Kerala High Court
Saranyamol T.K vs Registrar Of Birth And Death ... on 9 April, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1943
WP(C).No.1742 OF 2020(P)
PETITIONERS:
1 SARANYAMOL T.K,
AGED 32, D/O.T.N.KRISHNAN NAIR,
THOTTAPPILLIL HOUSE, AYYAKKADU KARA,
THRIKKARIYOOR.P.O, THRIKKARIYOOR VILLAGE,
KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK-686692.
2 RAJESH.P.N,
AGED 42, S/O RAJU, PUTHUSSERI HOUSE,
NAGANCHERRY KARA, PANIPRA.P.O,
THRIKKARIYOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.RENJITH
SRI.K.R.PRATHISH
RESPONDENTS:
1 REGISTRAR OF BIRTH AND DEATH KOTHAMANGALAM
MUNICIPALITY, KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY,
KOTHAMANGALAM.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN-
686691.
2 KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY,
KOTHAMANGALAM.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN-686691,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY.
ADV. PEEYUZ A.KOTTAM (SC)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 09.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOL-
LOWING:
W.P.(C)No.1742 of 2020 2
W.P.(C)No.1742 of 2020
-------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
The first petitioner is the mother of a minor girl
named Sreshta. Sreshta was born on 17.09.2014. The first
petitioner was married to one Manoj, when she conceived
Sreshta. There arose difference of opinion between the first
petitioner and Manoj thereafter and Manoj, in the circumstances,
sought divorce from the first petitioner. O.P No.190 of 2017 is the
proceedings instituted by Manoj against the first petitioner
before the Family Court, Muvattupuzha in this regard. Manoj has
also instituted simultaneous to the said proceedings, another
proceedings as O.P No.191 of 2017 against the first petitioner
before the very same court for a declaration that Sreshta is not a
child born to him in his wedlock with the first petitioner. In terms
of Ext.P1 judgment, the Family Court granted the declaration
sought for by Manoj in O.P.No.191 of 2017. Similarly, in terms of
Ext.P2 judgment, the said court dissolved the marriage between
Manoj and the first petitioner.
2. In the meanwhile, the birth of Sreshta was
registered in terms of the provisions of the Registration of Births
and Deaths Act, 1969 (the Act) showing Manoj as her father.
According to the first petitioner, the second petitioner is the
father of Sreshta. The first petitioner in the circumstances,
preferred an application before the first respondent on
01.11.2018 for correction of the entry relating to the father of
Sreshta in the Register maintained under the Act. Ext.P3 is the
application preferred by the first petitioner in this regard. The
first petitioner has also produced along with Ext.P3 application, a
notarized affidavit of the second petitioner stating that he is the
father of Sreshta. Ext.P4 is the affidavit filed by the second
petitioner in this regard. Ext.P3 application has now been
rejected by the first respondent in terms of Ext.P7
communication. Ext.P7 communication is under challenge in the
writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. It is seen that the request made by the first
petitioner has been turned down by the first respondent in terms
of the impugned communication on the ground that the entry in
the Register as regards the father of the child cannot be
corrected based on an undertaking given by a third party that he
is the father of the child. It is also mentioned in the impugned
communication that the request of the first petitioner can be
considered only if she produces the documents made mention of
in the circular issued by the State Government on 16.12.2015.
5. The circular of the Government dated
16.12.2015 referred to in the impugned communication reads
thus:
ഡഡ.എൻ.എ ടടെസഡലലൂടടെ പഡതതൃതതത്വം ടതളഡയഡകക്കുന
രരേഖകളളുടടെ അടെഡസസ്ഥാനതഡൽ ജനന സർടഡഫഡകറഡൽ
പഡതസ്ഥാവഡനടന്റെ രപര് തഡരേക്കുതഡ നലകസ്ഥാവക്കുനതസ്ഥാരണസ്ഥാ
എനത് സത്വംബനഡചച്ച് മലപളുന്റെത്വം നഗരേസഭസ്ഥാ ജനന മരേണ
രേജഡസസടെസ്ഥാർ സലൂചന 2 സപകസ്ഥാരേത്വം അരപകഡചഡരേഡകക്കുനക്കു.
ആശക്കുപസതഡയഡൽ നഡനക്കുത്വം ലഭഡകക്കുന ജനന ന്റെഡരപസ്ഥാർടഡനടന്റെ
അടെഡസസ്ഥാനതഡൽ പഡതസ്ഥാവഡനടന്റെ രപര്
രരേഖടപടെക്കുതക്കുകയക്കുത്വം പഡനന്നീട് ആയത് തഡരേക്കുതക്കുകയക്കുത്വം
ടചയളുനതഡന നഡലവഡൽ വവ്യവസയഡലല്ല എനസ്ഥാൽ
ഇതരേതഡൽ നഡരേവധഡ അരപകകൾ ലഭഡകക്കുന
സസ്ഥാഹചരേവ്യതഡൽ ഇത് സത്വംബനഡചച്ച് വവ്യക്തമസ്ഥായ
സപഷന്നീകരേണത്വം നലകണടമനച്ച് ചന്നീഫ് ജനന മരേണ
രേജഡസസടെസ്ഥാർ സലൂചന 3 സപകസ്ഥാരേത്വം ആവശവ്യടപടെക്കുകയക്കുണസ്ഥായഡ.
1969-ടല ജനന മരേണ രേജഡസരസടെഷൻ ആകടെഡടല
ടസകൻ 15 സപകസ്ഥാരേത്വം രേജഡസസടെസ്ഥാർ സലൂകഡചഡടളുള്ള ജനന
മരേണ രേജഡസന്റെഡൽ രേജഡസസടെസ്ഥാർകച്ച് ശരേഡയസ്ഥാടണനച്ച് ഉതമ
വഡശതസ്ഥാസമക്കുള്ള തഡരേക്കുതലക്കുകളളുത്വം ന്റെദസ്ഥാകലക്കുകളളുത്വം
നടെതസ്ഥാവക്കുനതസ്ഥാടണനച്ച് വവ്യവസഥ ടചയതഡടളുണച്ച്.
ടതറസ്ഥായ വഡവരേങ്ങൾ തഡരേക്കുതക്കുനത് സത്വംബനഡചച്ച്
സലൂചന 1 സപകസ്ഥാരേത്വം സർകസ്ഥാർ പക്കുന്റെടപടെക്കുവഡച
സർകക്കുലന്റെഡൽ ഡഡ.എൻ.എ ന്റെഡരപസ്ഥാർടഡനടന്റെ
അടെഡസസ്ഥാനതഡൽ പഡതസ്ഥാവഡനടന്റെ രപരേഡൽ മസ്ഥാറത്വം
വരേക്കുതക്കുനത് സത്വംബനഡച വവ്യവസകൾ പരേസ്ഥാമർശഡചഡടഡലല്ല.
ഇതരേത്വം സത്വംഗതഡകളഡൽ ഒരേക്കു പരേഡഹസ്ഥാരേമസ്ഥാർഗത്വം
കസ്ഥാരണണത് അതവ്യസ്ഥാവശവ്യമസ്ഥായഡരേഡകക്കുന സസ്ഥാഹചരേവ്യതഡൽ
സർകസ്ഥാർ ഇകസ്ഥാരേവ്യത്വം വഡശദമസ്ഥായഡ പരേഡരശസ്ഥാധഡകക്കുകയക്കുത്വം
ജനന സർടഡഫഡകറച്ച്, ഡഡ എൻ എ ബരയസ്ഥാളജഡകൽ
ഇൻഫർരമഷൻ, സർകസ്ഥാർ അത്വംഗന്നീകതൃത ലരബസ്ഥാന്റെടന്റെഡ
ന്റെഡരപസ്ഥാർടച്ച്, രനസ്ഥാടന്റെഡ മക്കുഖസ്ഥാനഡരേത്വം കരേസ്ഥാർപസതത്വം രകസ്ഥാടെതഡ
വഡധഡയക്കുടടെ പകർപച്ച് സപസവത്വം നടെന രഹസ്ഥാസപഡറൽ
അധഡകസ്ഥാരേഡകളളുടടെ ഗഗനക രരേഖയക്കുടടെ സസ്ഥാകവ്യടപടെക്കുതഡയ
പകർപളുത്വം ന്റെഡരപസ്ഥാർടളുത്വം എനന്നീ ടതളഡവക്കുകൾ സഹഡതത്വം
കക്കുടഡയക്കുടടെ മസ്ഥാതസ്ഥാവ് ഡഡ.എൻ.എ ടടെസഡലലൂടടെ പഡതതൃതതത്വം
ടതളഡയഡചളു പഡതസ്ഥാവ് എനഡവർ ജനനത്വം രേജഡസർ
ടചയതഡടളുള്ള തരദശ സതയത്വംഭരേണ സസ്ഥാപനതഡൽ
അരപക സമർപഡകക്കുന സത്വംഗതഡകളഡൽ രേജഡസസടെസ്ഥാർ
അരനതഷഡചച്ച് രബസ്ഥാധവ്യടപടച്ച് ആവശവ്യമസ്ഥായ തഡരേക്കുതൽ
വരേക്കുതക്കുനതഡനക്കുള്ള നടെപടെഡ സതന്നീകരേഡരകണതസ്ഥാണ.
(underline supplied)
As revealed from the extracted circular, the same was one
issued by way of a clarification in answer to a query from one of
the Registrars under the Act as to whether appropriate
correction could be made in the Registers maintained under the
Act as regards the father of a child who has established his
paternity through DNA test. The said circular authorizes
correction of the relevant entry on the basis of the documents
mentioned therein. The case on hand is not an application filed
for correction of the name of the father of a child on the strength
of the paternity established by the applicant through DNA test.
On the other hand, the application is one filed by the mother of
the child stating that the entry in the Register concerning the
father of the child is erroneously made in as much as the person
named therein is not the father of the child. The circular
aforesaid cannot be applied in a case of this nature.
6. The surviving question is as to whether the
Registrar was justified in rejecting the application preferred by
the first petitioner on the ground that the entry in the Register as
regards the father of the child cannot be corrected based on an
undertaking given by a third party that he is the father of the
child. The provision in the Act conferring authority on the
Registrar to carry out appropriate correction in the Register is
Section 15 of the Act. Section 15 reads thus:
15. Correction or cancellation of entry in the register of births and
deaths.- If it is proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar that any
entry of a birth or death in any register kept by him under this Act
is erroneous in form or substance, or has been fraudulently or
improperly made, he 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 the correction
or cancellation.
The provision aforesaid would indicate that if the Registrar is
convinced based on materials that an entry of a birth in any
Register kept by him is erroneous in substance or improperly
made, he is empowered to correct the same. As far as the case
on hand is concerned, admittedly, Manoj, the former husband of
the first petitioner, whose name is shown in the Register as the
father of Sreshta, has obtained a declaration from a court of
competent jurisdiction to the effect that he is not the father of
Sreshta. The first petitioner, the mother of the child asserts that
the second petitioner is the father of the child. The second
petitioner admits the said fact and he has filed an affidavit to
that effect before the Registrar. In a case of this nature,
according to me, in the absence of any dispute, the Registrar
would be well within his powers to carry out appropriate
corrections in the Register as sought by the first petitioner.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P7 is
quashed and the first respondent is directed to incorporate the
name of the second petitioner as the father of the child Sreshta
in the Register maintained under the Act and issue corrected
Birth Certificate of Sreshta to the petitioners. This shall be done
within two weeks.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE
YKB
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
20.06.2017 IN O.P.NO.191 OF 2O17 BEFORE
THE FAMILY COURT,MUVATTUPUZHA.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED
2.O6.2O17 IN O.P.NO.190 OF 2017 BEFORE
THE FAMILY COURT,MUVATTUPUZHA.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER DATED 01.11.2018
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT
SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE
THE RESPONDENTS DATED 01.11.2018.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE
DATED OF MINOR CHILD SRESHTA DATED
08.04.2019.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
10.10.2019 IN W.P.(C)NO.26914 OF 2019.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.12.2019
OF 1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
