Bombay High Court: In a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking correction of the name of the biological father in the birth certificate of a child, the Division Bench of Ravindra V. Ghuge, ACJ., and Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale, J., held that when there is adequate material available on record, Section 15, Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (1969 Act) can be invoked for correction of the birth certificate. The Court observed that the biological mother and the biological father had both conceded the parentage of the child and the DNA test report established the biological relationship with a probability of paternity measured at 99.99 per cent. Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and directed the authorities concerned to issue a fresh birth certificate by deleting the name of the person earlier recorded as father and adding the name of the biological father.
Background
The dispute arose from a petition seeking correction in the birth certificate of a child, wherein the name of the mother’s former husband was recorded as the father of the child at the time of issuance of the birth certificate by the Municipal Corporation in March 2010.
The mother was previously married in 2006. No child was born out of that marital relationship. Subsequently, differences arose and the couple started living separately. In 2013, the marriage was dissolved by decree of divorce. During the period of separation, the mother developed a physical relationship with the second petitioner, and a daughter was born in December 2009. However, when the said daughter was born, the name of the mother’s then husband was recorded in the birth certificate.
After the subsequent marriage between the petitioners, the mother approached the Municipal Corporation seeking correction in the name of the biological father. Both petitioners averred on oath that they are the biological parents of the child.
Analysis
The Court emphasised that there is no dispute that if adequate material is available on record, Section 15, 1969 Act can be invoked for correction of the birth certificate. The Court noted that the petitioners had placed on record a DNA test report dated 27 October 2025, conducted for the purpose of a paternity test for personal knowledge only. Further, the relationship between Petitioner 1 and Petitioner 2 is conceded.
The Court also observed that the combined paternity test is interpreted by concluding that the alleged father possesses the genetic markers that must be contributed to the child by the biological father. It was noted that the probability of paternity is measured at 99.99 per cent.
The Court highlighted that the biological mother, who is Petitioner 1, submitted on oath that her then actual husband was not the biological father of the child, and further averred that Petitioner 2 is the person with whom she had physical relation and the child was born. It was observed that Petitioner 2 also conceded in the petition, which was filed jointly, that he is the biological father of the girl child.
Decision
Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition in terms of the prayer clause and directed the authorities concerned to issue a fresh birth certificate of the child by deleting the name of the person earlier recorded as father and adding the name of the biological father.
The Court further directed the authorities not to share, disclose, circulate and/or give inspection of the record about the birth of the child.
The Court accordingly made the rule absolute in the above terms and directed that the corrected birth certificate be issued within a period of 30 days from the date of the order.
[N v. Municipal Corpn., Brihanmumbai, Writ Petition (L) No. 6307 of 2026, 13-7-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Dr. Uday Warunjikar with Aditya Kharkar & Jinesh Jain, Advocates
For the Respondents: K. H. Mastakar, Advocate.
