Kerala High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: In a significant decision P. V. Kunhikrishnan, J., directed the Registrar of Births and Deaths to expunge the father’s name of the petitioner 1 from his birth certificate and issue a new certificate showing the name of his mother only as a single parent.


Petitioner 2 is the mother of petitioner 1 who had conceived her son (petitioner 1) when she was a minor under a mysterious circumstance by an unidentified person. Therefore, petitioner 1 had approached the High Court seeking directions to the Registrar of Births and Deaths (the Registrar) to expunge and remove his father’s name from the birth register and issue a certificate showing the mother’s name only as a single parent. Petitioner 1 contended that his father’s name is given differently in three different documents, referring it as “Z”, “Z1” and “Z2”, which creates great uncertainty and difficulty.

Petitioners’ Stand

Petitioner 1 submitted that Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 gives power to the Registrar to correct the entries, if it is proved that any entry of a birth or death in any register kept by him is erroneous in form or substance or has been fraudulently or improperly made. Similarly, Rule 11(2) of the Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999 states that if any person asserts that any entry in the register of births and deaths is erroneous in substance, 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 credible persons having knowledge of the facts of the case.

Moreover, complying with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in ABC v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2015 (10) SCC 1, the Central Government also issued a circular to all Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths in the country in this regard directing that the name of the single parent will be written in the birth record, and the name of the other parent must be left blank if such requests are made.

Judicial Pronouncements

In ABC v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2015 (10) SCC 1, the Supreme Court was to answer whether it is imperative for an unwed mother to specifically notify that the putative father of the child to whom she has given birth, in her petition for appointment as the guardian of her child. The Court answered that if a single parent/unwed mother applies for the issuance of a Birth Certificate for a child born from her womb, the Authorities concerned may only require her to furnish an affidavit to this effect, and must thereupon issue the Birth Certificate unless there is a Court direction to the contrary.

Relying on Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, (2009) 9 SCC 1, the Court held that there is no doubt that a woman’s right to make reproductive choices is also a dimension of “personal liberty” as understood under Article 21 of the Constitution and it is important to recognize that reproductive choice can be exercised to procreate as well as to abstain from procreating. The crucial consideration is that a woman’s right to privacy, dignity, and bodily integrity should be respected.

Reliance was also placed on the decision of Kerala High Court itself in XXXX v. State of Kerala, 2021 SCC OnLine Ker 3285, wherein the High Court, while considering the situation of a single parent/ unwed mother getting conceived by Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART), directed the government to bring out a separate form which does not contain a field requiring the name and other details of the father.

Findings and Conclusion

Hence, the Court opined that it is the right of a person to include his mother’s name alone in the birth certificate, identity certificates, and other documents as there are children of rape victims and children of unwed mothers and their right to privacy, dignity, and liberty cannot be curtailed by any authority.

Citing a Mahabharata reference the Court expressed,

“We do not want a society with characters like “Karna,” who curse his life because of the insult he faced for not knowing the whereabouts of his parents. We want the real brave “Karnas’ who was the real hero and fighter in “Mahabharatha”. Our Constitution and the constitutional Courts will protect all of them and the new age “Karnas” can live like any other citizen with dignity and pride.”

Consequently, the Court issued following directions:

1. The Registrar was directed to expunge and remove the name of the father of petitioner 1 from the Birth Register maintained at his office and issue a certificate showing the name of the mother only as a single parent, if such a request is made by the petitioners. The Court directed that the needful be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two weeks.

2. On the petitioners producing a corrected certificate issued by the Registrar, respondents 2 to 8 are directed to give effect to the consequential expunge of the name of the father from their official records and databases.

3. The Registry is directed not to mention the names of the petitioners in the cause title of the judgment while uploading it to the official site. However, the registry is also directed to give a sufficient number of certified copies of the judgment along with the details of the petitioners in a separate sealed cover if a copy application is filed for that purpose by the petitioners for production before the respondents.

