Bangalore District Court
Advika Ragini Perenni vs State Of Karnataka on 11 September, 2015
Form No.9
(Civil) Title
Sheet for
Judgment
in Suits
R.P. 91
PRESENT: SRI S.H.HOSAGOUDAR,
B.Sc.,LL.B.,[Spl]
XXVII Additional City Civil Judge.
Dated this the 11th day of September 2015
PLAINTIFF: ADVIKA RAGINI PERENNI
FORMERLY KNOWN AS
K.NAVEENA
D/o Sri P.Kumar,
Age: 14 y ears,
Residing at No. 30,
16yh Main,
"Balaji Layout",
Padmanabha Nagar,
BANGALORE-560 070
Since Minor the plaintiff is
Represented by his Father and
Natural guardian,
Sri P.Kumar s/o Venkatadri Naidu,
Aged: about 42 years,
Residing at No.30, 16th Main,
"Balaji Layout",Padmanabha Nagar,
BANGALORE-560 070.
[By Sri Pashupathi. P.R. Advocate]
2 CT0028_O.S._5526_2014_Judgment_
.
/v e r s u s/ DEFENDANTS: 1. State of Karnataka Represented by its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. The Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Education Department, Bangalore South District, Kalasipalya, BANGALORE.
3. The Head Master/Head Mistress, Camel High School, Padmanabha Nagar, Banashankari 2nd Stage, BANGALORE-560 070.
4. The Commissioner, Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike;
Palike Offices, N.R.Square, BANGALORE.
5. Thr Registrar of Births & Deaths, Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike;
Padmanabaha Nagar Range / Zone, BANGALORE.
D1 & D2 -Exparte D3 - By Sri G.R., Advocate D4, D5 - By Sri VVS, Advocate 3 CT0028_O.S._5526_2014_Judgment_ .
Date of institution of the : 19/7/2014 suit Nature of the suit : For declaration and injunction Date of commencement of : 9/6/2015 recording of the evidence Date on which the : 11/9/2015 Judgment was pronounced.
: Year/s Month/s Day/s Total duration 1 1 22 (S.H. Hosagoudar) XXVII ACCJ: B'LORE.
Plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants for the relief of declaration that the name of the plaintiff is ADVIKA RAGINI PERENNI and direct the defendants to incorporate the name of plaintiff as ADVIKA RAGINI PERENNI instead of K. NAVEENA in all her school records and other records and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to issue related circulars in this regard and a copy whereof to the Karnataka Gazetteeer for wide publication in the relative Section by the defendants. 4 CT0028_O.S._5526_2014_Judgment_ .
2. In brief, the plaintiff's case is as under:
Plaintiff is formerly known as K. Naveena and the same is entered in her school records. Now, as per the advice of astrologer, her parents changed her name as ADVIKA RAGINI PERENNI. Plaintiff has requested the defendants to rectify the same by issuing legal notices. But, they have refused to do so. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed this suit and prayed to decree the suit.
3. In response to the suit summons issued by the Court, defendant no.3 and 4 have appeared through their respective counsel and filed their separate written statement, whereas inspite of service of summons, defendants 1 and 2 did not appear and contest the case of the plaintiff. Hence, they are placed exparte.
4. In brief, the contents of the written statement filed by defendant No.3 are as under:
The suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts. This defendant is not a
5 CT0028_O.S._5526_2014_Judgment_ .
proper and necessary party. The plaintiff is not entitled for the reliefs as sought for. It is submitted that, plaintiff is studying 10th standard in third defendant school and there will be identity card, progress report and in all the records, the name of the plaintiff is mentioned as K.Naveena as given by the father of the plaintiff. Hence, suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
5. In brief the contents of the written statement filed by the defendant no.4 are as under:
The suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The suit is liable to be dismissed only for the reason that no statutory notice was served against this defendant. The plaintiff is not entitled for the relief as sought for in the suit. It is undisputed fact that, in the birth certificate the child name is recorded as Naveena d/o Sri Kumar.P, but plaintiff's father wanted to change the plaintiff's name as ADVIKA RAGINI PERENNI. Since plaintiff has sought for correction of name, the correction of full name is
6 CT0028_O.S._5526_2014_Judgment_ .
not maintainable under RBD Act, 1969 and as such suit is not maintainable. On these grounds, defendant no.4 requested to dismiss the suit.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, my predecessor in office has framed the following issues:
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that her name is changed as ADVIKA RAGINI PERENNI from K.NAVEENA on the basis of advice of astrologer?
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs sought for in the suit?
(3) What order or decree
7. In this case plaintiff in order to prove her case, examined her father as PW.1 and also produced in all 15 documents which are marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P15 and closed her side of evidence. On the other hand, defendants have not adduced any evidence.
8. Heard the arguments on both the sides and perused the entire records of the case. 7 CT0028_O.S._5526_2014_Judgment_ .
9. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No. 1) ............ In the affirmative; Issue No. 2) ............ In the affirmative; Issue No. 3) ............ As per final order for the following:
10. ISSUES NO.1 AND 2: Now, I consider these issues together as they are interconnected with each other and evidence is common and for the sake of brevity.
