Karnataka High Court
Srivastsa M Subodha vs The Government Of Karnataka on 6 June, 2023
Author: Krishna S Dixit
Bench: Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:19080
WP No. 6961 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 6961 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRIVASTSA M SUBODHA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
S/O MADHU M.P.,
NO.692/D, 1 C MAIN ROAD,
11TH CROSS, 2ND BLOCK, GIRINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 085.
2. KUM. MAHATI .S,
ADOPTIVE DAUGHTER OF
SRI. SRIVATSA M SUBHODHA,
AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS,
SINCE MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER ADOPTIVE
FATHER/GUARDIAN,
SRIVATSA M. SUBODHA,
Digitally AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
signed by S/O MADHU M.P.
CHETAN B C
NO.692/D, 1 C MAIN ROAD,
Location: 11TH CROSS, 2ND BLOCK, GIRINAGAR,
HIGH COURT
OF BENGALURU-560 085.
KARNATAKA
3. SMT. SAHANA T.G.
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
W/O SRI SRIVATSA M SUBHODHA,
S/O MADHU M.P.
NO.692/D, 1 C MAIN ROAD,
11TH CROSS, 2ND BLOCK, GIRINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 085.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. RASHMI M.R..,ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:19080
WP No. 6961 of 2023
AND:
1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE REGISTRAR,
BIRTH AND DEATH REGISTRATION UNIT,
TUMAKURU-572 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B V KRISHNA.,AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE R-2 TO CORRECT THE NAME OF P-2 FROM
S.MAHATI AS MAHATI S SUBODHA AND TO CHANGE THE NAME
OF THE ADOPTIVE FATHER (PETITIONER NO.1) WHICH
PORTRAYS AS R SRINIDHI TO SRIVATSA M SUBODHA AND
ISSUE A FRESH/NEW BIRTH CERTIFICATE WITH PRESCRIBED
FEES FIXED BY THE GOVERNMENT
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
First & Third Petitioners being the couple happen to be the adoptive parents of the Second Petitioner girl aged five years, whose name is registered as S MAHATI in the Birth Register as is evidenced by the Birth Certificate dated 06.12.2017 (Annexure-A). After the adoption, First Petitioner vide Representation/Affidavit (Annexure-F) dated 11.05.2022 requested the Second Respondent herein to describe the Second Petitioner-daughter as -3- NC: 2023:KHC:19080 WP No. 6961 of 2023 MAHATI S. SUBODHA. This was followed by a legal notice dated 02.11.2022 (Annexure-G Series) under Section 80 of CPC, 1908. The Second Respondent sent a reply to the effect that if the request is made in an appropriate form supported by evidentiary material, the same would be considered in accordance with law. Apparently, this appears to be a bureaucratic pattern.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners argues that when a citizen gives a representation in the form of Affidavit or a legal notice, the Respondent - authorities have to construe the substance of that in the absence of prescribed form and a decision on merits should be taken in accordance with law and in a time bound way. This having not happened, she submits, her clients have knocked at the doors of Writ Court. Learned counsel banks upon a decision of the Apex Court in Civil appeal Nos. 6325-6326/2015 between MRS. ANKELLA LALITHA vs. SRI KONDA HANUMANTHA RAO & ANOTHER, disposed off on 28.07.2022, in support of her clients' claim -4- NC: 2023:KHC:19080 WP No. 6961 of 2023 for change of name of the Second Petitioner in the Birth Register.
3. Learned AGA appearing for the Respondents opposes the Writ Petition contending that the change of name in the Birth Register cannot be effected just for askance; the claimants have to produce necessary material supportive of the change desired and the reasons therefor. The entries made in the Registers of Births and Deaths have sanctity and therefore, cannot be meddled in the absence of a Court order to be obtained at the hands of the jurisdictional civil Court. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
a) Petitioner Nos. 1 & 3 are the couple by marriage is prima facie demonstrated by their Marriage Registration Certificate dated 16.02.2021. The adoption of the Second Petitioner as their daughter is evidenced by the registered -5- NC: 2023:KHC:19080 WP No. 6961 of 2023 Adoption Deed dated 13.04.2022; in the biological family of the Second Petitioner, she was named as S. Mahati and accordingly same description occurs in the Register of Births. This pretty child is aged about five years and seeks to gain entry to the school before long. The First Petitioner has applied for the change of this child's name as "Mahati S Subodha", following the adoption.
b) Section 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 speaks of the consequences of adoption; one of them is that the child loses its umbilical card with the biological parents and becomes the child of the adoptive parents in all respects. That being the position, it is not unusual for the adoptive parents to rechristen the child. To know this, one needs no research and Court can take judicial notice of such practices obtaining in the communities, in exercise of power under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. A host of reasons may be there for such a change and that need not be disclosed to the authorities in the absence of legal requirement. The submission of learned counsel for the -6- NC: 2023:KHC:19080 WP No. 6961 of 2023 Petitioner for a direction to record the change of name of the child draws support from the observations at para 19 in AKELLA LALITHA case supra, which reads as under:
"Before parting with this subject, to obviate any uncertainty it is reiterated that the mother being the only natural guardian of the child has the right to decide the surname of the child. She also has the right to give the child in adoption. The Court may have the power to intervene but only when a prayer specific to that effect is made and such prayer must be centered on the premise that child's interest is the primary consideration and it outweighs all other considerations. With the above observations the directions of the High Court so far as the surname of the child is concerned are set aside."
Case of the Petitioners for change of name is also supported by a decision of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in W.P. 28552/2022 JEENAMUL VARGHESE vs STATE & ANOTHER, decided on 01.09.2022.
c) The vehement submission of learned AGA appearing for the official Respondents that the request for change of name in the Register of Births & deaths cannot be allowed as a matter of course, is bit difficult to countenance. Had the request be for the alteration of Date of Birth, this Court would have appreciated such a -7- NC: 2023:KHC:19080 WP No. 6961 of 2023 contention since several consequences follow such an alteration. What heavens would fall down should name of the child be redescribed in the Birth Register, is difficult to understand or assume. As already mentioned above, it is in the context of adoption, the child is rechristened and therefore, the change as sought for ought to have been made in the Birth Register at least, when a sworn affidavit was filed to that effect followed by legal notices. Learned counsel for the Petitioners is more than justified in arguing that there is no prohibition in the 1956 Act or the Rules promulgated thereunder for changing the entries relating to name. Therefore, learned AGA is not right in telling the Court that there is no enabling provision for making the change in the entry, on request of the parents. Our names are an incredibly important part of our identity. They carry deep personal, cultural, familial, historical & religious connections. They also give us a sense of who we are, the society in which we belong, and our place in this world. "What is there in the name?" is a wrong question to ask, to say the least.
-8-
NC: 2023:KHC:19080 WP No. 6961 of 2023 In the above circumstances, this Petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the Endorsement dated 22.11.2022 issued by the Second Respondent at Annexure
-J; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the Second Respondent to effect change of name of the Second Petitioner in the Birth Register as "MAHATI S. SUBODHA" and inform the Petitioners within an outer limit of four weeks, failing which, heavy costs may be levied on the erring official, payable by him personally.
It hardly needs to be stated that the necessary changes in terms of the rectified Birth Certificate shall be taken note of by the School/Educational Institution or such other authorities, without raising any issue as to the change of name of the Second Petitioner.
Now, no costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bsv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27