The validity of an adoption deed under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and the applicability of circulars issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs in changing the father's name on a birth certificate.

ORDER :

1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the application of the petitioners praying that the birth register and the birth certificate should incorporate the father’s name of their son ‘Meer’ as ‘Anilkumar Jaysukhbhai Suvagiya’ in place of ‘Chetanbhai Bhikhabhai Vaghasiya’ was turned down by an order dated 20.07.2022 passed by the respondent – Amreli Municipality on the ground that in accordance with the circular dated 15.05.2015, only a division deed was furnished and not the order of the Competent Court.

2. Mr.Bhaumik Dholariya learned advocate for the petitioner would rely on an order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.12605 of 2021. The relevant paragraphs thereof read as under:.

“8. Heard Mr. Kikani, the learned counsel appearing for the writ-applicants. The writ-applicant no.1 is the natural mother of minor daughter - ‘Maitri’, the writ-applicant no.2 is the adoptive father of minor daughter- ‘Maitri’ and the writ-applicants are seeking name of the writ-applicant no.2 as father in the column no.2 in the birth certificate of daughter - ‘Maitri’.

9. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the order passed by the coordinate bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 7864 of 2016, relevant paras read thus:

"10. Upon considering the submissions made and on perusal of the record, it clearly transpires that by a judgment and decree dated 18.02.2012 passed by the Family Court, Ahmedabad in Family Suit No.688 of 2011, the marriage solemnized between respondent no.3 and the wife of the present petitioner, Neelamben, came to be dissolved. The said judgment records as under-

"The custody of the minor son shall remain with the petitioner no.2/wife in future. The petitioner no.1/husband have (sic) has waived his visitation rights to meet the minor in future." The said decree is also registered.

11. It further appears that thereafter, a Deed of Adoption came to be registered wherein the petitioner has adopted minor Harsh and such Adoption Deed is duly registered under Registration No.7262 dated 18.11.2015. It is clear from the decree of divorce between respondent no.3 herein and wife of the present petitioner that all rights of minor son Harsh was given to Neelamben, the present wife of the petitioner and thereafter, a registered Deed of Adoption is executed, which is in accordance with law and the Adoption Deed was registered with the competent authority and at present the petitioner and his wife have become parents of minor Harsh.

12. Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, provides as under:

"Whenever any document registered under any law for the time being in force is produced before any court purporting to record an adoption made and is signed by the person giving and the person taking the child in adoption, the court shall presume that the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of this Act unless and until it is disproved."

13. In the case on hand, the decree of divorce between the biological parents clearly provides that custody of minor Harsh would be with the wife of the petitioner and respondent no.3 as former husband, has given up all his rights. The Deed of Adoption is a registered deed which is not challenged by anybody. On the contrary, as noted hereinabove, respondent no.3 who happens to be the biological father of the minor child Harsh has expressed by way of an affidavit before this Court in this petition unequivocally that he has no objection if the petitioner's name is substituted as father. Thus, as provided under section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, minor Harsh is lawfully adopted and the Deed of Adoption is registered and therefore the presumption as per the provisions of section 16 of the Act can be drawn in favour of the petitioner as there is no rebuttal by the procedure known to the law. Following the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of N.R. Trivedi v. District Education Officer,