioner no.1 and, therefore, he has adopted the minor son 'Devam' with consent of the family members of both the petitioners and pursuant to the said adoption, a Deed of Adoption has been executed between the parties, which came to be registered before the Office of Registrar vide Registration No.2194 on 15.03.2017.

2.4 It is the case of the petitioners that since the petitioner no.1 got married with petitioner no.2 and since petitioner no.2 has adopted minor 'Devam' by way of execution of a registered adoption deed, the petitioner no.2 becomes natural/legal guardian of minor boy and, therefore, the petitioners filed representation dated 17.07.2021 to the respondent authority to replace/mention the name of petitioner no.2 as father in place of name of earlier husband of petitioner no.1 in the column of 'father name’ in the birth certificate issued by the respondent herein.

2.5 On 15.09.2021, the petitioners received the impugned communication from the respondent authority, whereby the application for correction, as stated above, has been refused by the respondent.

3. Learned advocate Mr.Kikan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top