Gujarat High Court
Ravi Talreja vs The Vadodara Mahanagar Seva Sadan on 18 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8735/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8735 of 2025
==========================================================
RAVI TALREJA
Versus
THE VADODARA MAHANAGAR SEVA SADAN & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PY DIVYESHWAR FOR MR CHIRAYU A MEHTA(3256) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
Date : 18/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of present petition, the petitioner is challenging non-action on the part of the respondent Corporation, Vadodara in not deciding the communications of the petitioner dated 07.04.2025, 15.04.2025 and 30.04.2025 with regard to change of name of parents in birth certificate of adopted Girl, viz. Aaravi. The petitioners have entered into registered adoption deed being No.22181/2024 before Registrar and the same was required to be given effect in Birth Certificate No.B202420801768, for the same the petitioners have applied to the respondent authority with various representations and also along with the communications of CARA.
Page 1 of 12 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Sat Jul 19 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 21:51:16 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8735/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/07/2025 undefined
2. The respondent authorities have refused the same vide communication dated 15.05.2025 stating that as per the circular of the Birth and Death Registrar and guidelines of CARA, the same cannot be completed. The same was challenged by the petitioners by way of the present petition.
3. Mr.Shah, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Corporation, has contended and reiterated the facts of the communication of the Corporation.
4. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.672 of 2023 and the paragraphs Nos.5.1, 5.1.1, 5.2, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.3 and 5.4 of the said order read thus:
"5.1 The court extracted propositions of law from another decision in Amruta Vijay Vora Vs. Union of India in Special Civil Application No.11959 of 2002, in para 6 thus, "Even otherwise also, as per section 16 of Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") when any adoption deed is registered there shall be a presumption for documents relating to the adoption and the presumption shall be that the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of Act unless and until it is disproved. Such presumption can be made applicable not only in court proceedings but such presumption in view of Section 16 can also reasonably be made Page 2 of 12 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Sat Jul 19 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 21:51:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8735/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/07/2025 undefined applicable even at the time when the authority has to consider the matter for issuance of passport because the passport authority while considering the matter for issuance of passport is also acting as a quasi judicial authority."
5.1.1 In that case the Regional Passport Officer was directed to consider the application and to issue the passport by changing name. In Nayankumar Rajnikaben Trivedi (supra) it was observed and held in para 7 that since the adoption deed was registered one, the presumption under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956 can be drawn, "In any event, the petitioner is lawfully adopted by a Hindu lady and the Deed of Adoption is registered and therefore the presumption as per the provisions of section 16 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 can be drawn in favour of the petitioner also. The said presumption would operate so long as there is no challenge or such presumption is not rebutted by the procedure known to law. It is not the case of any of the respondent that there are facts and circumstances which would not attract such presumption. The said aspect is coupled with the fact that for change of the name of the petitioner by changing his identify, it is also published in the Government Gazette dated 10.4.2003 and therefore a judicial notice can be taken that such adoption is accordingly notified in the government gazette and known to the public at large."
5.2 Similar was the controversy in Bhavya Rajeshkumar Patel Vs. State of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No.9930 of 2015 decided on 10.12.2015. The law discussed on the point in Bhavya Rajeshkumar Patel (supra) referring to and relying on Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel (supra) applies in the facts of the present case. The decision in Manoj Omprakash Goyal Vs. State of Gujarat [2011 (2) GLH 455] Page 3 of 12 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Sat Jul 19 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 21:51:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8735/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/07/2025 undefined as well as Rameshbhai Nathubhai Solanki Vs. Rajkot Municipal Corporation [2013 (2) GLR 1535] were referred to and relied on the same decision relying the same proposition of law.
5.2.1 The court stated in para 5 referring to Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel (supra), "Respondent No.2 which is the competent authority functioning under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act is vested with statutory power under Section 15 of the said Act which empowers the authority to effect correction in the entries in the Birth Certificate. The decisionof this Court in Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat[(2008) 1 GLR 884] held that the authority under the Act is duty bound to exercise powers under Section 15 of the Act read with Rule 11 of the Gujarat Registration of Birth and Death Rules, 2004 and consider the request for corrections in the Birth Certificate. It is held that a writ of mandamus can be issued since the authority is statutorily enjoined to act."
5.2.2 It was observed in para 6.1 that the Registered Adoption Deed has to be treated valid, "The date of birth and the other details of the petitioner is already recorded in the Birth Certificate issued by the authority at the relevant time. It cannot be gainsaid that the registered Adoption Deed has to be a valid aspect to go into the consideration of the authority when he deals with the application of the petitioner for correction in the Certificate of Birth."