[X v. Registrar of Births and Deaths, 2022 SCC OnLine Ker 3770, decided on 19-07-2022]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

Atul Sohan, Sreeja Sohan K., K.V.Sohan, Vinai John, and R.Reji (Attingal) and V.K.Sunil, Advocates, for the Petitioners;

The Registrar of Births and Deaths, Pathanamthitta Municipality (Party-In-Person), for the Respondents;

ASG Manu S., Advocate, for the Union of India;

SC Jose Joseph, Advocate, for the Income Tax Department, Kerala;

SC Deepu Lal Mohan, Advocate, for the Kerala Election Commission;

P.K. Ravindranatha Menon (Sr.).

Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, Srinagar: Sanjay Dhar, J., addressed a matter with regard to providing maintenance to a minor child amidst the dispute regarding the paternity of the child.

Petitioner (minor) through her mother challenged the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate in the proceedings under Section 488 of J&K CrPC whereby the Magistrate deferred the proceedings till the outcome of the civil suit in which question of paternity of the petitioner was an issue.

Factual Background

Minor petitioner through her mother filed a petition against the respondent claiming maintenance from him. It was alleged that in the year 2010, the respondent had developed a relationship with the petitioner’s mother and further the respondent converted to Islam, whereafter he entered into wedlock with the mother of the petitioner.

Later, on being posted to New Delhi the respondent shifted leaving the petitioner and her mother in lurch. On visiting the native place of the respondent the petitioner and her mother came to know that the respondent was already a married man, hence the marriage between the petitioner’s mother and the respondent got automatically dissolved.

The petitioner and her mother filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the respondent.

The respondent did remit some maintenance amount in the bank account of the petitioner, yet the same was very meager, hence the petitioner sought maintenance of Rs 30,000 from the respondent.

Analysis, Law and Decision

High Court noted that one birth certificate showed the name of the child as Riza Jan with Mr Idress Bashir Jabari as her father, whereas the other one showed the name of girl child as Raaisha with the name of the father as respondent.

Further, the petitioner’s own document, the bank statement depicted that her bank account had been opened in the name of Riza Jan. It meant that Raaisha and Riza Jan were one and the same person.

Hence, in view of the provisions contained in Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act, there is a presumption of correctness attached to the particulars entered in the said certificate.

On the other hand, the birth certificate dated 01.09.2014, on which reliance is being placed by the petitioner, appears to have been issued pursuant to the directions of the Court after more than three years of the event of birth, by taking recourse to the provisions contained in Section 13 (3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969

Therefore, the presumption could not be raised as regards the correctness of contents of the said certificate, unless oral and documentary evidence is led to support the same.

High Court added that, the presumption contained in Section 112 of the Evidence Act is also attracted to the facts of the instant case.

As per the aforesaid provision, 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, is conclusive proof that he is the legitimate son of that man, unless it is shown that the parties to the marriage had no access to each other.

Hence, the petition was born out of wedlock of her mother with Mr Idrees Bashir Jabari, unless it is shown that Mr Idrees Bashir Jabari had no access to the mother of the petitioner during the said period.

The Bench also observed that, the mother of the respondent could not place on record any Nikahnama or any other material to show that she entered into a wedlock with the respondent.

Merely because wife of the respondent had alleged in her divorce petition that respondent was forced to marry mother of the petitioner does not prove the said fact particularly when respondent’s wife has admittedly withdrawn the petition itself.

Thus, Magistrate had no evidence to even prima facie records a finding that the respondent was the father of the minor.

“…grant of maintenance to a minor child should be the paramount consideration for a Magistrate dealing with a petition under Section 125 CrPC, but when the paternity of a child is seriously disputed and there is no prima facie material to suggest that the respondent happens to be the father of the child, it would not be prudent for a Magistrate to fasten the respondent with the liability of maintaining the child.”

High Court observed that the revision petition was not maintainable and hence deserved to be dismissed. [Raaisha v. Syed Sudhanshu Panday, 2022 SCC OnLine J&K 242, decided on 27-1-2022]

Advocates before the Court:

For the Petitioner: Abdul Manan, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Anil Bhan, Advocate

Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: Tarlok Singh Chauhan J. directed all the Panchayat Secretaries in the State of Himachal Pradesh to provide death certificate as demanded by any person or authority under the Right to Information Act.

