[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Dr Sneha D/O Subhash Joshi vs State Of Karnataka on 26 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3082
WP No. 108947 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO.108947 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
DR. SNEHA D/O. SUBHASH JOSHI,
AGE. 41 YEAS, OCC. PHYSIOTHERAPIST,
R/O. KAIVALYA RESIDENCY, BUDHAWAR PETH,
TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHREEVATSA S.HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPT. OF HOME AFFAIRS,
M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
Digitally signed by
VIJAYALAKSHMI M BENGALURU.
KANKUPPI
Location: HIGH 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPT. OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING,
M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU.
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPT. OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY
SCHOOL EDUCATION, M.S. BUILDING,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3082
WP No. 108947 of 2025
HC-KAR
4. THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS,
CITY CORPORATION, BELAGAVI-590001.
5. UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
7TH FLOOR, MTNL EXCHANGE, GD SOMANI MARG,
CUFF PARADE, COLABA, MUMBAI,
MAHARASHTRA-400005.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADV. FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT A) IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE WRIT DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.4-TO
PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO AMEND THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF
HER SON REFLECTING THAT HE HAS ASSUMED HER NAME AS
"DHRUV S/O. SNEHA JOSHI" IN PLACE OF THE FATHER'S NAME
AND SURNAME HOWEVER, WITHOUT DISTURBING THE NAME OF
THE FATHER IN THE RELEVANT COLUMN RECORDING THE NAME
OF THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER. B) DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS
TO PERMIT AND CARRYOUT SUCH CHANGES IN ALL RELEVANT
DOCUMENTS SHOWING THE NAME OF THE SON OF THE
PETITIONER AS 'DHRUV S/O. SNEHA JOSHI IN ALL CONNECTED
RECORDS INCLUDING SCHOOL, AADHAAR AND OTHER OFFICIAL
DOCUMENTS. C) PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER(S) AS THIS
HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 03.02.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3082
WP No. 108947 of 2025
HC-KAR
CAV ORDER
The present writ petition is filed seeking the following
prayer:
"PRAYER
WHEREFORE, the Hon'ble court be pleased to issue a
writ,
a) In the nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ directing the Respondent No.4-to
permit the Petitioner to amend the birth certificate of
her son reflecting that he has assumed her name as
"Dhruv S/o. Sneha Joshi" in place of the father's
name and Surname however, without disturbing the
name of the father in the relevant column recording
the name of the biological father.
b) Directing the Respondents to permit and carryout
such changes in all relevant documents showing the
name of the son of the Petitioner as 'Dhruv S/o.
Sneha Joshi in all connected records including school,
Aadhaar and other official documents.
c) Pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court
deems fit in the interest of justice."
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner's marriage
was solemnized on 13.02.2015 with one Dattadarshan
Nadgoudaon as per the Hindu rituals. In the wedlock, they were
blessed with a son named 'Dhruv' on 18.12.2015. In view of the
differences between the petitioner and her husband, she started
residing separately. Thereafter, she had filed M.C.No.98/2021
seeking dissolution of marriage before the Family Court,
Belagavi. The marriage was dissolved by mutual consent by
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3082
WP No. 108947 of 2025
HC-KAR
judgment and decree dated 21.04.2021 and the terms were
settled in the said joint petition. The terms of the mutual consent
were so set by the couple that while the petitioner insisted upon
having the exclusive care and custody of the minor son, the
husband of the petitioner refused to take any responsibility going
to the extent of disowning the minor son. The terms included the
liberty to the petitioner to change the name of her child. Ever
since, she has been the sole caretaker and guardian of the
minor.
3. It is further stated that the unbearable trauma
undergone by the petitioner in her matrimonial home, the
insensitivity of her husband and others from his family, their
inability to empathize with her have left an indelible scar and
filled insurmountable bitterness in her. Navigating her solo
journey in difficult times has made her to resolve to give her son
her name instead of the sneaky family of her husband. It is
stated that the child will face several situations confronting him
causing unnecessary anxiety and difficulties in social status. It is
not only the preference of the petitioner but also the need for the
child for his own welfare and stability that the name is changed
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3082
WP No. 108947 of 2025
HC-KAR
from his biological father's to his mother's. The petitioner being
the natural guardian made a representation before respondent
No.2 on 16.07.2025 seeking to change the family name of the
child from Dattadarshan Nadgouda, her husband's to her own.
4. However, respondent No.4 has not been very co-
operative and issued an equally casual endorsement dated
02.08.2025 stating that "as per the Karnataka Birth/Death
Registration Act, your request cannot be considered.
Hence, you are requested to approach the Civil/JMFC
Court for the same".