5.3 In Bhavya Rajeshkumar Patel (supra) also the authority has rejected the prayer of the petitioner by stating that the petitioner should obtain a writ from the court. The following was further observed in para 6.2, "In Amruta Vijay Vora Vs Union of India [2013 (2) GLR 2625], the petitioner wanted the name of adoptive father Page 4 of 12 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Sat Jul 19 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 21:51:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8735/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/07/2025 undefined inserted in the passport on the basis of registered Deed of Adoption. This Court observed and held that as per Section 18 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, when any Adoption Deed is registered there shall be a presumption for documents relating to the adoption and the presumption shall be that the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of the Act unless and until it is disproved. It was observed that such presumption can be made applicable not only in court proceedings but such presumption in view of Section 16 can also reasonably be made applicable even at the time when the authority has to consider the mater for issuance of passport because the passport authority while considering the matter for issuance of passport is also acting as a quasi- judicial authority. It has to be stated that though the aforesaid decision is with regard to the change in the passport details, the principle about the legal assertiveness of registered Adoption Deed would apply. The authority under the Registration of Birth and Death Act has to act in accordance with law exercising powers under Section 15 read with Rule 11 of the Rules in relation to the application made by the petitioner."
5.4 The outweighing aspect in the facts of this case is that the change of the name of the father was prayed for on the basis of the Registered Adoption Deed. The petitioner became adoptive father of the child in view of the execution of Registered Adoption Deed. The Registered Adoption Deed is binding to the authority under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act. Once it s is registered deed of adoption, its validity and effect cannot be called in question by the respondent authority. The Registrar is bound in law to incorporate change in the register of Births and Deaths on the basis of the Registered Adoption Deed. The same cannot be ignored or disregarded for its effect."
Page 5 of 12 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Sat Jul 19 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 21:51:16 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8735/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/07/2025 undefined
5. It is also apposite to refer to order passed in Special Civil Application No.7864 of 2016, and the relevant paragraphs of the said order reads thus:
"10. Upon considering the submissions made and on perusal of the record, it clearly transpires that by a judgment and decree dated 18.02.2012 passed by the Family Court, Ahmedabad in Family Suit No.688 of 2011, the marriage solemnized between respondent no.3 and the wife of the present petitioner, Neelamben, came to be dissolved. The said judgment records as under-
"The custody of the minor son shall remain with the petitioner no.2/wife in future. The petitioner no.1/husband have (sic) has waived his visitation rights to meet the minor in future." The said decree is also registered.
11. It further appears that thereafter, a Deed of Adoption came to be registered wherein the petitioner has adopted minor Harsh and such Adoption Deed is duly registered under Registration No.7262 dated 18.11.2015. It is clear from the decree of divorce between respondent no.3 herein and wife of the present petitioner that all rights of minor son Harsh was given to Neelamben, the present wife of the petitioner and thereafter, a registered Deed of Adoption is executed, which is in accordance with law and the Adoption Deed was registered with the competent authority and at present the petitioner and his wife have become parents of minor Harsh.
12. Section 16 of the the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, provides as under:
"Whenever any document registered under any law for the time being in force is produced before any court purporting to record an adoption made and is signed by the person giving and the person taking Page 6 of 12 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Sat Jul 19 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 21:51:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8735/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/07/2025 undefined the child in adoption, the court shall presume that the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of this Act unless and until it is disproved."
13. In the case on hand, the decree of divorce between the biological parents clearly provides that custody of minor Harsh would be with the wife of the petitioner and respondent no.3 as former husband, has given up all his rights. The Deed of Adoption is a registered deed which is not challenged by anybody. On the contrary, as noted hereinabove, respondent no.3 who happens to be the biological father of the minor child Harsh has expressed by way of an affidavit before this Court in this petition unequivocally that he has no objection if the petitioner's name is substituted as father. Thus, as provided under section 16 of the the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, minor Harsh is lawfully adopted and the Deed of Adoption is registered and therefore the presumption as per the provisions of section 16 of the Act can be drawn in favour of the petitioner as there is no rebuttal by the procedure known to the law. Following the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of N.R. Trivedi V. District Education Officer, Anand, AIR 2004 Guj 53, thus, from the record of this case, it appears that the presumption as regards adoption by a registered deed would be in favour of the petitioner.
14. In light of the following direction is issued -aforesaid therefore, the
a) The respondent Corporation shall make entry in the birth certificate of the minor child Harsh according to the application of the petitioner and change the name of father from Snehal Pravinbhai Jayswal to the present petitioner, i.e., Tushar Kanaiyalal Vyas.
b) Such exercise shall be carried out by the respondent no.2 authority as expeditiously as possible and a fresh birth certificate of minor child Harsh Page 7 of 12 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Sat Jul 19 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 21:51:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8735/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/07/2025 undefined with necessary entries shall be issued to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order."
6. Circular dated 15.05.2015 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, reads thus:-
"Please refer this office letter of even number dated 12th March, 2012 vide which instructions were issued on framing procedure for making; changing entries in birth adoption, Later on, taken into consideration the 2011 CARA guidelines, a clarification was issued by this office letter of even number dated 25th August, 2014 through which submission of adoption deed and adoption order (both) has been made mandatory for registration of birth of children taken on adoption and issue of birth certificate to them.
2. In response to the aforesaid clarification, this office has received certain queries on submission of adoption order and adoption deed in respect of non-institutional adoptions. In this regard, it has been quoted that non- institutional adoptions are taken place under the provision of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance (HAMA) Act, 1956" and under Section 16 of this Act; the need for production of adoption deed i.e document registered under any law and signed by both parties is sufficient. In this regard, the authenticity of the adoption deed would have to be checked only with the criteria prescribed under the HAMA Act.