The instant application was filed seeking direction to the Panchayat Secretary, Shingla, Development Block, Rampur, District Shimla, H.P. to provide the death certificate, Legal Heir Certificate and BPL Certificate in respect of Baldev resident of Village Dakolar, Post Office Shingla. As per the provisions contained in Section 8(1) J and Section 11 of Right to Information Act, 2005 as the aforesaid officer refused it.

It was brought to the notice of the Court that the Death Certificate, Birth and Death Register is maintained by the Panchayat Secretary of concerned Gram Panchayat as a local Registrar Birth and Death. Death Certificate is provided by the Panchayat Secretary to the family members of the deceased person only. It was further noted that the copy of Death certificate of late Sh. Baldev was requested to be provided under the RTI Act, 2005 and accordingly as per provision 11 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 for providing Third Party information wife of deceased was inquired who refused to provide certificate of her deceased husband and accordingly as per Rule 8(1)(j) and 11 of the RTI Act, the applicant/Advocate was intimated accordingly by the concerned Public Information Officer-cum-Panchayat Secretary Shingla.

The Court observed that once a party has died, his death certificate cannot be termed a ‘Third Party Information‘, as that information relates/related only to the deceased. It was further observed that entries in Birth and Death Register are public documents and admissible under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act and it is not necessary to prove, who made the entries and what was the source of information.

The Court directed that “henceforth whenever a copy of death certificate is demanded by any person or authority under Right to Information Act, or even on simple paper, the same shall be given by all the Panchayat Secretaries in the State of Himachal Pradesh, subject to of course on usual charges.”

[OIC Ltd. v. Hira Devi, FAO (WCA) 417 of 2012, decided on 27-08-2021]

Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.


For Appellants: Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma and Mr. Mayank Sharma

For Respondents 1 and 2: Mr. Sarthak Mehta

For respondent State: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Mr. Vinod Thakur, Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans, Mr. Hemanshu Misra, Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, Mr. Kewal Sharma, Additional Director (Panchayati Raj) in person.

Kerala High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: Satish Ninan, J., held that the mandatory requirement for disclosing Father’s name in Birth/Death Certificate was violative of Fundamental Right. Addressing the direction of Ministry of Home Affairs where instead of amending the format it had directed to leave the details of father vacant, the Bench stated,

“Requiring the petitioner to leave the column regarding the details of father as blank for the issuance of a certificate of birth or certificate of death necessarily affects the right of dignity of the mother as well as the child.”

Mandatory Requirement for Disclosing Father’s name in Birth/Death Certificate

The petitioner was a divorcee who had opted to get conceived by In Vitro Fertilization (in short, “IVF”) procedure. The identity of the sperm donor had been kept anonymous and had not been disclosed to the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner was with regard to fulfilment of certain formalities for registration of the birth of the child, on delivery. In other words, the petitioner was aggrieved by the format of Rule 8 of the Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1970 which made it mandatory to disclose the name of the father of the child. The petitioner assailed the said provision on the grounds that she could not be required to provide the name of the father as the same would be violative of her fundamental rights, for reasons that:

  1. The identity of the sperm donor is kept anonymous and has not been and could not be disclosed even to the petitioner,
  2. such requirement intrudes upon her right of privacy, liberty and dignity.

In ABC v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2015) 10 SCC 1, the Supreme Court had held that, “There is no gainsaying that the identity of the mother is never in doubt. Accordingly, we direct that if a single parent/unwed mother apply for the issuance of a Birth Certificate for a child born from her womb, the Authorities concerned may only require her to furnish an affidavit to this effect, and must thereupon issue the Birth Certificate, unless there is a Court direction to the contrary.” 

