Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 31036
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Hemant Chandangoudar, J
Rajalakshmi – Appellant
Versus
The Tahsildar, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District – Respondent
WMP(MD). No.27359 of 2025 | WP(MD) No.34590 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. P.M.Vishnu Varthanan
For the Respondents: Mrs.PB.Ahamed Yasmin Parvin, Mr.J.Parekh Kumar
Father's multiple name changes do not bar correcting minor child's birth certificate initial for record consistency.
Headnote:Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner sought correction of the minor child's birth certificate initial to reflect the father's changed name. The impugned order rejected the request citing repeated name changes by the father. The court found the correction consequential to the father's name change, not altering the child's identity. The issue framed was whether rejection based on father's multiple name changes justified denying correction for the minor's birth certificate. The ratio decidendi held that such prior changes do not invalidate a bona fide request for consistency in records, especially for the child's academic purposes, causing no prejudice to authorities. The impugned proceedings dated 11.08.2025 were set aside, directing correction of the child's name to “C. Shrinithi” and father's name update within four weeks, with no costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges rejection of minor's birth certificate correction due to father's name changes. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. correction is consequential, not altering child's identity; no prejudice to authorities. (Para 3 , 5) |
| 3. impugned order set aside; direct correction within four weeks, no costs. (Para 7 , 8) |
ORDER
The petitioner challenges the proceedings dated 11.08.2025 issued by the second respondent, whereby the petitioner’s request for correction of the initial of his minor daughter, namely “S. Shrinithi”, in her birth certificate dated 20.06.2012 to “C. Shrinithi” was rejected.
2. The said request was rejected on the ground that the father of the minor child had repeatedly changed his name and, therefore, the request for correction could not be acceded to.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
4. It is seen from the records that, in the birth certificate dated
07.12.2011, the date of birth of the petitioner’s minor daughter is recorded as 05.12.2011, and her name is mentioned as “S. Shrinithi”, with the father’s name shown as “Sakthivel”. Subsequently, the father is stated to have changed his name on more than one occasion. The present request of the petitioner is only to correct the initial of the minor child in the birth certificate so as to reflect the current name of the father, thereby ensuring consistency in records, particularly for academic purposes, including the child’s appearance in the X Standard Board Examinations.
5. This Court is of the view that such correction is only a consequential change arising out of the change in the name of the father and does not, in any manner, alter the identity of the child. No prejudice would be caused to the respondents if such correction is permitted. The reason assigned in the impugned order, namely that the father had changed his name on multiple occasions, cannot, by itself, be a valid ground to reject a bona fide request for correction, especially when the request pertains to a minor child and is supported by relevant records.
6. In the above circumstances, the impugned proceedings dated
11.08.2025 issued by the second respondent are liable to be set aside and are accordingly set aside. The second respondent is directed to carry out the necessary corrections in the birth certificate of the petitioner’s minor daughter by changing her name from “S. Shrinithi” to “C. Shrinithi” and by updating the name of the father as “A.G.S. Chivachaktivellbrabu” (as per the records furnished by the petitioner).
7. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.
