Kerala High Court
Vivek D vs Pirayiri Grama Panchayat on 31 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:56976
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 9TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 32238 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:
1 VIVEK D.,
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O.M.P DIVAKARAN, KOUSTHUBHAM,
AKATHETHARA POST, THERUPATHA,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678008
2 SREELAKSHMI S.,
AGED 33 YEARS
D/O.SREEKUMARAN K. P, KOUSTHUBHAM,
AKATHETHARA POST, THERUPATHA,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678008
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.M.RAFEEK
SRI.V.A.NAVAS
SRI.U.NIDHIN
SMT.SARA JOHN
RESPONDENTS:
1 PIRAYIRI GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
PIRAYIRI POST, PALAKKAD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 678004
2 THE SECRETARY (REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS)
PIRAYIRI GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
PIRAYIRI POST, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678004
3 KARTHIK C.,
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O.NARAYANAN KUTTY, GOKULAM,
MYTHRI NAGAR, NOORANI POST, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678004
4 RAJEEV GANDHI CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL,
PIRIYARI, PALAKKAD,
REPRESENTED BY IT'S PUBLIC RELATION OFFICER, PIN -
WP(C) NO. 32238 of 2023 2
2025:KER:56976
678001
BY ADVS.
SRI.SURAJ.S
SHRI.SUNIL M.S.
OTHER PRESENT:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.DEEPA V,
STANDING COUNSEL- SRI.R.RAJPRADEEP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
31.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 32238 of 2023 3
2025:KER:56976
Dated this the 31st day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The second petitioner was married to the third
respondent on 01.02.2016. During the subsistence of
their marriage, the petitioners started living together. In
their relationship, the second petitioner gave birth to a
female child on 22.02.2022. As the marriage between the
second petitioner and the third respondent was in
subsistence, the third respondent's name was given as
the father of the child in the hospital records. This was
not taken seriously by the second petitioner. However,
on receiving the birth certificate of the child, the second
petitioner found that the third respondent is shown as
the father of the child. Immediately, the second
petitioner had filed Ext. P4 application, to substitute the
first petitioner as the father of the child instead of the
third respondent. However, by the impugned Ext. P9
order, the second respondent has rejected the
application without affording the petitioners an
2025:KER:56976
opportunity of being heard. Ext. P9 order is arbitrary and
erroneous. The second respondent has not conducted
any proper enquiry and has not followed the due
procedure of law. Therefore, Ext. P9 order may be
quashed.
2. In the counter affidavit filed by the
respondents 1 and 2, it is contended that, the child's
birth was reported to the second respondent on
03.03.2022, by Rajiv Gandhi Co-operative Hospital,
Pirayiri, and her birth was registered on 03.03.2022 with
registration No. 83/2022. In the birth report received
from the hospital, the second petitioner and the third
respondent's names were shown as the parents of the
child. Subsequently, the second petitioner sought for the
substitution of the father's name of the child. As per the
Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, and the
Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999,
only minor changes or spelling mistakes, without
affecting the original content, are permitted. Since the
2025:KER:56976
petitioners want to substitute the first petitioner as the
father of the child in place of the third respondent, the
second respondent does not have the inherent
jurisdiction to carry out the above exercise. Therefore,
there is no error in Ext. P9 order.
3. Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the
respondents. Even though notice has been served on the
respondents 3 and 4, there is no appearance for them.
4. The materials on record reveal that the child was
born on 22.02.2022. Ext. P2 judgment of the Family
Court, Palakkad, substantiates that the marriage
between the second petitioner and the third respondent
was only dissolved on 27.04.2023. Thus, it is beyond any
pale of doubt that the child was born to the second
petitioner during the subsistence of her marriage with
the third respondent.
5. In the above context, it is necessary to refer to
Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which
2025:KER:56976
reads as follows:
"112. Birth during marriage, conclusive proof of
legitimacy. ― The fact that any person was born
during the continuance of a valid marriage
between his mother and any man, or within two
hundred and eighty days after its dissolution, the
mother remaining unmarried, shall be conclusive
proof that he is the legitimate son of that man,
unless it can be shown that the parties to the
marriage had no access to each other at any time
when he could have been begotten".
6. In light of the above provision, it is conclusive
proof that a child born during the subsistence of a valid
marriage or within two hundred and eighty days after
the dissolution of the marriage is the legitimate offspring
of the husband, unless it is proved that the spouses had
no access to each other during coverture.
7. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the
child was born during the subsistence of the marriage.