Following in the abovementioned decision, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, had issued directions to the Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths throughout the country to have the birth of the child of a single parent/unwed mother to be registered showing the name of the single parent in the birth record leaving the name of the other parent blank. The petitioner argued that to leave the column relating to the name of the father in the prescribed form as blank, interferes with the right of dignity, privacy and liberty.

Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 Section 8(1) of the Act requires the particulars sought for in the forms prescribed by the State Government, to be furnished to the Registrar.

Reliance was also placed by the petitioner on the decision of the Supreme Court in Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admn. 2009 (9) SCC 1, wherein the Court had held that, reproductive choice of a woman is a fundamental right encompassed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The right to procreate as well as to abstain from procreation has been recognized as a colour of the right of personal liberty.

Findings of the Court

In K.S.Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017 (10) SCC 1, it was held by the Supreme Court that personal choice governing a way of life are intrinsic to privacy and one of the connotations of “privacy” includes decisional autonomy which comprehends intimate personal choices such as, those governing reproduction as well as choice expressed in public such as, faith or modes of dress.

In the year 2005, the Ministry for Health and Family Welfare, Government of India had issued “National Guidelines for Accreditation, Supervision and Regulation of ART Clinics in India” with regard to functioning of ART clinics in India, which states:

3.5.2 There would be no bar to the use of ART by a single woman who wishes to have a child, and no ART clinic may refuse to offer its services to the above provided…”

The Bench also took note of theThe Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Bill, 2020”, and opined that rights of a single woman for reproductive decisions and personal choices having been recognized as a constitutional right, there are instances where single/unwed women choose to have child through Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART).

Hence, the Bench stated that when the identity of the donor was not disclosed to the petitioner there was no rhyme or reason in requiring the petitioner to provide the name of the father in the form prescribed for registration of birth and death. The Bench held that the concept of conceiving through ART had been foreign to this country a few decades back till the first “test tube baby” was born but now when the right of a single parent/unwed mother to conceive by ART had been recognized, prescriptions of forms requiring mentioning of name of father, the details of which is to be kept anonymous, was violative of the fundamental rights of privacy, liberty and dignity and it was for the State Government to bring out appropriate forms for registration of births and deaths, and also certificates of births and deaths, in such cases.


In the light of the above, the Bench directed the State of Kerala to provide a separate form to such applicants which do not contain the field regarding the name and other details of the father. In so far as certificate of death was concerned, the Bench was of the view that it would suffice if in the column where the name of the father or husband is sought for, another entry could be made as that of the mother (like Father / Husband / Mother). Additionally, noticing that the petitioner was in the 8th month of pregnancy, the Bench directed that the necessary steps should be taken immediately.[X v. State of Kerala, WP(C) NO. 13622 of 2021, decided on 13-08-2021]

Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Appearance by:

For the Petitioner: Adv A.Aruna

For the Respondents: Govt. Pleader M.H.Hanil Kumar and S.Krishna, CGSC

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of AM Khanwilkar*, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ has held that the right to control one’s identity is a fundamental right and the Central Board of Secondary Education cannot deny such right by refusing to allow a person to change their name in the Certificates without giving them reasonable opportunity.


Whether an individual’s control over such cardinal element of identity could be denied to him/her by the Central Board of Secondary Education on the specious ground that its Examination Byelaws of 2007 must prevail over the claim of the candidate, which are merely intended to regulate such a claim and to delineate the procedure for correction/change in the contents of certificate(s) issued by it including regarding maintenance of its office records?


Do you have the right to change your identity?

“What’s in a name? that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet”, said Juliet. This quote from William Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet” is unarguably one of the most iconic dialogues in classical literature.  It conveys that the natural characteristics of an individual are more important than his/her artificial/acquired characteristics.  A poetic statement as it certainly is, it does not go in tune with the significance of a name in marking the identity of an individual in his/her societal transactions. To put it differently, name is an intrinsic element of identity.”

Identity is an amalgam of various internal and external including acquired characteristics of an individual and name can be regarded as one of the foremost indicators of identity. And therefore, an individual must be in complete control of her name and law must enable her to retain as well as to exercise such control freely “for all times”. Such control would inevitably include the aspiration of an individual to be recognized by a different name for a just cause.

