Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2012 Supreme(Mad) 1798

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUDHAKAR, J.
P.V. Balaji
Versus
The Registrar of Birth & Death, Pondicherry Municipality
W.P. No. 9221 of 2012
Decided on : 10-04-2012

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:Udayakumar for M/s. M. Christopher, Advocates.
For the Respondent:R. Sreedhar, Govt. Advocate (P)

Ratio
Child born during the currency of the marriage would be of the husband of the mother and apart from the admission of the parties, very strong materials would be required to hold otherwise.

Headnote:(A)Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969(18 of 1969)-Sec.15-Constitution of India-Art.226-Local authority-Birth and Death-Registration-Parent-Name-Alteration-Child-Permissibility-Petitioner had sought to supplant his name in the place of another as the father of a child-He had relied upon an admission of the mother of the child which said that during the currency of her marriage, she had left her husband and lived with the petitioner and during that time, the child was born to her-Respondent contended that there was a natural presumption that a child born during the wedlock of her mother would be of her husband and so on a mere admission of the petitioner and the mother of the child, the name of the father could not be changed as it would bastardise the child-Held, there was a natural presumption that the child born to a mother would be of her husband and the Court would lean against holding otherwise-Holding that the child was born to a third party would be against the interest of the child and international conventions-Based upon the mere statements of the parties alone, the name of the father could not be ordered to be changed as it would stigmatized the child throughout its life-Writ petition was dismissed.

       (B)Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969(18 of 1969)-Sec.15-Constitution of India-Art.226-Local authority-Birth and Death-Registration-Parent-Name-Alteration-Child-Permissibility-Child born during the currency of the marriage would be of the husband of the mother and apart from the admission of the parties, very strong materials would be required to hold otherwise.
       The mere statement by the mother stating that one or other person is the father cannot be the basis for changing the name of the father of the child as entered in the Birth Register and Birth Certificate. The sanctity attached to the name given in the Birth Certificate cannot be altered at the whims and fancies of the mother or the so-called father. It will amount to depriving and interfering with the rights of the child which is universally accepted. Para 7

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order made in No.100/P-Na/P.E.A./11AA/12, dated 1.3.2012 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to make appropriate inquiry as contemplated in the Registration of Birth and Death Act 1969 and Rules.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent.

3. The respondent refused to accept the petitioner's plea for changing the name of the father of the child Shreyas in the Birth Certificate from that of Venkatesan to P.V.Balaji, the petitioner herein. The reason given by the authority while declining such a claim is on the ground that the petitioner has to get appropriate order from the competent Court. The document, viz., Birth Certificate in which the correction is sought for, bears the name of one Venkatesan as the father of the child Shreyas and that Certificate is registered on 15.2.2005. This is an admitted fact that Shreyas was born to Revathy after she married Venkatesan.

4. The plea of the petitioner is that in the Guardian Wards Original Petition No.14 of 2011 which is pending before the District Court, Erode, there is material to substantiate his claim. In the petition filed before the District Court for custody of the child Shreyas, the petitioner states that he is the father of the minor child Shreyas aged about 6 years. Earlier, the respondent in the O.P., namely, one Ms.P.Revathy, the divorcee, was married to one Venkatesan, in the year 2003. It is alleged that Revathy developed intimacy with the petitioner P.V.Balaji and both of them lived together at Kanchipuram, Pondicherry and lastly at Erode. On account of such co-habitation between the petitioner and Revathy, a male child was born on 28.1.2005. The child was named Shreyas.

5. The petitioner further states that he is the biological father of the child Shreyas. The said Revathy with an mala fide intention, has given the father's name of the child Shreyas as Venkatesan instead of Balaji, the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the fact is that Revathy and the said Venkatesan did not live together as husband and wife. The mother of the child is Revathy, but the biological father is the petitioner and not Venkatesan. Earlier, the said Revathy filed HMOP No.54 of 2007 before the Sub Court, Bhavani, praying for divorce and as a result, the marriage between the said Venkatesan and Revathy was dissolved by the judgment dated 14.9.2009. Revathy is working as a School Teacher in Corporation Primary School, Cutchery Street, Erode. In the School Service Register, the said Revathy has given her husband's name as Balaji, the petitioner herein. The petitioner, Revathy and the minor child Shreyas, lastly lived together at 302-I, Ashok Nagar, Railway Colony Post, Erode for some years. Due to some misunderstanding between the petitioner and Revathy, Revathy left the company of the petitioner and is living separately from April, 2011. When the minor child was in Abacus Summer Training Class at Vision Academy, Revathy without the knowledge of the petitioner, took away the minor child by giving false information. The minor child is in the custody of the said Revathy and hence, he filed the above GWOP for custody of the child on the plea that the petitioner is the biological father.

6. In the counter-affidavit filed in G.W.O.P.No.14 of 2011 for custody of child, the said Revathy had admitted that the minor child Shreyas is her son born out of relationship with the petitioner and that the petitioner is the father. On this premise, the petitioner herein applied for change of name of the father in the Birth Certificate and the same was refused and hence, the present writ petition.

7. There is no dispute that the child Shreyas was born in January, 2005, when the marriage between Revathy and Venkatesan was subsisting. It was another issue that it dissolved late

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2012 Supreme(Mad) 1798

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS R. SUDHAKAR, J. P.V. Balaji Versus The Registrar of Birth & Death, Pondicherry Municipality W.P. No. 9221 of 2012 Decided on : 10-04-2012

RatioChild born during the currency of the marriage would be of the husband of the mother and apart from the admission of the parties, very strong materials would be required to hold otherwise.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUDHAKAR, J.
P.V. Balaji
Versus
The Registrar of Birth & Death, Pondicherry Municipality
W.P. No. 9221 of 2012
Decided on : 10-04-2012

Ratio
Child born during the currency of the marriage would be of the husband of the mother and apart from the admission of the parties, very strong materials would be required to hold otherwise.