CASE NAME – X (minor) & Anr v. Registrar of Births and Deaths & Ors.
CASE NO.: Writ Petition No. 33465 of 2025
COURT: High Court of Karnataka
DATE: 17-02-2026
QUORUM: Justice Suraj Govindraj
FACTS:
The present case mainly concerns about a minor girl and her mother who approached the High Court seeking the correction of the birth certificate of the child. The child was born on the 16th of February, 2017 at K.C. General Hospital in Bengaluru. The mother was in a live-in relationship with a man who was apparently the father of the child being born. Later at the time of the registration of the birth of the child, the birth certificate was issued on 4 March 2017. In the birth certificate the father’s name was entered.
Later, the father had abandoned the family comprising the mother and the 8 year old child. The father has moved to his hometown which was in Nepal. Since then, the father has had no contact with them and has not aided in the maintenance or emotional support of the child. The mother has solely raised the child and has been the sole caretaker since the child was born.
As the child grew older, the mother wanted to change the child’s name to the maternal identity of the family. She wanted the child to own the maternal derivative name – Themnunhoi and the family name – Haokip to reflect the maternal family identity. To change the surname, she approached the Registrar of Births & Deaths seeking the correction of the child’s name. With the application to change the surname, the mother has also submitted several supporting documents such as the child’s Aadhar Card, Passport, School Records and an affidavit along with them to clear that the change would not affect the rights of a third party whatsoever.
However, the Registrar of Births & Deaths rejected the mother’s plea claiming that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Registrar to change the surname unless it is erroneous. The mother, thereafter, issued a legal notice dated 5 September 2025 requesting the reconsideration of the application given by her. The authorities failed to respond to the legal notice and did not take any action in resolving the mother’s concern. Consequently, the mother approached the High Court and files a writ petition (Mandamus) seeking appropriate directions to the authorities to correct the entry in the birth certificate.
ISSUES:
- Whether the Registrar of Births & Deaths has the power under the Registration of Births & Deaths Act, 1969 to correct such entries in the birth certificate.
- Whether changing the child’s name to include the mother’s family name affects the legal rights of the father.
- Whether the requested change is in the best interest if the minor child
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 –
- Section 14 – allows parents or guardians to register the child’s name with the registrar.
- Section 15 – of the act empowers the Registrar to make corrections in the register upon an application being made to him.
- Section 22 – provides for the correction of entries in the register within prescribed time limits and with prescribed safeguards. –
Article 226 – empowers high courts to issue directions, orders, or writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights of the people.
ARGUMENTS:
APPELLANT:
Here, the petitioner counsel, Sri Thangminlal Haokip has stated that the father has completely abandoned her and the child and neither maintained any sort of contact with them. The father did not aid in the financial and emotional maintenance of the child as well. It was the mother who was the sole caretaker and the guardian of the child since she was born. The child has grown under the care and support of the maternal family of the mother.
In this case, the petitioner argued that the child already uses the maternal surnames on daily basis such as in the school and the other documents. The difference of the surname used in the daily life and the name recorded in the birth certificate creates confusion and practical difficulties in the life of the child. They further argued that Section 22 of the Registration of Births & Deaths Act, 1969 clearly gives the Registrar the power to correct the entries in the register when necessary. Still, they refused to make the required changes in the certificate.
Here, the correction or change of entries does not affect the rights of a third party or the biological identity of the father as his name would persist in the documents or the birth certificate being issued. Therefore, the change would not affect any rights relating to the succession, inheritance, maintenance etc. The petitioner supported the claim that change of surname in the birth certificate and allowing the child to adopt the mother’s surname and identity would promote the child’s dignity, identity and welfare.
RESPONDENT:
The respondent counsel, Sri. Pawan Kumar held that the Registrar powers are limited in nature and the corrections can only be made to a clerical or factual mistake in the original entry. And according to them, at the time of the registration of the birth, the details given by the parents of the child were accurate and hence there is no error in the original documents.
The respondents argued that request made by the petitioner did not amount to any sort of error in the original document, rather, it was a substantial alteration in the structure of the original document. They further submitted, such a change would affect the originality of the document and affect the official records. And this type of change should not be carried out by the Registrar without a proper Judicial direction.
The authorities in this case rejected the mother’s plea to make alterations in the documents because they lacked the statutory power to do so. According to them, they would be exceeding their power or authority if they made any such alterations .
ANALYSIS:
The court carefully examined the facts mentioned in the case and the provisions of the Registration of Births & Deaths Act, 1969 and observed that the language used in Section 22 of the Act is interpreted in a broader way and permits the corrections where the existing entry becomes inaccurate or inappropriate in light of the changed circumstances. The court in this case clarified that the power to correct doesn’t only restricts to typological mistakes but can also extend to the substantive changes or corrections when required in the interests of justice.
The court mentioned that allowing a child to use the mother’s surname does not remove the biological identity of the father from its records. The legal rights of the father are intact as his name would still appear in the birth certificate. The court highlighted that there is no legal rule that a child should only possess the surname of the father. It’s a conventional practice in the society rather than a law. Here, in this case as the mother was the sole caretaker of the child as the father has abandoned them, being recognized by the maternal surname or identity would better reflect the reality of the child’s life.
And the matters concerning the welfare of a child, the court always looks for the betterment and the welfare of the child to its fullest. It states that in these types of cases the primary consideration should always be the welfare of the child. Denying the requested correction would only cause unnecessary hardships and confusion to the child’s social and educational life.
JUDGMENT:
The court, after considering all the facts and legal provisions involved, the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioners. The court issues the writ of Mandamus directing the Registrar of Births & Deaths to follow the required corrections in the certificate. The court stated that the corrections should be made within 4 weeks from the date of the order, and also subjecting the mother an indemnity undertaking that the changes made in the document would not prejudice the rights of any third party. The relationship between the father and the child would still be unaffected according to the court.
CONCLUSION:
The decision of the High Court represents an important recognition of the evolving concept of the identity and equality among the parental rights. It was concluded that the authorities must exercise their statutory powers in a manner that would lead to justice and fairness to individuals, particularly children. The changing of the surname of the child from father to mother, it does not affect the rights of the biological father at any point.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: MEENAKSHI DANGI.
Read the judgment copier here.
