After Former Husband Consents, Kerala High Court Allows Correction Of Father's Name In Birth Certificate Of Child Born Out Of Extra-Marital Affair
Isabella Mariam
The Kerala High Court Single Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, directed the correction of the father's name in the birth certificate of a minor girl born out of her mother's extramarital relationship. The Court allowed a writ petition filed by the child and her biological parents, permitting the substitution of the former husband's name with that of the biological father in the birth register, primarily considering the minor child's future interests.
The writ petition was filed by a mother, her subsequent husband, and their minor daughter seeking correction of the father’s name in the child’s birth certificate. The first petitioner had married another man in 2006 and a male child was born in that marital relationship. During the subsistence of that marriage, she entered into a relationship with the second petitioner and conceived a child. The third petitioner, a minor girl, was born on 20.09.2017 while the marital relationship with her first husband continued. The birth certificate recorded the husband as the father.
According to the petitioners, disputes arose in the matrimonial home after the husband denied biological parenthood of the child. The first petitioner left the house in February 2023 with the child, after which a missing complaint was lodged and an FIR was registered. Subsequently, the first petitioner and her husband obtained divorce by mutual consent through an order of the Family Court. After the divorce, the first petitioner married the second petitioner, who was claimed to be the biological father of the child.
The petitioners approached the High Court seeking correction of the father’s name in the birth certificate so that the name of the second petitioner would be reflected instead of the former husband. The petition involved interpretation of Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and Rule 11 of the Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999 relating to correction of entries in birth records.
The Court examined the statutory framework governing correction of birth records and recorded that “Section 15 of the Act 1969 deals with the correction or cancellation of entry in the register of births and deaths.” It further reproduced the statutory provision which states that “If it is proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar that any entry of a birth or death in any register kept by him under this Act is erroneous in form or substance, or has been fraudulently or improperly made, he may…correct the error or cancel the entry by suitable entry in the margin.”
The Court noted the procedural requirements under the Rules and recorded that “on a combined reading of Section 15 of the Act 1969 and Rule 11 of the Rules 1999, it is clear that a correction of an entry in the Register of Births and Deaths is possible in certain circumstances mentioned in it.”
Referring to earlier precedent, the Court stated that “the powers conferred on a Registrar under S.15 and R.11 are circumscribed and limited to the correction of clerical or formal errors or entries fraudulently or improperly made, and not matters of disputed paternity, which require a full-fledged trial and adjudication by a competent court.”
The Court observed that in the present case there was no scientific evidence establishing paternity and recorded that “admittedly, there is no DNA test report showing that the 2nd petitioner is the biological father of the 3rd petitioner and not the 4th respondent.”
The Court also addressed the circumstances of the dispute and recorded that “a woman falling in love with a man is not a sin. A married woman also may fall in love with another person.” At the same time, the judgment stated that “when a marital relationship is in existence, morally and legally, it is not proper for a woman to have an extramarital physical relationship with another man.”
While evaluating the conduct of the parties, the Court recorded that “not only women but also men have dignity, pride, and individuality.” It further noted the position of the former husband, stating that “the 4th respondent…on a bona fide belief that he is the father of the 3rd petitioner, informed the hospital authorities that he is the father of the child.”
The Court also recorded concerns regarding the manner in which the petition was filed, stating that “petitioners 1 and 2 seek an order behind the back of the 4th respondent.” It further observed that “the attitude of petitioners 1 and 2 is to be deprecated, and they are not entitled to any relief from this Court, as this Court is exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.”
However, the Court considered the interests of the child and recorded that “this Court cannot dismiss the writ petition considering the plight of the 3rd petitioner, who is the minor child.” The Court also took note of the position of the former husband and stated that “the counsel who appeared for the 4th respondent submitted before this Court that his client has no objection to the correction of the birth certificate.”
Finally, the Court recorded the need to protect the child’s privacy and stated that “this court exercises the principle of ‘Parens patriae’ rule and protects the privacy of the child.”
The Court directed that “petitioners are free to submit an application before the competent authority of the 2nd respondent for correction of the father's name of the 3rd petitioner in Ext.P1 birth certificate, as the 2nd petitioner instead of the 4th respondent.”
Upon receipt of such application, “the competent authority of the 2nd respondent is directed to correct the father’s name of the 3rd petitioner as the 2nd petitioner by making a suitable entry in the margin of the register without any alteration of the original entry, and shall sign the marginal entry and add thereto the date of correction or cancellation.”
“Based on that correction in the register, a fresh birth certificate should be issued to the petitioners within 30 days of receipt of the application. The registry shall mask the name of the 3rd petitioner and the 4th respondent in the cause title of the judgment while uploading to the official site of this Court. The registry will provide sufficient number of certified copies of the judgment, along with the details of the 3rd petitioner and 4th respondent, in a separate sealed cover, if a copy application is filed for the purpose of producing the judgment before the 2nd respondent by the petitioners.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Happymon Babu, Blessy Mary Sebastian
For the Respondents: Santhosh P. Poduval, Sruthy Saijo, Jahra K., Vidya Kuriakose (Senior Government Pleader)
Case Title: XXXX v. State of Kerala & Others
Neutral Citation: 2026: KER:17057
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 44739 of 2024
Bench: Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan
