1. The Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
2. Petitioner No.1 is a minor daughter of petitioner No.2
and one Mr.Khadga Bahadur Saru Magar. It is stated
that they were not married, but from and out of a
live in relationship, the petitioner No.2 gave birth to
petitioner No.1 on 16.02.2017 at K C General
Hospital in Malleswaram, Bengaluru.
3. Subsequently, the petitioner No.2 applied for a birth
certificate by showing the name of the petitioner and
the aforesaid Mr.Khadga Bahadur Saru Magar as the
father. In pursuance of which, a birth certificate
came to be issued on 04.03.2017.
4. The father (Khadga Bahadur Saru Magar), expressed
unwillingness to continue his relationship with
petitioner No.2 and left for his hometown in Nepal.
Thereafter, petitioner No.2 and the father (Khadga
Bahadur Saru Magar) have had no interaction,
communication or relationship with each other.
5. The name of the natural father has been shown in
the birth certificate. But the said father is not willing
to take the responsibility for the upkeep of the minor
daughter-petitioner No.1.
6. The Petitioner No.2 had approached the Respondent
for the deletion of the name of the father and the
addition of the name of the Petitioner No.2 and her
family name in the birth certificate. The said
application was not considered by the Respondent.
7. Along with the said application, Petitioner No.2 had
submitted an Aadhar card, a passport, a study
certificate of Petitioner No.1 and an affidavit
categorically stating that the rectification required
would not affect any third party. Petitioner No.2
being named Thennekim, a derivative of her name to
be added along with the name of the petitioner as
Themnunhoi as also the family name of Haokip to be
added to the name of Petitioner No.1.
8. An endorsement came to be issued that the
respondents do not have the power to carry out such
a correction. In pursuance to which a legal notice
came to be issued by the petitioner No.2 on
05.09.2025, which was not acted upon and it is in
that background that the petitioner is before this
Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.
9. The points that would arise for determination are:
i. Whether the Respondent-Registrar
possesses power under the Registration of
Births and Deaths Act, 1969 to effect
correction of the nature sought?
NC: 2026:KHC:9735
HC-KAR
ii. Whether change of the minor child's name
to reflect the maternal derivative/family
name, while retaining the father's name in
the birth certificate, affects any
substantive legal rights?
iii. Whether the relief sought is in the best
interest of the minor child?
iv. What order?
10. I answer the above points as Follows
11. Answer to Point No.(i): Whether the Respondent-
Registrar possesses power under the Registration
of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 to effect correction
of the nature sought?
11.1. Sri. Thangminlal Haokip, learned counsel for
the petitioners, submitted that petitioner No.1
is a minor child aged about 8 years, born on
16.02.2017 at K C General Hospital,
Malleswaram, Bengaluru, out of a live-in
relationship between petitioner No.2
(Thenneikim) and one Khadga Bahadur Saru
Magar. The birth certificate was issued on
04.03.2017, bearing the name of the child as
Priancy Saru Magar, with the name of Khadga
Bahadur Saru Magar shown as the father.
NC: 2026:KHC:9735
HC-KAR
11.2. It was further submitted that the said Khadga
Bahadur Saru Magar expressed unwillingness to
continue the relationship with petitioner No.2
and left for his hometown in Nepal, completely
abandoning both the mother and the minor
child. Since then, there has been no interaction,
communication, or relationship between the
father and the petitioners. The father has not
contributed in any manner whatsoever to the
upkeep, maintenance, or welfare of petitioner
No.1.
11.3. Sri. Thangminlal Haokip submitted that
petitioner No.2, being the sole caretaker of
petitioner No.1, approached the respondent-
Registrar seeking for addition of the maternal
derivative name 'Themnunhoi' and the family
name 'Haokip' so that the child's name would
read as "Priancy Themnunhoi Haokip". Along
with the application, petitioner No.2 furnished
the Aadhaar card, passport, study certificate of
petitioner No.1, and a sworn affidavit
categorically stating that the rectification
sought would not affect any third-party rights.
NC: 2026:KHC:9735
HC-KAR
11.4. It was contended that the respondent-Registrar
rejected the application by way of an
endorsement stating that the respondents do
not have the power to carry out such a
correction. A legal notice was thereafter issued
on 05.09.2025, which was not acted upon by
the respondents.
11.5. Sri. Thangminlal Haokip urged that the
Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') specifically
provides for correction and cancellation of
entries in the register of births and deaths. It
was submitted that Section 15 of the Act
empowers the Registrar to make corrections in
the register upon an application being made to
him. Furthermore, Section 22 of the Act
provides for correction of entries in the register
within prescribed time limits and with
prescribed safeguards. It was therefore the
submission that the respondent-Registrar was
wholly incorrect in stating that no power exists
to make such corrections.
11.6. It was further submitted that the nature of the
correction sought is not the creation of a new
NC: 2026:KHC:9735
HC-KAR
entry or a fabrication of facts, but rather an
alteration necessitated by a change in the
personal circumstances of the family. The
father having abandoned the family, the
mother's decision to give the child her own
family identity is a lawful exercise of her
parental authority. The Registrar ought to have
exercised the power vested under the Act and
effected the correction sought.
11.7. Sri. Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for the
respondents, submitted that the relief sought
by the petitioners is not in the nature of a mere
correction or rectification of a clerical or factual
error in the birth certificate. What is sought is a
substantive alteration of the name of the child.
It was contended that the Act contemplates
correction of entries only where there is an
error or omission in the original entry, and not
where the entry was accurate at the time it was
made.
11.8. Sri. Pawan Kumar further submitted that the
name of the father was correctly recorded at
the time of registration of the birth on the basis
of information provided by petitioner No.2
NC: 2026:KHC:9735
HC-KAR
herself. It was not a case of any error or
omission in the entry. The fact that the live-in
relationship subsequently ended does not
render the original entry erroneous. The
biological fact of paternity remains unchanged
regardless of the status of the relationship
between the parents.
11.9. It was further submitted that the respondents
are statutory authorities bound by the
provisions of the Act and the Rules framed
thereunder. The power to effect a correction
under Section 15 is limited to genuine errors
and omissions, and does not extend to
substantive changes in the name of the child
based on subsequent personal circumstances.
Such changes, it was argued, would require an
order from a competent court.
11.10. Sri. Pawan Kumar submitted that the
endorsement issued by the Respondent was
bona fide and in accordance with the
Respondent's understanding of the scope of
power under the Act. It was not a case of
arbitrary refusal but rather a genuine
interpretation of the statutory provisions.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9735
HC-KAR
11.11. I have carefully considered the submissions of
both learned counsel. The central question
under this Point is whether the respondent-
Registrar possesses the statutory power to
effect the changes sought by the petitioners,
namely the change in the name of the child
from Priancy Saru Magar to Priancy
Themnunhoi Haokip;
11.12. In order to answer this question, it is necessary
to examine the relevant provisions of the
Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969.
The Act was enacted by Parliament to provide
for the regulation of registration of births and
deaths and for matters connected therewith.
11.13. Section 14 of the Act deals with the
information regarding births and deaths and
provides as follows:
"14. Information regarding birth and
death.--(1) It shall be the duty of the persons
specified in subsection (2) to give or cause to be
given, either orally or in writing, according to the
best of their knowledge and belief, and within
such time as may be prescribed, information to
the Registrar of the several particulars required to
be entered in the forms prescribed by the State
Government under sub-section (1) of section 16."
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9735
HC-KAR
11.14. Section 15 of the Act is of critical importance
and provides for the duty of the Registrar upon
receiving information:
"15. Duty of Registrar receiving information
of births and deaths.--(1) The Registrar, on
receiving information under section 14, shall, if he
is satisfied that the informant is in a position to
give the correct information, forthwith enter in
the register maintained for the purpose all the
particulars required to be entered therein."
11.15. Section 16 of the Act provides for the forms
of registers of births and deaths, prescribing
the particulars required to be entered in the
register.
11.16. Section 22 of the Act is the most significant
provision for the present case and provides for
the correction or cancellation of entry in the
register:
"22. Correction or cancellation of entry in
register.--(1) If it is proved to the satisfaction of
the Registrar that any entry of a birth or death in
the register is erroneous in form or substance, the
Registrar may, subject to such rules as may be
made by the State Government with respect to
the conditions on which and the circumstances in
which such entries may be corrected or cancelled,
correct the error or cancel the entry by suitable
entry in the margin, without any alteration of the
original entry, and shall sign the marginal entry
and add thereto the date of correction or
cancellation.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9735
HC-KAR
(2) The correction of any error in the particulars
described in any prescribed form shall not be
made except with the written authority of the
prescribed authority."
11.17. A plain reading of Section 22(1) of the Act
reveals that the Registrar is empowered to
correct an entry if it is "erroneous in form or
substance." The expression "erroneous in form
or substance" is broad enough to encompass
not merely clerical or typographical errors, but
also errors going to the substance of the entry.
The section does not limit the nature of the
error that can be corrected. It empowers the
Registrar to make corrections "subject to such
rules as may be made by the State
Government."
11.18. The contention of Sri. Pawan Kumar that the
original entry was accurate at the time it was
made and therefore cannot be treated as
"erroneous" deserves serious consideration. It
is true that the name of the father was
recorded based on information furnished by
petitioner No.2 at the time of registration, and
at that point in time, the information was
factually correct. The father was indeed Khadga
Bahadur Saru Magar.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9735
HC-KAR
11.19. However, the question is not merely whether
the original entry was accurate at the time of
its making, but whether, in the changed
circumstances, the continued maintenance of
the entry in its present form serves the purpose
of the Act and the interests of the registered
person. The name of a child is not merely a
matter of biological fact; it is an integral part of
the child's identity. Where the mother, being
the sole custodial parent and the only person
responsible for the child's upbringing, seeks to
give the child her own family name, and where
the father has completely abandoned the child,
the continued recording of the father's surname
in the child's name creates a practical anomaly
that may well be regarded as an entry that is
"erroneous in substance" in the broader sense.
11.20. Furthermore, even if one were to take a narrow
view of Section 22 and hold that it does not
extend to the kind of change sought by the
petitioners, it must be remembered that the
High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India has the power
to issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, direction, or order for the
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9735
HC-KAR
enforcement of fundamental rights or for any
other purpose. The power under Article 226 is
of the widest amplitude and is not
circumscribed by the provisions of any statute.
Where the statutory authority has failed to
exercise its power or has exercised it in a
manner that is unreasonable, arbitrary, or
contrary to the interests of a minor child, this
Court is empowered to step in and issue
appropriate directions.
11.21. In the present case, the respondent-Registrar
took the position that the respondents "do not
have the power to carry out such a correction."
This endorsement is, in my considered opinion,
based on an unduly restrictive and incorrect
interpretation of the provisions of the Act. The
Registrar failed to properly appreciate the
scope of Section 22 of the Act, which empowers
the Registrar to correct entries that are
erroneous in form or substance. Even assuming
that the Registrar entertained a genuine doubt
about the scope of the power, the proper
course would have been to seek guidance from
the prescribed authority or to inform the
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9735
HC-KAR
petitioners of the procedure to be followed,
rather than to issue a blanket refusal.
11.22. Moreover, the endorsement did not even
consider the merits of the application. No
reasons were assigned. The application was
accompanied by supporting documents
including the Aadhaar card, passport, study
certificate, and a sworn affidavit. A blanket
refusal without application of mind to the
relevant materials amounts to non-exercise of
statutory power and is amenable to correction
under Article 226 of the Constitution.
11.23. In light of the above, I hold that the
respondent-Registrar does possess power
under the Act, particularly under Section 22
thereof, to effect corrections in the birth
register, and that such power is broad enough
to encompass the nature of corrections sought
by the petitioners. Even if the power under the
Act is viewed as insufficient, this Court
possesses ample power under Article 226 of the
Constitution to direct the Respondent to carry
out the changes in the interest of the minor
child. The endorsement issued by the
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9735
HC-KAR
Respondent refusing to carry out the correction
is based on an erroneous interpretation of the
Act and amounts to a failure to exercise
statutory power.
11.24. I answer Point No. (i) by holding that the
Respondent-Registrar possesses power under
the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969
to effect correction of the nature sought. The
respondent-Registrar possesses power under
Section 22 of the Registration of Births and
Deaths Act, 1969 to effect the correction
sought. Furthermore, this Hon'ble Court, in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution, is empowered to direct the
Respondent to carry out the necessary
changes. The endorsement issued by the
Respondent refusing to effect the correction is
based on an erroneous interpretation of the Act
and amounts to a failure to exercise statutory
power.
12. Answer to Point No.(ii): Whether change of the
minor child's name to reflect the maternal
derivative/family name, while retaining the
father's name in the birth certificate, affects
any substantive legal rights?
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9735
HC-KAR
12.1. Sri. Thangminlal Haokip, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners, clarified that the
relief sought is confined to change of the minor
child's name so as to incorporate the maternal
derivative "Themnunhoi" and the maternal
family name "Haokip". It is specifically
submitted that there is no prayer for deletion of
the father's name from the birth certificate. The
column relating to the father shall continue to
reflect the name of Khadga Bahadur Saru
Magar as the biological father of the minor.
Thus, the factual and legal acknowledgment of
paternity remains intact.
12.2. Learned counsel submitted that the child was
born out of a live-in relationship between
petitioner No.2 and the said Khadga Bahadur
Saru Magar. The relationship has since ended.
The father has left the country and has neither
participated in nor contributed to the
upbringing of the minor child. The child is being
raised exclusively by the mother and the
maternal family. In such circumstances, it was
contended that permitting the child to bear the
maternal derivative and family name reflects
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9735
HC-KAR
the social reality of her upbringing and does not
interfere with any substantive legal right of the
father.
12.3. It was further submitted that petitioner No.2
has furnished a sworn affidavit affirming that
no third-party rights would be affected by the
proposed rectification. The change is limited to
nomenclature. The biological relationship
remains recorded in the statutory register. The
father's legal remedies, if any, remain
unaffected.
12.4. Per contra, Sri. Pawan Kumar, learned counsel
for the respondents, contended that even
alteration of the surname of a child may have
legal implications. According to him, the
surname is not merely symbolic; it may have
bearing on issues of identity and succession. He
submitted that caution must be exercised
before permitting such change.
12.5. I have considered the rival submissions. The
issue must be examined in the correct factual
and legal perspective. It is essential to
emphasise that this case does not involve
deletion of the father's name as father. The
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9735
HC-KAR
statutory acknowledgment of paternity remains
untouched. The father's name continues to be
reflected in the birth certificate. The only
question is whether alteration of the child's
surname to reflect maternal lineage affects any
substantive legal right.
12.6. The genesis of the present dispute lies in the
fact that the child was born out of a live-in
relationship. The law in India has, over the
years, evolved to recognise live-in relationships
to a certain extent, particularly in the context
of protection from domestic violence and the
rights of children born from such relationships.
12.7. Children born outside formal marriage cannot
be stigmatised or deprived of legal protection.
Substantive rights of children cannot be
defeated by technicalities of marital status.
There is a constitutional commitment to protect
children, irrespective of the parents' marital
status.
12.8. At the same time, it is equally well recognised
that a live-in relationship does not
automatically create the full legal framework of
marriage. The rights and obligations between
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9735
HC-KAR
partners may not be identical to those arising
out of wedlock. Where such a relationship ends,
the legal system must address the
consequences in a manner that prioritises the
welfare of the child.
12.9. In the present case, the live-in relationship has
come to an end. The father has ceased
cohabitation and is not participating in the
upbringing of the minor. The child's daily life,
social environment, and emotional anchorage
are centred entirely in the maternal family. The
request to incorporate the maternal derivative
and family name is a reflection of this lived
reality.
12.10. A surname is a social identifier. It signifies
lineage or familial association but does not, by
itself, create or extinguish legal rights. Rights
relating to maintenance, inheritance,
guardianship, or succession arise from the
existence of a legally cognisable parent-child
relationship.
12.11. In the present case, since the father's name
continues to be recorded in the birth certificate,
there is no ambiguity as to biological
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9735
HC-KAR
parentage. The statutory record continues to
reflect the father as father.
12.12. A child's right to claim maintenance from the
biological father does not depend upon the
surname she bears. Similarly, succession rights
are determined by statutory provisions
governing inheritance, not by the suffix
attached to the child's name.
12.13. Therefore, the change of surname does not
affect substantive legal rights.
12.14. Dignity, autonomy, and identity are intrinsic
components of Article 21 of the Constitution.
Identity is not frozen by tradition. The
Constitution does not mandate that a child
must invariably bear the father's surname.
12.15. In contemporary constitutional understanding,
interpretation of personal identity cannot be
divorced from the guarantees of equality and
non-discrimination enshrined in Articles 14 and
15 of the Constitution of India. The
constitutional order no longer views lineage,
family structure, or naming conventions
through a rigidly patriarchal lens. Equality
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9735
HC-KAR
before law and equal protection of laws
mandate that maternal identity stands on the
same legal footing as paternal identity.
12.16. The presumption that a child must invariably
bear the surname of the father is not a
constitutional mandate but a social convention.
Such convention cannot override the
constitutional principle that men and women
enjoy equal status in matters relating to family,
parenthood, and identity. Article 15 prohibits
discrimination on grounds of sex. To insist, as a
matter of law, that identity must be tethered to
paternal lineage alone would indirectly
perpetuate gender-based hierarchy in matters
of familial recognition.
12.17. The evolution of constitutional jurisprudence
reflects a conscious movement away from
gender asymmetry. Parenthood is not a
hierarchy; it is a legal relationship. Where the
mother is the sole caregiver and natural
guardian in fact, there is no constitutional
impediment in recognising maternal lineage as
the marker of the child's surname. Recognition
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9735
HC-KAR
of maternal identity does not diminish paternal
status; it affirms parity.
12.18. Thus, contemporary constitutional doctrine,
grounded in dignity, autonomy, and equality,
supports the proposition that a child's identity
may legitimately reflect maternal lineage
without infringing any substantive legal right.
To insist that a child must necessarily bear the
paternal surname, even where the paternal
relationship has ceased in practical terms,
would be inconsistent with evolving
constitutional values.
12.19. The right of the custodial parent to determine
the name of a minor child is an aspect of
parental autonomy, subject always to the
welfare of the child. In the present case, the
mother, being the sole caregiver, seeks a name
that reflects the familial context in which the
child is growing up. It is important to reiterate
that the father's legal position remains
unaffected. His name continues in the birth
certificate. The biological fact of parentage is
preserved.
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9735
HC-KAR
12.20. If at any future point the father seeks to assert
custodial, guardianship, maintenance, or
succession rights, such claim would be
adjudicated on its merits. The child's surname
would not operate as a bar to such
adjudication. The present rectification is
therefore administrative and representational.
It does not adjudicate rights; it merely records
identity.
12.21. The present case emerges from the dissolution
of a live-in relationship. The law cannot ignore
the social realities that follow such dissolution.
At the same time, it must ensure that
substantive rights are preserved. Since the
father's name continues to be recorded in the
birth certificate and the biological relationship
remains acknowledged, alteration of the child's
surname to incorporate the maternal derivative
and family name does not affect any
substantive legal right of the father or any third
party. On the contrary, it aligns the child's
recorded identity with her lived familial
environment, consistent with constitutional
values of dignity and autonomy.
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9735
HC-KAR
12.22. Accordingly, I answer Point No.(ii) by holding
that the proposed change of the minor child's
name, while retaining the father's name in the
birth certificate, does not affect substantive
legal rights and is legally permissible. The
insertion of the maternal derivative/family
name in the birth certificate does not affect any
substantive legal rights of any person. The
biological and legal relationship between the
child and the father, including the child's rights
of inheritance, succession, and maintenance,
remains unaltered. The change is one of
nomenclature and identity that reflects the
actual family environment in which the child is
being raised.
13. Answer to Point No.(iii): Whether the relief
sought is in the best interest of the minor child?
13.1. Sri. Thangminlal Haokip, learned counsel for
the petitioners, submitted that the relief sought
is squarely in the best interest of petitioner
No.1, the minor child. The child is being raised
solely by petitioner No.2, the mother, with the
support of her maternal family. The father has
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9735
HC-KAR
completely abandoned them and has had no
role whatsoever in the child's life. In these
circumstances, it is in the best interest of the
child that her name reflect her actual family
identity, that is, the maternal family of Haokip.
13.2. It was submitted that the child is now about 8
years old and is attending school. The
discrepancy between the name in the birth
certificate (Priancy Saru Magar) and the name
by which the child is known in the maternal
family (with the Haokip surname) creates
confusion and practical difficulties in school
admission, obtaining identity documents, and
other day-to-day matters. The child's study
certificate already reflects the usage of the
maternal name. It is in the child's interest that
all official documents be consistent and reflect
the name by which the child is actually known.
13.3. Sri. Thangminlal Haokip further submitted that
the principle of the 'best interest of the child' is
a paramount consideration in all matters
concerning children, as recognised both under
Indian law and international conventions. The
child's right to identity, dignity, and a sense of
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9735
HC-KAR
belonging to a family are protected under
Article 21 of the Constitution. Allowing the child
to bear the mother's family name promotes the
child's psychological well-being and social
integration.
13.4. Sri. Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for the
respondents, submitted that the respondents
are not opposed to the welfare of the child but
are constrained by the statutory framework. It
was submitted that the respondents, as
registering authorities, are duty-bound to
maintain accurate records of vital events and
cannot alter records based on subsequent
changes in personal circumstances without
proper legal authority.
13.5. It was further submitted that the best interest
of the child is not the sole consideration; the
statutory framework and the need to maintain
accurate vital statistics must also be
considered. Permitting changes in vital records
based on changes in personal relationships
could undermine the integrity of the
registration system.
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9735
HC-KAR
13.6. The principle of the 'best interest of the child' is
the golden thread that runs through the entire
fabric of the law relating to children. This
principle is enshrined in Article 3 of the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
(UNCRC), to which India is a signatory. Article
3 of the UNCRC provides:
1. In all actions concerning children, whether under-
taken by public or private social welfare institu-
tions, courts of law, administrative authorities or
legislative bodies, the best interests of the child
shall be a primary consideration.
2. States Parties undertake to ensure the child such
protection and care as is necessary for his or her
well-being, taking into account the rights and du-
ties of his or her parents, legal guardians, or oth-
er individuals legally responsible for him or her,
and, to this end, shall take all appropriate legisla-
tive and administrative measures.
3. States Parties shall ensure that the institutions,
services and facilities responsible for the care or
protection of children shall conform with the
standards established by competent authorities,
particularly in the areas of safety, health, in the
number and suitability of their staff, as well as
competent supervision.
13.7. Under Indian law, the principle of the best
interest of the child has been repeatedly
affirmed as the paramount consideration in all
matters affecting children. Article 21 of the
Constitution of India guarantees the right to life
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9735
HC-KAR
and personal liberty, which has been
expansively interpreted to include the right to
live with dignity, the right to identity, and the
right to a name. For a minor child, these rights
are to be protected by the custodial parent and
by the State.
13.8. Article 7 of the UNCRC further provides that a
child shall have the right from birth to a name
and the right to acquire a nationality.
1. The child shall be registered immediately after
birth and shall have the right from birth to a
name, the right to acquire a nationality and, as
far as possible, the right to know and be cared for
by his or her parents.
2. States Parties shall ensure the implementation of
these rights in accordance with their national law
and their obligations under the relevant interna-
tional instruments in this field, in particular where
the child would otherwise be stateless.
13.9. Article 8 provides that States Parties shall
respect the right of the child to preserve his or
her identity, including nationality, name and
family relations as recognised by law.
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9735
HC-KAR
1. States Parties undertake to respect the right of the
child to preserve his or her identity, including na-
tionality, name and family relations as recognized by
law without unlawful interference.
2. Where a child is illegally deprived of some or all of
the elements of his or her identity, States Parties
shall provide appropriate assistance and protection,
with a view to speedily re-establishing his or her
identity
13.10. These international instruments, while not
directly enforceable, form the interpretation of
fundamental rights under the Constitution.
13.11. Applying the principle of the best interest of the
child to the facts of the present case, the
following factors are relevant:
13.11.1. The child was born out of a live-in
relationship which has ended. The
biological father has abandoned the child
and the mother and has left the country.
13.11.2. The father has had no interaction,
communication, or contribution towards
the upbringing of the child since his
departure.
13.11.3. The child is being raised solely by the
mother with the support of the maternal
family (the Haokip family).
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9735
HC-KAR
13.11.4. The child is now about 8 years old and is
attending school. The name in the birth
certificate does not reflect the family
with which the child actually lives and
identifies.
13.11.5. The discrepancy between the birth
certificate name and the name used in
practice creates confusion and practical
difficulties for the mother and the child.
13.11.6. The mother has furnished an affidavit
stating that the change will not affect
any third-party rights.
13.12. Taking all these factors into account, I have no
hesitation in holding that the relief sought is in
the best interest of the minor child. The child's
identity, dignity, and sense of belonging to a
family are fundamental aspects of the right to
life under Article 21. A child who grows up
bearing the surname of a father who has
abandoned her, with no connection to the
paternal family, is likely to face emotional and
psychological difficulties, particularly as the
child grows older and becomes aware of the
circumstances of her birth and the father's
- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9735
HC-KAR
abandonment. Allowing the child to bear the
mother's family name will promote the child's
integration into the maternal family and give
the child a sense of belonging and identity.
13.13. The concern of Sri. Pawan Kumar regarding the
integrity of the vital statistics registration
system is not without merit. However, the
registration system is meant to serve the
people, not the other way around. Where the
strict maintenance of an entry in the register
causes real hardship to a minor child and
conflicts with the child's best interest, the
system must yield to the child's welfare. The
integrity of the system can be maintained
through adequate safeguards, such as the
requirement of an affidavit, an indemnity deed,
and the recording of the change by way of a
entry as contemplated under Section 22 of the
Act, so that the original entry is preserved
alongside the correction.
13.14. Furthermore, the fact that petitioner No.1 was
born out of a live-in relationship places her in a
unique situation. Live-in relationships, while
recognised under Indian law to a limited extent,
- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9735
HC-KAR
do not provide the same legal framework and
stability as a marriage. The child born out of
such a relationship is particularly vulnerable
when the relationship breaks down and one
parent abandons the family. In such cases, the
principle of the best interest of the child
assumes even greater significance, and the
courts and statutory authorities must be more,
not less, willing to exercise their powers to
protect the child's welfare.
13.15. The petitioner No.2, as the mother and sole
custodial parent, has every right to determine
the name by which her minor daughter shall be
known. This is an aspect of parental authority
that is recognised under law. The mother's
decision to give the child her own family name,
particularly in circumstances where the father
has abandoned the child, is a reasonable and
rational exercise of parental authority that
serves the best interest of the child.
13.16. In view of the above, I hold that the relief
sought is squarely in the best interest of the
minor child, petitioner No.1. The change in
name will promote the child's identity, dignity,
- 34 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9735
HC-KAR
well-being, and practical convenience, and is
consistent with the principle of the best interest
of the child as enshrined in Article 21 of the
Constitution and Article 3 of the UNCRC. The
matter would have been different if the father
were to participate in the upkeep of the child by
contributing to the child's maintenance.
13.17. I answer Point No.(iii) by holding that The relief
sought is in the best interest of petitioner No.1,
the minor child. The change in name will
promote the child's identity, dignity,
psychological well-being, and practical
convenience. The child's right to an identity
that reflects her actual familial associations is a
fundamental right protected under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India.
14. Answer to Point No. (iv): What Order?
14.1. In view of the foregoing discussion and the
answers to the Points for Determination, I pass
the following
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) A writ of mandamus is issued directing
respondent No.1 - Chief Registrar, Births
- 35 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9735
HC-KAR
and Deaths, Bengaluru - to effect the
following changes in the birth certificate of
petitioner No.1 issued on 04.03.2017:
a. Change the name of petitioner No.1 from
"Priancy Saru Magar" to "Priancy
Themnunhoi Haokip";
b. Issue a fresh/new birth certificate
reflecting the above changes, upon
payment of the prescribed fee as fixed by
the government.
(iii) Before the fresh birth certificate is issued,
petitioner No.2 shall furnish an indemnity
deed to the respondents, in such form as the
respondents may prescribe, indemnifying the
respondents against any claim that may
arise on account of the changes effected
pursuant to this order.
(iv) The respondents shall complete the process
of issuing the fresh birth certificate within a
period of four (4) weeks from the date of
furnishing of the indemnity deed by
petitioner No.2, and on compliance of such
other formalities as may be prescribed.
- 36 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9735
HC-KAR
(v) It is clarified that this order shall not affect
the biological parentage of petitioner No.1
and shall not extinguish any rights that
petitioner No.1 may have vis-à-vis the
biological father under any law for the time
being in force, including rights of inheritance,
succession, and maintenance.
SD/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
PRS/LN
List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1
