Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Bangalore District Court

Sangeetha S vs The Joint Commissioner, Bbmp on 23 October, 2025

KABC010280962022




     IN THE COURT OF THE XX ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
      SESSIONS JUDGE(CCH-32), BANGALORE CITY
          Dated this the 23rd day of October 2025
                         Present:
          Sri.Sirajuddeen A., B.A., LL.B.,
          XX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
                       Bengaluru.

                       O.S.No.6774/2022
PLAINTIFFS         :     1)Smt.Sangeetha .S,
                         W/o Gajendra Kumar .M,
                         Aged about 38 years.

                         2)Gajendra Kumar .M,
                         S/o Munivenkatappa .K,
                         Aged about 38 years.

                         3)Adney Dawson .H,
                         Represented by Minor/Guardian
                         Gajendra Kumar .M,
                         Aged about 41 years.

                         All are residing at:
                         No.41, N.S.Palya, BTM 2nd Stage,
                         Bannerghatta Road,
                         Bengaluru-560076.

                         (By Sri.Namadeva Padiyar,
                          Advocate)
                         //versus//
DEFENDANT          :     The Joint Commissioner,
                         BBMP Birth & Death Authority,
                         Bengaluru-560009.

                        (Exparte)
                              2            O.S.No.6774/2022



Date of institution
of the suit:                     : 19/10/2022
Nature of suit                   : Declaration suit.

Date of commencement
of recording of evidence         : 07/02/2023

Date on which the
judgment was pronounced          : 23/10/2025

Duration                         : year/s Month/s        day/s
                                    03      00            04

                               (Sirajuddeen A.),
                      XX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
                                   Bengaluru.


                      JUDGMENT

Plaintiff instituted this suit seeking for a declaration that the adoption of the minor child Adney Dawson H, by plaintiff No.2 Gajendra Kumar M, is valid and in accordance with law, and for a consequential direction to the defendant authority to change the father's name in the child's birth certificate from Hamanish Bhattacharjee to Gajendra Kumar .M.

2. The facts of the plaintiffs case is that the plaintiff No.1 was married to Hamanish Bhattacharjee on 13/6/2009 according to Christian rites at Bengaluru, and the said 3 O.S.No.6774/2022 marriage was duly registered. From the said wedlock, a male child Adney Dawson H was born on 25/11/2010 at RMV Hospital, Bengaluru. The father's name in the birth certificate was entered as Hamanish Bhattacharjee. Subsequently, due to marital differences, plaintiff No.1 and her then husband obtained a decree of mutual divorce in F.C.O.P No.2024/2016 by order dated 19/4/2017 passed by the IV Additional District Judge-cum-I Additional Family Judge, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana. Thereafter, plaintiff No.1 married plaintiff No.2 on 18/03/2018 under Christian Marraige at Benaluru. Plaintiff No.2 having taken care of the minor child, adopted him formally through a registered deed of adoption dated 4/7/2023 executed before the Sub Registrar, Jayanagar, Bengaluru. The plaintiffs approached the BBMP to update the records accordingly, but the authority insisted on a court order. Hence the suit.

3. Upon issuance of summons to the defendant, the defendant failed to appear and was placed exparte. 4 O.S.No.6774/2022

4. In order to prove the case, the plaintiff No.,1 is examined as PW1 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 and closed their side evidence.

5. Perused the plaint averments, documents available on record and evidence led. Heard the counsel appearing for plaintiffs.

6. The points that arise for my consideration are:

1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the adoption of the minor child Adney Dawson H, by plaintiff No.2 Gajendra Kumar .M under deed dateed 4/7/2023 is valid and in accordance with law?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration and direction as prayed?
3. What order or decree?

7. My answers to the above point No.(i) & (ii) are in the affirmative and for point No.(iii) as per final order passed, for the following REASONS

8. Points No.(i) & (ii): Both the points are interlinked with each other, to avoid repetition of facts, I have taken together for common discussion.

5 O.S.No.6774/2022

9.This is the suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking to declare adoption of the minor child Adney Dawson H, by plaintiff No.2 Gajendra Kumar M, is valid and in accordance with law, and for a consequential direction to the defendant authority to change the father's name in the child's birth certificate from Hamanish Bhattacharjee to Gajendra Kumar .M

10. From Ex.P.2, the dissolution of the earlier marriage between the plaintiff No.1 and Hamanish Bhattacharjee is established. Ex.P.3 shows the subsequent marriage between plaintiff No.1 and 2. Ex.P.5, the registered Deed of Adoption dated 4/7/2023, demonstrates that the minor child Adney Dawson H was legally adopted by plaintiff No.2 after obtaining due consent of the biological father, satisfying the legal requirements under the Indian Christian Adoption and Maintenance framework recognized by civil courts. There is no rebuttal evidence from the defendant. Hence the court finds that the adoption is validly executed and binding.

11.The Gujarat High Court decision in Khojema Saifudin Dodiya vs. Registrar of Birth and Death / Chief Officer, Dhoraji Nagarpalika (Special Civil Application 6 O.S.No.6774/2022 Nos.416/2022 etc., decided on 17/02/2023) supports the proposition that upon lawful adoption, the competent authority is bound to amend the birth record to reflect the adoptive father's name, to protect the child's legal identity and welfare. [

12.In the present case, BBMP is the statutory custodian of birth records. Since the adoption is valid and proved, the plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration and direction to BBMP to update the father's name in the birth certificate of the minor child from Hamanish Bhattacharjee to Gajendra Kumar .M. Accordingly, both points are answered in the affirmative.

13. Point No.(iii): In view of above said observations, I proceed to pass the following ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is hereby allowed. It is declared that the adoption of the minor child Adney Dawson H by the plaintiff No.2 Gajendra Kumar .M under the registered deed of adoption dated 4/7/2023 is valid and in accordance with law.

The defendant is hereby directed to update the official birth records and issue a revised birth certificate of the said minor child 7 O.S.No.6774/2022 showing Gajendra Kumar .M, as the father's name in place of Hamanish Bhattacharjee.

No order as to costs.

Draw decree accordingly.

(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade -I on computer, computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on the 23rd day of October 2025) (Sirajuddeen A.) XX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the Plaintiffs:

P.W.1: Smt.Sangeetha. S. List of documents marked for the Plaintiffs:
Ex.P.1 : Birth Certificate of son of plaintiff dated 14/2/2011.
Ex.P.2 : Certified copy of the order in FCOP No.2024/2016.
Ex.P.3 : Marriage Certificate dated 12/3/2018. Ex.P.4 : Original Aadhar Card of plaintiff. Ex.P.5 : Deed of Adoption dated 4/7/2023.
List of Witnesses examined for the defendant:
Nil.
List of documents marked for the defendant:
Nil.
(Sirajuddeen A.) XX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
8 O.S.No.6774/2022