Consequently, in the absence of any admission by the
parties to the marriage or a declaration by a court of
competent jurisdiction, the third respondent is deemed,
conclusively, to be the legitimate father of the child.
2025:KER:56976
8. It is equally necessary to refer to Section 15 of
the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, and
Rule 11 of the Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths
Rules, 1999, which lays down the procedure to correct or
cancel an entry in the Register of Births and Deaths. The
said provisions read as follows:
"S.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 subsistence, 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".
"R.11. Correction or cancellation of entry in the
register of births and deaths.--(1) If it is reported to
the Registrar that a clerical or formal error has been
made in the register or if such error is otherwise
noticed by him the Registrar shall enquire into the
matter and if he is satisfied that any such error has
been made, he shall correct the error (by correcting or
cancelling the entry) as provided in section 15 and
shall send an extract of the entry showing the error
and how it has been corrected to the State Government
or the officer specified by it in this behalf.
(2) If any person asserts that any entry in the
register of births and deaths is erroneous in
subsistence, the Registrar may correct the entry in the
manner prescribed under section 15 upon production
by that person a declaration setting forth the nature of
the error and true facts of the case made by two
2025:KER:56976
credible persons having knowledge of the facts of the
case.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in
sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2) the Registrar shall make
report of any correction of the kind referred to therein
giving necessary details to the State Government or
the officer specified in this behalf.
(4) If it is proved to the satisfaction of the
Registrar that any entry in the register of births and
deaths has been fraudulently or improperly made, he
shall make a report giving necessary details to the
officer authorised by the Chief Registrar by general or
special order in this behalf under section 25 and on
hearing from him take necessary action in the matter.
(5) In every case in which an entry is
corrected or cancelled under this rule, intimation
thereof should be sent to the permanent address of the
person who has given information under section 8 or
section 9.
9. The above provisions enable and empower the
Registrar to correct or cancel an entry in the Register, if
there is a clerical or formal error in the Register or if any
entry has been fraudulently or improperly made, by
making a suitable entry in the margin, without alteration
of the original entry.
10. The powers conferred on a Registrar under
Section 15 and Rule 11 are circumscribed and limited to
the correction of clerical or formal errors or entries
2025:KER:56976
fraudulently or improperly made, and not matters of
disputed paternity, which require a full-fledged trial and
adjudication and a judicial imprimatur. Similarly, as per
the circular dated 16.12.2015 issued by the Local Self
Government Department, if the father's name is to be
changed in the birth records, a DNA test report, an
agreement attested before a Notary Public, and an order
from a competent Court are to be produced.
In the above conspectus, I am of the definite view
that, as long as the child was born during the
subsistence of the marriage between the second
petitioner and the third respondent, it is for the second
petitioner or the third respondent to approach the court
of competent jurisdiction and obtain a declaration that
the child was born to the petitioners. On the other hand,
it is not within the powers of the second respondent to
adjudicate such disputed questions. Thus, I do not find
any illegality in Ext. P9 order passed by the second
respondent. Nonetheless, by reserving the right of the
2025:KER:56976
petitioners to work out their remedies, in accordance
with law, this writ petition is dismissed. However, if the
petitioners obtain a decree from the court of the
jurisdiction declaring that they are the parents of the
child born to the second petitioner, then the second
respondent shall carry out the correction, in accordance
with law.
Sd/-
mtk/31.07.25 C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
2025:KER:56976
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32238/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10/03/2022
OF THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27/04/2023
OF THE FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD EVIDENCING THE
DIVORCE OF THE 2ND PETITIONER WITH THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 19/05/2023.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR
REPLACING THE NAME OF THE 2ND PETITIONER IN
PLACE OF 3RD RESPONDENT IN THE BIRTH RECORD
OF THE CHILD DATED 19/05/2023.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 19/05/2023
ATTACHED ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION DETAILS
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN REPRESENTATION
DATED 19/05/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST
PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT REQUESTING
TO CORRECT THE BIRTH RECORDS OF THE CHILD BY
REPLACING THE NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER IN
PLACE OF THE FATHER OF THE CHILD BY REMOVING
THE NAME OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
19/05/2023 JOINTLY SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONERS FOR INCLUDING THE NAME OF THE
CHILD AS 'VAISHNAVI V' IN THE BIRTH
CERTIFICATE.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 19/05/2023
ATTACHED ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION DETAILS
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/05/2023 OF
THE 2ND RESPONDENT REJECTING THE EXHIBIT P4
APPLICATION OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED
16/09/09/2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 16/09/2023
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO 4TH
RESPONDENT.
