Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice C.S. Dias allowed a writ petition challenging the substitution of a father’s name in the birth records of a child. The court quashed the impugned birth report and birth certificate issued by the concerned municipal authorities, directing that the application seeking change of the father’s name be reconsidered strictly in accordance with law. The court mandated that the petitioner, along with the concerned parties, be given notice and an opportunity of being heard before any decision is taken. The Registry was also directed to anonymise the identities of the parties in the judgment, following the court’s procedure, due to the sensitive nature of the matter.

The petitioner and the seventh respondent were married on 26 May 2010. A male child, the ninth respondent in the case, was born on 7 March 2011 during their marriage. The child’s birth was registered with the municipal authorities, recording the petitioner and the seventh respondent as the parents.

Also Read: Supreme Court Clarifies GST Jurisdiction | Central Authority Can Issue Summons As “Not Initiation Of Proceedings” Under S.6(2)(b) CGST Act

After delivery, the seventh respondent and the child went to her parental home for recuperation. On 12 April 2011, they went missing. The seventh respondent’s father lodged an FIR with the Payyannur Police. Simultaneously, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking a writ of habeas corpus. The seventh respondent appeared before the court and expressed her desire to live with the eighth respondent. The court recorded her statement and closed the habeas corpus petition.

Subsequently, the petitioner and the seventh respondent executed an agreement to live separately, citing the irretrievable breakdown of their marriage. Their marriage was later dissolved on mutual consent by judgment dated 13 December 2011.

Later, the petitioner obtained information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, revealing that the Registrar of Births and Deaths of the municipality had, on the basis of a joint application by the seventh and eighth respondents, substituted the petitioner’s name with that of the eighth respondent as the child’s father in the Birth Register. Corresponding changes were made, leading to the issuance of a new birth report and birth certificate.

The petitioner contended that the substitution was carried out without his notice or hearing, in violation of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, Rule 11 of the Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999, and a specific circular issued by the Local Self Government Department (LSGD) on 16 December 2015. He argued that the changes also contravened Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which provides a conclusive presumption of legitimacy for a child born during a valid marriage.

In response, the second respondent municipality stated that the substitution was made following the joint application of the seventh and eighth respondents, who claimed that the petitioner’s name was erroneously recorded. They submitted supporting certificates from the hospital, the village officer, and credible persons, along with the SSLC book, certifying the child was born to them. The municipality claimed that the substitution was carried out as per the prescribed rules and without illegality.

Justice C.S. Dias noted that it was undisputed that the child was born during the subsistence of the petitioner’s marriage to the seventh respondent, and that the petitioner’s name was initially recorded as the father in the birth records. The court cited Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, stating: “The fact that any person was born during the continuance of a valid marriage between his mother and any man... shall be conclusive proof that he is the legitimate son of that man, unless it can be shown that the parties to the marriage had no access to each other at any time when he could have been begotten.”

The judge observed: “In the absence of any admission by the parties to the marriage or a declaration by a court of competent jurisdiction, the petitioner is deemed, conclusively, to be the legitimate father of the child.” Despite this, the registrar substituted the petitioner’s name with that of the eighth respondent solely on a joint application by the seventh and eighth respondents, without hearing the petitioner.

The court then examined Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, and Rule 11 of the Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999. Quoting the statutory provision, the judge noted: “If it is proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar that any entry... 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, without any alteration of the original entry...”

Justice Dias stated that the powers conferred under these provisions 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, and a judicial imprimatur.”

The judge further recorded that the LSGD circular mandated that if a father’s name is to be changed in birth records, a DNA test report, an agreement attested before a Notary Public, and an order from a competent court must be produced. These requirements had not been complied with in the present case.

Also Read: Prima Facie Unlawful Detention | Madras High Court Orders Release Of Lawyers And Law Students Held During Protest

The court found that the registrar acted without comprehending the conclusive proof provision under Section 112 of the Evidence Act and without adhering to the mandatory procedural safeguards, thereby rendering the decision-making process erroneous and in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice.

The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the birth report and birth certificate that substituted the petitioner’s name with that of the eighth respondent. It directed the registrar to reconsider the application submitted by the seventh and eighth respondents in accordance with law, with notice to the petitioner and affording him, as well as the seventh and eighth respondents, an opportunity of being heard.

The court further directed that, considering the sensitive nature of the matter, the Registry should anonymise the identities of the parties in the judgment as per the court’s established procedure.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Smt. Reshma E., Smt. Anna Sonie, Smt. Atheena Antony, Smt. Anjitha Santhosh, Smt. Athira V.M.

For the Respondents: Smt. Vidya Kuriakose, Senior Government Pleader; Shri M. Sasindran.

Case Title: AAA v. State of Kerala & Others

Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:53171

Case Number: WP(C) No. 26123 of 2024

Bench: Justice C.S. Dias