Karnataka High Court
Miss A Ashwini vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 March, 2015
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH 2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.1401 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
Miss. A. Ashwini,
Daughter of Ashok K.S.,
Since minor represented by
Her father and Natural Guardian,
Ashok K.S.,
Son of Late Srinivasaiah,
Aged about 47 years,
Residing at No.6/1,
1st Floor, Nethaji Road,
4th Main, Thyagaraja Nagar,
Bangalore 560 028. ... APPELLANT
(By Shri. S. Vishwajith Shetty, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Department of Education,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore 560 001.
2. The Secretary,
2
Karnataka Primary Education Office,
K.R.Circle, Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore 560 001.
3. Commissioner of Public Instructions
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore 560 001.
4. Deputy Director of Public Instructions,
Kalasipalya,
Bangalore 560 002.
5. Block Education Officer,
South-1, Sheshadripuram,
Bangalore 560 004.
6. The Head Master,
SSM Kannada Primary School,
1st Block, Thyagaraja Nagar,
Bangalore 560 011.
7. The Head Master,
National High School,
Basavanagudi,
Bangalore 560 004.
8. The Secretary,
SSLC Boad,
5th Cross, Malleshwaram,
Bangalore 560 003.
....RESPONDENTS
(By Smt. M. Elizabeth, Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1
to 5;
Vide court order dated 26.2.2015 notice to Respondent Nos. 6 and
8 dispensed with )
3
This Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated
1.2.2013 passed in O.S.No.7533/2012 on the file of the XL
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, dismissing the
suit for declaration.
This appeal coming on for Orders this day, the Court
delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
There is a delay of 102 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated, the delay is condoned.
The appeal is considered for final disposal and is accordingly admitted to file and the counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents are heard for final disposal.
2. The suit was filed in the year 2012 when the appellant was a minor, through her father as her natural guardian. The suit was filed for the relief of declaration to declare her name as "A. Shreedevi"
instead of "A. Ashwini". It transpires then that she was studying in the High School. This was occasioned on account of the family having been advised by an astrologist that her frequent illness and 4 other problems that she was facing were on account of her name and it required to be changed. Her parents in their strong belief in astrology, had chosen to change her name for which the child was also agreeable and therefore, the suit was filed.
3. Though the defendants were served, they did not choose to appear before the court or to contest the suit. The Trial Court however framed points for consideration, which were as follows:
"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that her name is A. Shreedevi?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration as prayed in the plaint?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed in the plaint?
4. What order or decree?"
The Trial Court had proceeded to hold that they have not furnished particulars of the Astrologer who had so advised them and there were no materials to show that the family members of the plaintiff had been calling her 'Shreedevi' and there were no documents produced in that regard and the court could at best correct any bona fide mistake that had occasioned in the name and 5 that there was no warrant to declare that the girl could call herself as "A Shreedevi" instead of "A. Ashwini".
4. This reasoning and the judgment appear to be unreasonable. Since the plaintiff is now a major and it would be her choice to call herself by whatever name, there can be no impediment in this regard as long as the bona fides in such claim are ascertained. It is evident that the suit was filed through the father of the girl of which there is no dispute and since it was their wish that she shall be called by the name of "Shreedevi" on account of religious and astrological beliefs, there is no impediment in permitting any such change in the name.
Accordingly, the judgment and decree of the court below is set-aside. The suit is decreed as prayed for. The respondents shall carry out corrections in all the records showing the change of name of the appellant as "A. Shreedevi" instead of "A. Ashwini".
Sd/-
JUDGE KS