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that in view of the said endorsement, as the petitioner is left with
no other effective alternative remedy, she has come before this
Court. It is stated that even as per the mutual consent decree of
divorce, the husband of the petitioner had agreed that the
petitioner can change the child's name in the future. It is
submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of ABC Vs. State
(NCT of Delhi)1 had held that a single mother can have her
name recorded as the sole parent in official records without
1
(2015) 10 SCC 1
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3082
WP No. 108947 of 2025
HC-KAR
disclosure of the father's name. It is submitted that in case of
Gita Hariharan Vs. RBI2 it is recognized that a mother is also a
natural guardian of the child not just the father which
strengthens the mother's legal authority to make decisions in the
child's interest though major decisions like surname change
should be supported by a Court order when contested.
6. It is submitted that best interest of the child, Article 3 of
the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which India is a
signatory mandates that the child's best interests must be the
primary consideration. As per Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and
Guardianship Act, 1956 and Section 7 of the Guardians and
Wards Act, 1890, the mother having custody is the natural
guardian of the child. There is no statutory bar in the Births and
Deaths Registration Act, 1969 and allied rules do not mandate
the inclusion of the father's name in cases where the mother is
the sole guardian. It is submitted that the inaction on the part of
the respondent is in violation of fundamental rights that is
guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of
India.
2
AIR 1999 SC 1149
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3082
WP No. 108947 of 2025
HC-KAR
7. Learned counsel had relied on the judgment of the High
Court of Karnataka in case of Master Adhrith Bhat Vs. The
Registrar of Births and Deaths, Udupi City Muncipality
Council arising out of WP.No.6370/2024 dated 06.02.2025.
In this case also, the endorsement issued by the Registrar of
Births who has refused the request of the petitioner to change
his name was challenged. In the said case, a Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court had directed that necessary endorsement shall be
made in the Register of Births and also in the Birth Certificate by
changing the name of the petitioner and allowed the writ
petition. Learned counsel had relied on paragraph Nos.17 to 36
of the judgment referred supra which reads as follows:
"17. As could be seen from above, Rule 10 provides
that where the birth of any child had been registered
without any name, the parent or guardian of such child
is required to give information regarding the name of
the child within 12 months and thereafter by virtue of
Section 14 of the Act, the entries were required to be
made. The proviso to Rule 10 also states the procedure
to be followed if the information is provided after the
period of 12 months has lapsed but within a period of
15 years from the date of registration.
18. It would therefore be clear that under the Rules, if
no name has been furnished at the time of registration
of the birth, the parent can within an outer limit of 15
years from the date of registration furnish the name of
the child and ensure that it had been entered in the
Birth Certificate.
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3082
WP No. 108947 of 2025
HC-KAR
19. However, in the instant case, it is stated that the
petitioner's father had given his son a new name and
therefore, the entry in the Birth Register was also to be
modified.
20. There is admittedly no provision under the Act or
the Rules which provide for change of name which is
already registered. This is therefore an obvious
anomaly which would create unnecessary hardship to
the parents or to the child in case they desire to have
the name changed.
21. It is common practice in our country that a person
decides to give himself a new name or that a parent
decides to change the name though he has already
been given a name. In fact, it is a practice in our
country that multiple names are given, but one name is
entered in the records and this, at times, creates
confusion regarding the identity of the person.
22. The Legislature would have to take a view on this
and ensure that the citizens are not put to any hardship
whenever they desire to change their names and
evolve a procedure where the records of that particular
person are also changed simultaneously in all the
public records or at least in the relevant records.
23. In fact, the Law Commission of Karnataka in its 24th
Report1 furnished on 20.07.2013 regarding Change of
Name, suggesting amendments to the Act and the
Rules. However, the Legislature does not appear to
have taken the matter further.
_______________________________
1
Law Commission of Karnataka Twenty Fourth Report, dated
20.07.2013; Re : Change of Name
- Amendment to the Registration of Births and Deaths Act,
1969.
The relevant suggestions AND the recommendation read as
under :
"SUGGESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION:
(C) Right to change one's name: A person who is known or
described in any manner may give up describing or being
known in that manner and choose any other name"
(H) Change of name recorded in the birth certificate shall be
made for any of the following
reasons:
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3082
WP No. 108947 of 2025
HC-KAR
(i) bona fide desire of the applicant;
(ii) marriage/remarriage,
(iii) divorce,
(iv) adoption;
(v) religious conversion/re-conversion;
(vi) change of nationality and
(vii) change of sex.
"RECOMMENDATIONS:
29) A) For the reasons stated above, the Commission
recommends to the Government of Karnataka to take steps to
amend the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 after
due compliance with the provisions of Article 254 of the
Constitution of India, as follows:
"15A. Change of name entered in the Register of
Births & Deaths: Any person whose name is entered
in the Register of Births and Deaths in the State of
Karnataka and whose name is entered in the
Register of Births and Deaths in any other State and
has been staying in the State of Karnataka for a
prescribed period shall be entitled to seek change of
his name in the Register of Births in accordance with
the rules of procedure prescribed by the State of
Karnataka in this behalf."
B) The Commission further recommends that after Section
15A is added it shall frame exhaustive Rules for giving effect
to the said provisions bearing in mind of the suggestions
made by the Commission in paragraph No.28."
