Legal provisions dictate that corrections to birth certificates require evidence of error; disputes regarding paternity must be adjudicated rather than amended administratively, but courts can intervene in child welfare matters.

JUDGMENT :

P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

1. This Court in Balachandra Menon v. State of Kerala, 2024 KHC 1634 observed that pride and dignity are not only to woman, but also for men. The present case is also a sad story of an unfortunate man whose wife led an adulterous life with another man while the marital relationship with him was in existence. A child was also born in her illicit relationship with that man. Usually, if the husband has an illicit relationship with another woman, that will be a big story, and the man will be humiliated to the extent possible by the wife and her relatives. Of course, there will be genuine grievance on the part of the wife toward her husband in such cases, and the husband may deserve it. I am of the opinion that, in a situation like this in this case, all should stand behind the men as well, because they too have dignity, pride, self-respect, and social identity. In cultures like ours, where marital fidelity holds strong social value, a husband may feel publicly ridiculed in such a situation, as if his manhood and status have been mocked.

2. I will narrate the facts in brief:

The 1^st petitioner is the mother of the 3^rd petitioner. The 1^st petitioner initially married the additional 4^th respondent, and the marriage was solemnised on 23.04.2006. There was a male child in that relationship, and he is now a major. After marriage, the 4^th respondent was working in Bangalore as an Accountant. According to the 1^st petitioner, the 4^th respondent was not taking care of the family as a husband and was not satisfying the needs of the 1^st petitioner. When the marital relationship of the 1^st petitioner with the 4^th respondent was in existence, the 1^st petitioner fell in love with the 2^nd petitioner and conceived a child in that relationship with the 2^nd petitioner. The 3^rd petitioner, a girl child, was born out of the relationship between the 1^st and 2^nd petitioner, when the marital relationship of the 1^st petitioner with the 4^th respondent was in existence. Ext. P1 is the birth certificate of the 3^rd petitioner, and in that birth certificate, the 4^th respondent is shown as the father of the 3^rd petitioner and the date of birth of the child is shown as 20.09.2017. The child continued with the 1^st petitioner and the 4^th respondent. According to the petitioners, the 4th respondent engaged in heated arguments that led to prolonged fights in the matrimonial house, denying the biological parenthood of the 3^rd petitioner. Therefore, the 1^st petitioner left the house of the 4^th respondent on 02.02.2023 at 4 pm. The 4^th respondent lodged a missing FIR of his wife, which led to the registration of Ext.P2 FIR by the Vellikulangara Police Station. According to the petitioners, the marriage between the 1^st petitioner and the 4^th respondent was problematic for the above reason, and matters worsened, leading the 1st petitioner and the 4th respondent to decide to obtain a divorce by mutual consent. Accordingly, Ext.P3 order was passed by the Family Court, Irinjalakuda, ordering divorce on 04.04.2023. After the divorce, the 1^st petitioner married the 2^nd petitioner. Ext.P4 is the marriage certificate of the same. According to the petitioners, since the name of the father in the birth certificate of the 3^rd petitioner is wrongly shown as the 4^th respondent, the school authorities informed the petitioners that the child will not be permitted to continue her studies in the said school if the birth certificate bearing the proper name of the father is not produced within the specified time. Hence, the petitioner praye