Any change in identity of an individual has to go through multiple steps and it cannot be regarded as complete without proper fulfilment of those steps. An individual may self¬identify oneself with any title or epithet at any point of time. But the change of identity would not be regarded as formally or legally complete until and unless the State and its agencies take note thereof in their records. Afterall, in social sphere, an individual is not only recognized by how an individual identifies oneself but also by how his/her official records identify him/her. For, in every public transaction of an individual, official records introduce the person by his/her name and other relevant particulars.

However, going by the very nature of rights under Article 19, the right to get changed name recorded in the official (public) records cannot be an absolute right and as a matter of public policy and larger public interest calls for certain reasonable restrictions to observe consistency and obviate confusion and deceptive attempt.

Byelaws violative of fundamental right to change one’s identity?

The concerned Byelaw has been framed on the assumption that there can be no situation wherein a legitimate need for change of name could arise for a student after publication of results. It is presumed that only typographical/factual errors could come in the certificates and they can be corrected using the provision for corrections.

“The presumption, we must note, is erroneous, absurd and distances itself from the social realities.”

There can be numerous circumstances wherein change of name could be a legitimate requirement and keeping the ultimate goal of preserving the standard of education in mind, the Board must provide for a reasonable opportunity to effect such changes.

Further, the balance of convenience would tilt in favour of students.  For, they stand to lose more due to inaccuracies in their certificates than the Board whose sole worry is increasing administrative burden.

“The obligation of Board to take additional administrative burden is no doubt onerous but the propensity of a student losing career opportunities due to inaccurate certificate is unparalleled.”

A Board dealing with maintenance of educational standards cannot arrogate to itself the power to impact identity of students who enrol with it. The right to control one’s identity must remain with the individual, subject, of course, to reasonable restrictions.

What kind of requests can be made?

Where the incumbent wants “correction” in the certificate issued by the CBSE:

  • There is no reason for the CBSE to turn down such request or attach any precondition except reasonable period of limitation and keeping in mind the period for which the CBSE has to maintain its record under the extant regulations.
  • While doing so, it can certainly insist for compliance of other conditions by the incumbent, such as, to file sworn affidavit making necessary declaration and to indemnify the CBSE from any claim against it by third party because of such correction.
  • The CBSE would be justified in insisting for surrender/return of the original certificate (or duplicate  original certificate, as the case may be) issued by it for replacing it with the fresh certificate to be issued after carrying out necessary corrections with  caption/annotation against the changes carried out and the date of such correction.
  • It may retain the original entries as it is except in respect of correction of name effected in exercise of right to be forgotten.
  • The fresh certificate may also contain disclaimer that the CBSE cannot be held responsible for the genuineness of the school records produced by the incumbent in support of the request to record correction in the original CBSE certificate.
  • The CBSE can also insist for reasonable prescribed fees to be paid by the incumbent in lieu of administrative expenses for issuing   fresh   certificate.
  • At the same time, the CBSE cannot impose precondition of applying for correction consistent with the school records only before publication of results. Such a condition, would be unreasonable and excessive.
  • If the application for recording correction is based on the school records as it obtained at the time of publication of results and issue of certificate by the CBSE, it will be open to CBSE to provide for reasonable limitation period within which the application for recording correction in certificate issued by it may be entertained by it.
  • However, if the request for recording change is based on changed school records post the publication of results and issue of certificate by the CBSE, the candidate would be entitled to apply for recording such a change within the reasonable limitation period prescribed by the CBSE. In this situation, the candidate cannot claim that she had no knowledge about the change recorded in the school records because such a change would occur obviously at her instance.
  • If she makes such application for correction of the school records, she is expected to apply to the CBSE immediately after the school records are modified and which ought to be done within a reasonable time.

Indeed, it would be open to the CBSE to reject the application in the event the period for preservation of official records under the extant regulations had expired and no record of the candidate concerned is traceable or can be reconstructed.

