Gujarat High Court
Dimpalben Nileshbhai Gaami vs State Of Gujarat on 6 February, 2020
Author: A.Y. Kogje
Bench: A.Y. Kogje
C/SCA/23118/2019 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 23118 of 2019
================================================================
DIMPALBEN NILESHBHAI GAAMI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
S M KIKANI(7596) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR KM ANTANI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER(1) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MS ROOPAL R PATEL(1360) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
Date : 06/02/2020
ORAL ORDER
1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to make necessary correction in the Birth Certificate of the petitioners son - Rudra for mentioning the correct name of the petitioner No.2 in the column of 'father's name' in the Birth Certificate of the son.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that earlier the petitioner No.1 had married one - Vijaybhai Vashrambhai Ramoliya and out of the wedlock, a son 'Rudra' was born on 30.08.2014 and pursuant to his birth, the entry was made under the Registration of Birth and Death Act. However, on account of the matrimonial disputes with her husband, the petitioner No.1 separated from her husband, the marriage was dissolved and Page 1 of 4 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 03:49:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/23118/2019 ORDER custody of the minor child remained with the petitioner No.1. It is submitted that the petitioner No.1 remarried with the petitioner No.2 and thereafter, the petitioner No.2 agreed to undertake all the responsibilities of the minor. The minor child was adopted with the consent of family members of both the petitioners and pursuant to the said adoption, a deed of adoption was executed between the parties which came to be registered and since then the minor child has been residing with the petitioners.
3. It is submitted that the petitioners had made a request to the respondent No.2 to replace / mention the name of the respondent No.2 as father in place of the name of the earlier husband of the petitioner no.1 in the column of 'father's name' in the certificate issued by the respondent no.2 herein vide a representation dated 28.05.2019. It is further submitted that since the respondent No.2 was demanding the Affidavit of the petitioners, the petitioners also filed an Affidavit stating the above facts on oath. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 had sought opinion from its concerned officer, wherein the concerned Officer also gave his positive opinion with regard to the request of the petitioners by citing a resolution of Government of India as well as the State Government. It is also submitted that after making the above written application and also the positive opinion given by the concerned Officer of the respondent No.2, on 03.08.2019, the petitioners received a Page 2 of 4 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 03:49:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/23118/2019 ORDER written communication from the respondent No.2, whereby the application for correction was refused by the respondent No.2, citing a Government Resolution dated 18.02.2016. The petitioners were also asked to produced a Adoption Decree from the concerned Court with the registered Adoption Deed.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioners draws attention of the Court to the decision in the case of Tushar Kanaiyalal Vyas through POA Mr. Kanaiyalal Nandlal Vyas v. State of Gujarat and Others in Special Civil Application No.7864/2016 dated 15.02.2017.
5. In identical facts situation this Court in the judgment in the case of Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat reported in 2008 (1) GLR 884 and an unreported judgment in the case of Sachin Natwarlal Patel v. Registrar of Births and Deaths cum Talati cum Mantri in Special Civil Application No.9564/2018 dated 07.01.2019 has issued directions. Considering the ratio of the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that the Registering Authority is within its power under Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Death Act, 1969 and Rule 11 of the Gujarat Registration of Birth and Death Act, 2004, to correct the error as prayed for.
6. In view of the aforesaid legal position, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent No.2 to re-consider the application of Page 3 of 4 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 03:49:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/23118/2019 ORDER the petitioners for mentioning the correct name of the petitioner No.2 in the column of 'father's name' in the Birth Certificate of the minor son - 'Rudra' and as mentioned in this petition, within a period of four weeks after receipt of writ of the order of this Court, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
7. With the aforesaid direction, this petition stands disposed of. Direct Service is permitted.
Sd/-
(A.Y. KOGJE, J) CAROLINE Page 4 of 4 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 03:49:11 IST 2020