Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj has held that altering a minor child's surname to reflect the mother's family name does not affect the father's substantive legal rights, particularly where the mother is the sole caregiver and the father has had no involvement in the child's upbringing. The court was hearing a petition filed by a minor girl, born out of a live-in relationship, seeking a direction to state authorities to update her birth certificate to reflect her mother's surname in place of her father's, who had abandoned the family and left the country.

The petition concerned a request to modify the name of a minor child in her birth certificate. The minor was born on 16 February 2017 at a hospital in Bengaluru to a mother who had been in a live-in relationship with the child’s biological father. Following the birth, the mother applied for registration and a birth certificate was issued on 04 March 2017 recording the child’s name and the biological father’s name. Subsequently, the relationship ended and the father left for his hometown in Nepal. The mother stated that the father had ceased communication and had not contributed to the upbringing or maintenance of the child.

Also Read: IBC | Supreme Court Cautions Against Unsuccessful Resolution Applicants Using Procedural Irregularity As Pretext To Challenge CoC's Commercial Decisions

The mother approached the authorities seeking rectification of the child’s name by incorporating a derivative of her own name and the maternal family surname while maintaining the father’s name in the birth certificate. The application was accompanied by supporting documents including the child’s Aadhaar card, passport, study certificate, and an affidavit stating that the proposed change would not affect third-party rights. The Registrar issued an endorsement stating that the authorities lacked power to carry out the requested correction. A legal notice was issued but no action followed. The petitioners approached the High Court seeking a writ directing the Registrar to correct the entry. The dispute required examination of the powers of the Registrar under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969.

The Court examined the statutory framework governing registration and correction of entries in birth registers. It observed that “Section 22(1) of the Act reveals that the Registrar is empowered to correct an entry if it is ‘erroneous in form or substance.’ The expression ‘erroneous in form or substance’ is broad enough to encompass not merely clerical or typographical errors, but also errors going to the substance of the entry.”

Addressing the contention that the original entry was correct when made, the Court recorded that “the question is not merely whether the original entry was accurate at the time of its making, but whether, in the changed circumstances, the continued maintenance of the entry in its present form serves the purpose of the Act and the interests of the registered person.” The Court further stated that “the name of a child is not merely a matter of biological fact; it is an integral part of the child’s identity.”

Considering the circumstances of the case, the Court observed that “where the mother, being the sole custodial parent and the only person responsible for the child’s upbringing, seeks to give the child her own family name, and where the father has completely abandoned the child, the continued recording of the father’s surname in the child’s name creates a practical anomaly that may well be regarded as an entry that is ‘erroneous in substance’.”

The Court also noted the constitutional dimensions involved in determining a child’s identity. It recorded that “dignity, autonomy, and identity are intrinsic components of Article 21 of the Constitution.” The Court further stated that “the Constitution does not mandate that a child must invariably bear the father’s surname.”

On equality principles, the Court observed that “the constitutional order no longer views lineage, family structure, or naming conventions through a rigidly patriarchal lens,” and added that “maternal identity stands on the same legal footing as paternal identity.”

The Court also considered the effect of such a change on the father’s legal rights. It recorded that “a surname is a social identifier. It signifies lineage or familial association but does not, by itself, create or extinguish legal rights.” The Court noted that “a child’s right to claim maintenance from the biological father does not depend upon the surname she bears,” and further stated that “succession rights are determined by statutory provisions governing inheritance, not by the suffix attached to the child’s name.”

Regarding the welfare of the child, the Court stated that “the principle of the ‘best interest of the child’ is the golden thread that runs through the entire fabric of the law relating to children.” It recorded that “the child’s identity, dignity, and sense of belonging to a family are fundamental aspects of the right to life under Article 21.” The Court also stated that “allowing the child to bear the mother’s family name will promote the child’s integration into the maternal family and give the child a sense of belonging and identity.”

The Court allowed the writ petition and issued a writ of mandamus directing the concerned authority to carry out specific changes in the birth certificate of the minor child. The Court directed that “respondent No.1 – Chief Registrar, Births and Deaths, Bengaluru – shall effect the change in the name of petitioner No.1 in the birth certificate issued on 04.03.2017 and issue a fresh/new birth certificate reflecting the changed name upon payment of the prescribed fee as fixed by the government.”

“Before the fresh birth certificate is issued, petitioner No.2 shall furnish an indemnity deed to the respondents in such form as the respondents may prescribe, indemnifying the respondents against any claim that may arise on account of the changes effected pursuant to this order.”

Also Read: 'No Material Evidence': Karnataka High Court Upholds Acquittal Of Eight Men Accused Of Rioting And Assaulting Worshippers Inside Mosque

“The respondents shall complete the process of issuing the fresh birth certificate within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of furnishing of the indemnity deed by petitioner No.2 and on compliance of such other formalities as may be prescribed.”

“This order shall not affect the biological parentage of petitioner No.1 and shall not extinguish any rights that petitioner No.1 may have vis-à-vis the biological father under any law for the time being in force, including rights of inheritance, succession, and maintenance.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Sri Thangminlal Haokip, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri Pawan Kumar, Advocate

Case Title: X & Anr. v. Chief Registrar, Births and Deaths & Another
Neutral Citation: NC: 2026: KHC:9735
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 33465 of 2025
Bench: Justice Suraj Govindaraj