In the case of subsequent amendment of school records, that may occur due to different reasons including because of choice exercised by the candidate regarding change of name. To put it differently, request for recording of correction in the certificate issued by the CBSE to bring it in line with the school records of the incumbent need not be limited to application made prior to publication of examination results of the CBSE.

“Change” of particulars in the certificate issued by the CBSE:

The request for “change” of particulars in the certificate issued by the CBSE,  presupposes that the particulars intended to be recorded in the CBSE certificate are not consistent with the school records.

When are such requests made?

(a) on the basis of public documents like Birth Certificate, Aadhaar Card/Election Card, etc. and to incorporate change in the CBSE certificate consistent therewith.

There is a legal presumption in relation to the public documents as envisaged in the 1872 Act. Such public documents, therefore, cannot be ignored by the CBSE. Taking note of those documents, the CBSE may entertain the request for recording change in the certificate issued by it. This, however, need not be unconditional, but subject to certain reasonable conditions to be fulfilled by the applicant as may be prescribed by the CBSE, such as, of furnishing sworn affidavit containing declaration and to indemnify the CBSE and upon payment of prescribed fees in lieu of administrative expenses.

The CBSE may also insist for issuing Public Notice and publication in the Official Gazette before recording the change in the fresh certificate to be issued by it upon surrender/return of the original certificate (or duplicate original certificate, as the case may be) by the applicant.

The fresh certificate may contain disclaimer and caption/annotation against the original entry (except in respect of change of name effected in exercise of right to be forgotten) indicating the date on which change has been recorded and the basis thereof.

“In other words, the fresh certificate may retain original particulars while recording the change along with caption/annotation referred to above (except in respect of change of name effected in exercise of right to be forgotten).”

(b) due to the acquired name by choice at a later point of time which need not be backed by public documents pertaining to the candidate:

Such a request may be entertained upon insisting for prior permission/declaration by a Court of law in that regard and publication in the Official Gazette including surrender/return of original certificate (or duplicate original certificate, as the case may be) issued by CBSE and upon payment of   prescribed fees.

The fresh certificate may retain the original entry (except in respect of change of name effected in exercise of right to be forgotten) and to insert caption/annotation indicating the date on which it has been recorded and other details including disclaimer of CBSE.  This is so because the CBSE is not required to adjudicate nor has the mechanism to verify the correctness of the claim of the applicant.


  • The CBSE to process the applications for correction or change, as the case may be, in the certificate issued by it in the respective cases under consideration.
  • Even other pending applications and future applications for such request be processed on the lines of the decision of the Court in the present case, as may be applicable, until amendment of relevant Byelaws.
  • Additionally, the CBSE shall take immediate steps to amend its relevant Byelaws so as to incorporate the stated mechanism for recording correction or change, as the case may be, in the certificates already issued or to be issued by it.

[Jigya Yadav v. CBSE, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 415, decided on 03.06.2021]

Judgment by: Justice AM Khanwilkar 

Know Thy Judge| Justice AM Khanwilkar

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: Vikas Kunvar Srivastav, J., addresses whether a minor girl on attaining majority can ratify the agreement of marriage that she had entered into when she was a minor? The legality of such an agreement tested.

Instant petition was moved on behalf of ‘Sadhna Kumari’ aged about 18 years through her next friend. Next friend allegedly the husband aged about 19 years.

OPs 4 and 5 (Parents of Petitioner Sadhna Kumari) with whom petitioner’s unlawful detention was complained.

Next Friend pleaded that the detenue petitioner Sadhna Kumari and next friend Shekhar were legally wedded and living as husband and wife since after an agreement purported to be of marriage.

Analysis and Decision

Bench noted that the petitioner’s counsel failed to show material averment as to the ‘solemnization of marriage’. Its date, place and time so as to establish the wedding of the petitioner and her next friend the alleged husband.

‘Agreement’ dated 31-07-2020 was pleaded as the basis of legal authority of the next friend to seek habeas corpus of petitioner Sadhna Kumari.