11. In this case, the father of the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1. He filed affidavit evidence in lieu of examination in chief. In his examination in chief, he reiterated the plaint averments. He produced in all 15 documents which are marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. In this case, defendant no. 3 and 4 apepared through their respective counsel and filed written statement denying the case of plaintiff, whereas inspite of service of summons, defendants 1 and 2 did 8 CT0028_O.S._5526_2014_Judgment_ .
not appear and contest the case of the plaintiff. Hence, they are placed exparte. In this case, even though defendants 3 and 4 have appeared through their respective counsel and filed written statement but they have not cross-examined PW.1. Further, defendants 3 and 4 are also not adduced any evidence.
12. I have perused entire evidence on record. It is an admitted fact that plaintiff is a minor and she is the daughter of P.Kumar. It is also admitted fact that at the time of birth of plaintiff, her parents named her as K.Naveena. The evidence on record clearly shows that now plaintiff is studying in 10th standard at defendant no.3 Institution. It is the case of the plaintiff that, she is a hindu by religion and hails from customery family and father of the plaintiff went to the astrologer to know about horoscope of the plaintiff and such other things about her future as per religious customs and as per prediction and advice of the astrologer for the bright future of plaintiff, her 9 CT0028_O.S._5526_2014_Judgment_ .
parents have named the plaintiff as ADVIKA RAGINI PERENNI as against K.Naveena as she was earlier identified. In this case, PW.1 has produced birth certificate of plaintiff which is marked as Ex.P1. In Ex.P1, the name of the plaintiff is mentioned as K.Naveena. Further, in this case, plaintiff also produced horoscope which is marked as Ex.P15. As per Ex.P15, astrologer had advised the parents of the plaintiff to change the name of plaintiff as ADVIKA RAGINI PERENNI as against K.Naveena for the bright future of the plaintiff. Hence, in view of the bright future of the plaintiff, the parents of the plaintiff intended to change the name of the plaintiff as ADVIKA RAGINI PERENNI as against K.Naveena. In this case, defendant no.3 even though in his written statement contend that the correction of the name is not permissible under R.B.D.Act, 1969, but he has not placed any material to show that there is a bar for correction of name of the plaintiff. In this case, even though defendant no. 3 and 4 have appeared through 10 CT0028_O.S._5526_2014_Judgment_ .
a counsel and filed written statement but they have not placed any material to show that there is a bar to change the name of the plaintiff under any law or rules. Now, parents of the plaintiff intend to change the name of the plaintiff as per advice of the astrologer for her bright future. Hence, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the report of the astrologer, it is just and proper to permit the parents of the plaintiff to change the name of plaintiff as ADVIKA RAGINI PERENNI as against K.Naveena. Hence, plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration as sought for. Therefore, it is just and proper to direct the defendants to change the name of plaintiff as ADVIKA RAGINI PERENNI. Plaintiff proved issues 1 and 2. Accordingly, I answer issues 1 and 2 in the affirmative.
13. ISSUE NO.3: From my above discussions and reasoning, the suit of the plaintiff deserves to be decreed. In the result, I pass the following:
11 CT0028_O.S._5526_2014_Judgment_ .
The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed.
It is declared that, name of the plaintiff is ADVIKA RAGINI PERENNI.
Further, defendants are directed to enter the name of plaintiff as ADVIKA RAGINI PERENNI instead of K. NAVEENA in all her school records and other records and to issue relative circulars in this regard and a copy whereof to the Karnataka Gazetteer for wide publication in the relative Section. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. Draw decree accordingly.
*** [Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, Script corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in the Open Court on this the 11th day of September 2015.] [S.H. HOSAGOUDAR] XXVII Additional City Civil Judge.
BANGALORE.
12 CT0028_O.S._5526_2014_Judgment_ .
1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Plaintiff/s:
PW.1 P.Kumar
2. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendant/s:
NIL.
3. List of documents marked on behalf of the Plaintiff/s:
Ex.P 1 Birth Certificate
Ex.P 2 Affidavit
Ex.P 3 Office copy of legal notice
Ex.P 4
to Postal receipts
Ex.P 8
Ex.P 9
Postal acknowledgements
To
Ex.P 13
Ex.P 14 Study certificate
Ex.P 15 Horoscope
4. List of the documents marked for the
defendants:
Nil.
[S.H. HOSAGOUDAR]
XXVII Additional City Civil Judge, BANGALORE.
13 CT0028_O.S._5526_2014_Judgment_ .
...Judgment pronounced in the Open Court....
(Vide separate detailed judgment) The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed.
It is declared that, name of the plaintiff is ADVIKA RAGINI PERENNI.
16 CT0028_O.S._5526_2014_Judgment_ .
Further, defendants are directed to enter the name of plaintiff as ADVIKA RAGINI PERENNI instead of K. NAVEENA in all her school records and other records and to issue relative circulars in this regard and a copy whereof to the Karnataka Gazetteer for wide publication in the relative Section.
Under the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
[S.H.HOSAGOUDAR] XXVII Additional City Civil Judge.
BANGALORE.
17 CT0028_O.S._5526_2014_Judgment_ .
18 CT0028_O.S._5526_2014_Judgment_ .
fdfdf