3. In order to address the difficulties in producing the adoption order by general public in case of adoption within relatives/ acquaintances, the matter has been reviewed and also discussed with the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) of Ministry of Women & Child Development. Accordingly, it has been decided that for in country non-institutional adoptions took place within relations or Page 8 of 12 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Sat Jul 19 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 21:51:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8735/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/07/2025 undefined acquaintances, registered adoption deed is enough, there would be no need to produce adoption order of a court for such cases.
4. However, before registering or making corrections in the birth record, the correctness of the adoption deed should be verified by the Registrar of births and deaths and if adoption deed is found to be valid duly registered before the Sub Registrar authorized by the State Government, the concern Registrar should make necessary changes in the birth record on the basis of the information given in the adoption deed and insert the name of adoptive parents and child and issue the birth certificate of the adopted child. Further, it is also clarified that in case of non-
institutional event, if a adopted child is more than one year old and his/ her birth is not- found registered earlier then as per the prescribed procedure of section 13 (3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths (RBD) Act 1969 an order of local Magistrate under the Delayed registration provision should also be obtained before registering the said event.
5. In view of the above facts and taken into consideration the difficulties faced by the public in getting the birth certificate of adopted children, you are requested to direct the aforesaid contents to the concerned authorities and direct them to issue the birth certificate of adopted children on priority basis and ensure that desired birth certificate should be issued within 7 to 10 days from the date of submission of documents by the adoptive parents to the concerned Registrar. This office may be appraised about the action taken in this regard."
6.1 Circular dated 31.01.2018 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, reads thus:-
Page 9 of 12 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Sat Jul 19 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 21:51:16 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8735/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/07/2025 undefined "Please refer this office letter of even number dated 12th March, 2012 and 25th August 2014 vide which instructions were issued regarding registration procedure on making/ changing entries 'in birth record of children taken on adoption. These instructions were issued taken into consideration the 2011 guidelines of Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) under which submission of adoption deed and adoption order (both) were made mandatory for registration of birth and issue of birth certificate of children taken on adoption.
2. You may be aware that through the aforesaid directions, adoption order and adoption deed both were made mandatory for registration of birth of adopted children whether through adoption agencies (institutional) or non-
institutional adoptions. Later on during 2015, a clarification was issued by this office on 15th May, 2015 through which the system of production of adoption order of a court in case of non-institutional adoptions has been discontinued in the light of the provisions of 'Hindu Adoption and Maintenance (HAMA) Act, 1956 and registered adoption deed has been made mandatory for such registration",
3. Now in respect of adoptions made through institutions i.e. adoption agencies, the Ministry of Women & Child Development has revised its guidelines and notified the same in Gazette Notification dated 04-01-2017 as 'Adoption Regulations 2017' wherein removes the clause of production of adoption deed for institutional adoptions and mentioned at section 36 of the new notification that production of adoption order of the Court is sufficient for registration of birth of child adopted through adoption agencies.
4. In order to address the difficulties in producing the adoption deed by general public in case of adoption through institutions (adoption agencies), the matter has been reviewed and accordingly, it has been decided not to insist the public for production of adoption deed for registration of birth of Page 10 of 12 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Sat Jul 19 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 21:51:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8735/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/07/2025 undefined adopted child and register the birth event or make necessary correction/ change on the basis of adoption order of the court and issue the birth certificate of the adopted child.
5. In view of the above facts, you are requested to direct the aforesaid contents to the concerned registration authorities in the State and direct them to issue the birth certificate of adopted children on priority basis with the name of adoptive parents as parents. This office may be appraised about the action taken in this regard."
7. In view of the aforesaid ratio laid-down by this Court, the only requirement is to have a valid adoption deed, which is duly produced by the petitioner herein at Annexure "A" at Page-15. The same is a registered adoption deed. All other requirements as contemplated under the Act and Rules are also fulfilled by the petitioners. The respondent No.2 however rejected the application placing reliance on GR dated 19.10.2006, 01.07.2011 and 25.08.2016, which is also one of the reasons, the impugned order passed by the respondent/competent authority dated 15.05.2025 is not sustainable.
8. Under such circumstances, the order passed by the respondent authority dated 15.05.2025 is quashed and set-aside, with a direction to consider the application of the petitioner afresh.
Page 11 of 12 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Sat Jul 19 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 21:51:16 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8735/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/07/2025 undefined
9. Considering the fact that the adoption deed is a registered one, the respondent authority is directed to decide the applications filed by the petitioners dated 07.04.2025, 15.04.2025 and 30.04.2025 afresh, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order, taking into consideration all the documents that are produced by the petitioners. The respondent authority is also directed to take into consideration the law as laid down by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 672 of 2023 & Special Civil Application No. 7864/2016, the circular of the Central Government dated 15.5.2015 and 31.1.2018, which are produced at page-68 to 71.
In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. Direct Service is permitted.
(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J) ANUP Page 12 of 12 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Sat Jul 19 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 21:51:16 IST 2025