Raja Basu Chowdhury, J (Oral):

1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record.

2. The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, praying for a direction upon the municipal authorities, to issue a fresh birth certificate by altering the petitioner’s son’s surname and her son’s biological father’s name. The petitioner claims to have been married with one Subhankar Karmakar on 25th April, 2012 and out of their wedlock a male child was born.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that in paragraphs 2 and 4 of the writ petition a wrong statement has been made that the petitioner was married on 5th May, 2016. He has drawn attention of this Court to the communication addressed to the Chairman, Purba Bardhaman Municipality dated 22nd July, 2025 and would submit that the date of marriage of the petitioner with her erstwhile husband, Subhankar Karmakar was on 25th April, 2012. The petitioner claims that the marriage between the petitioner and her erstwhile husband, Subhankar Karmakar was dissolved by a decree of divorce passed under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the Court of the learned District Judge, Hooghly, dated 8th October, 2021.

4. The petitioner claims that subsequently the petitioner has entered into a new matrimonial relationship with one Rajesh Ghosh on 6th March, 2022 and the factum of the aforesaid marriage has been registered by the office of the Registrar General of Marriages. Copy of the marriage certificate issued in favour of the petitioner and her present husband has been placed before this Court by way of a supplementary affidavit which is also taken on record. Since then the petitioner had affirmed an affidavit before the Executive Magistrate, Hooghly and had also applied before the Chairman, Purba Bardhaman Municipality on 22nd July, 2022, seeking for alteration of the petitioner’s son’s surname and father’s name and insists that a fresh birth certificate should be issued by the municipality noting therein the present surname of the petitioner and the name of the step father.

5. According to the petitioner, the child continues to reside with the petitioner in her present matrimonial home and is growing up as son of the petitioner’s present husband. The petitioner through her advocate has stated that the petitioner and her present husband are jointly taking care of the minor child. The petitioner contends that since the biological father of the child, being the respondent no.6 had absolved himself of all his responsibility, in ordinary course the name of the biological father in the birth certificate is creating psychological impact on the child. Faced with such circumstances, the petitioner had approached the municipal authorities for issuance of a fresh birth certificate by removing the name of the biological father. Since, the municipal authorities did not accede to the prayer, the instant writ petition has been filed.

6. The matter was initially taken up by this Court on 26th September, 2025. Since the service on the respondent no.6 was incomplete the matter was adjourned. On 28th October, 2025 since it was represented by the learned advocate for the petitioner that service could not be effected on the respondent no.6, and steps would be taken to serve the respondent no.6 through publication, the matter was again adjourned. Subsequently, on 22nd July, 2026 an affidavit of service had been filed to demonstrate substitute service on the respondent no.6 by way of paper publication.

7. By an order dated 22nd July, 2026 this Court while granting leave to the petitioner to disclose the marriage certificate of the petitioner with Rajesh Ghosh had also placed the matter in Chamber for interaction with the child. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the Court has interacted with the minor child and the parents in presence of the learned advocate for the parties in chamber today. The marriage certificate has also been disclosed by the supplementary affidavit as noted