24. It would therefore be appropriate for the
Legislature to take necessary action pursuant to the
recommendation of Law Commission in its 24th report.
25. Since there is no provision under the Act or the
Rules for change of name, a piquant situation has
arisen which requires to be resolved in such a manner
that neither authorities nor the applicants are
prejudiced.
26. Since there is no law which prescribes the
procedure for changing the name of a person, it would
be impermissible for the parents of a child to seek for
changing the name that is already registered in the
register of births and deaths until a relevant law is
provided for by the Legislature.
27. This could be achieved by calling upon the parents
to give a sworn affidavit to the effect that they have
changed the name of the child on their own accord and
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3082
WP No. 108947 of 2025
HC-KAR
the entries in the birth register would be required to be
changed accordingly.
28. On such a request being given, the authorities
should verify the identity of the parents and proceed to
incorporate the changed name in the Register of Births.
29. The authorities, in order to ensure that there is no
attempt to create a record for ulterior purposes, should
make a remark in the register stating that the name of
the child had been changed subsequently pursuant to a
request made by the parents. The register would
therefore have an entry regarding the name which was
originally entered and also a name which was entered
subsequently on their request.
30. If such an endorsement is incorporated in the Birth
Certificate as well, the possibility of any misuse would
also be avoided.
31. In fact, even in respect of an adult who seeks for a
change of name, the same procedure can be adopted.
Since the original name would also be contained in the
register and also the new name, the possibility of this
document being misused for an ulterior purpose can
easily be prevented.
32. Thus, until the appropriate provisions are made
under the Rules by the State in this regard, the
concerned authorities are directed to follow the
aforementioned procedures and permit the change of
name in the Register of Births and Deaths.
33. It has to be noticed here that, since the date of
birth or the date of death and other details would
remain unchanged, there can be no impediment or
reason to prevent the change of name.
34. It is, however, made clear that in case of deaths,
the question of changing the name would not arise and
hence, these directions would be inapplicable.
35. In light of the above, the impugned endorsement
dated 04.11.2023 is quashed. The respondent authority
is hereby directed to change the name of the petitioner
as Shrijith Bhat in the Register of Births as against the
originally registered name Adhrith Bhat.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3082
WP No. 108947 of 2025
HC-KAR
36. As already noticed above, necessary endorsement
shall be made in the Register of Births and also in the
Birth Certificate that the original name of Adhrith Bhat
was changed to Shrijith Bhat, as requested in the
application dated 04.11.2023 and issue a fresh Birth
Certificate accordingly."
8. Relying on this, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the writ petition may be allowed and the
respondent may be directed to carry out the necessary
corrections in the birth certificate of her son.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that as
there is no provision in the Registration of Births and Deaths Act,
1969, the respondents are not in a position to change the name
of the petitioner. Hence, they have issued the impugned
endorsement.
10. Having heard the learned counsels on either side,
perused the entire material on record. In this case, the marriage
between the petitioner and her husband was dissolved by mutual
consent by judgment and decree dated 21.04.2021. As per the
mutual consent decree, the mother will have the exclusive care
and custody of the minor son and the mother is at liberty to
change the name of the child. The Karnataka Registration of
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3082
WP No. 108947 of 2025
HC-KAR
Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and the Rules, 1999, there is no
provision to effect the change of name. Considering the very
same aspect, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Master
Adhrith Bhat's case referred supra had observed that in fact,
the Law Commission of Karnataka in its 24th Report furnished on
20.07.2013, suggested amendments to the Act and the Rules. It
is also observed that admittedly, when there is no provision
under the Act or the rules for change of name, which is an
obvious anomaly which would create unnecessary hardship to
the parents or to the child in case they desire to have the name
changed, issued slew of directions to the authorities. In the said
order, it is observed that the authorities in order to ensure that
there is no attempt to create a record for ulterior purposes,
should make a remark in the register stating that the name of
the child had been changed, pursuant to the request made by
the parents. The register would therefore have an entry
regarding the name which was originally entered and also a
name which was entered subsequently on their request. If such
an endorsement is incorporated in the Birth Certificate as well,
the possibility of any misuse would also be avoided. In this case,
the mother is at liberty to change the name of the child as per
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3082
WP No. 108947 of 2025
HC-KAR
the mutual consent decree. Hence, the husband/father cannot
have any objection. In the light of the judgment in Master
Adhrith Bhat's case referred supra, this Court is passing the
following:
ORDER
i. The impugned endorsement dated 02.08.2025 issued by respondent No.4 is set aside. ii. Respondent No.4 is directed to carry out the necessary changes in the birth certificate of the petitiner's son reflecting his name as "Dhruv S/o. Sneha Joshi" in place of the father's name and Surname, however, without disturbing the name of the father in the relevant column recording the name of the biological father. iii. The respondents shall make a remark in the Register of Births about the name change pursuant to the request made by the petitioner and the Register should reflect both the original name and also the present name.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3082 WP No. 108947 of 2025 HC-KAR iv. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. v. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed.
Sd/-
JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MEG CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3