Purpose of Writ

It is to facilitate the next friend to cohabit with petitioner without interruption of anyone else, even the parents of Sadhna Kumari (OPs 4 and 5) with whom she is presently residing.

Legality of Agreement dated 31-07-2020

As per the High School Examination certificate, Sadhna Kumari’s date of birth was 17-03-2003. In view of the stated material fact, the ‘agreement’ purported to be of marriage when allegedly executed by the petitioner Sadhna Kumari on 31-7-2020 she was a minor aged about 17 years and 4 months, therefore, at the relevant date of agreement despite the alleged agreement of her consent to cohabit with Shekhar Pandey, the next friend as husband and wife, she could not be supposed to give valid consent in law.

A criminal case has been registered against the next friend on the complaint of the petitioner’s mother.

Agreement of which either party to it is a minor- Legal Status 

Agreements which are made enforceable in law are provided under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act states that:

“every person is competent to contract who is of the age of majority according to the law to which he is subject, and who is of sound mind and is not disqualified from contracting by any law to which he is subject.”

 It is pertinent to keep in mind the age of the majority which capacitates a person to contract.

Since petitioner’s date of birth was 17-03-2003, she was undoubtedly on the date of ‘agreement’ dated 31-07-2020 a minor.

As per the definitions given in Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 such a person has termed a child.

Court stated that the petitioner was a minor as well as a child also when she allegedly entered into the agreement to marry on 31-7-2020. Further, she was party to an agreement of marriage.

An agreement must not be opposed to law. The law applicable to petitioner being a Hindu, is “The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955”.

Section 5 (iii) of the said Act provides the marriageable age, according to which the marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus, if the following conditions are fulfilled: –

“(iii) the bride groom has completed the age of twenty one years and the bride, the age of eighteen years at the time of the marriage.”

High Court held that The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and The Indian Contract Act, 1872 the petitioner had no legal capacity and competence to enter into the agreement to marry with Shekhar. Court added that even Shekhar was not of marriageable age under the law.

India Law states that in marriage where either the woman is below the age of 18 years or the man is below the age of 21 years, such marriage, if solemnized by the guardians becomes voidable under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act at the instance of minor. He has option to ratify the marriage also.

 In the present matter, marriage was being claimed as an agreement to cohabit as husband and wife by virtue of an agreement dated 31-07-2021. Hence, the question was – whether on attaining the majority age a minor was competent to ratify his/her agreement executed in the age of minority?

Legal Position to address the above question:

(i) contract with minor is void and no legal obligation can ever arise on him/her therein,

(ii) the minor party cannot ratify the contract upon attaining majority unless the law specifically allows this, and

(iii) no court can allow specific permission of a contract with minor because it is void altogether.

When a contract is entered on behalf of lawful authority of a minor then only the option is available attaining majority to minor either to ratify or to rescind the contract entered by the person having lawful authority on his behalf.

Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the agreement dated 31-7-2020 of which one of the parties namely petitioner Sadhna Kumari a minor, is void, as the same is in violation of Sections 11 and 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Elaborating its conclusion, High Court added that agreement dated 31-7-2020 purporting to be of marriage and consent to cohabit together, cannot be given effect so as to issue notice to opposite parties for the production of the petitioner in court for the purpose of recording her desire to ratify her alleged agreement to marry/consent deed, for the reason of the same being a void agreement.

Bench while dismissing the petition stated that this decision shall not impede the petitioner to enter into marital relations with a person of her choice on attaining marriageable age through a lawfully solemnized marriage or otherwise. [Sadhna Kumari v. State of U.P., 2021 SCC OnLine All 276, decided on 15-04-2021]

Advocates before the Court:

Counsel for the Petitioner: Janardan Singh

Counsel for the Respondent: G.A.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madras High Court: P.T. Asha, J., addressed a matter in relation to adoption and modification in the birth certificate of a minor in terms of change in the name of the biological father of the child.

Legal status of a biological daughter

Petitioners are the adopted father and biological/natural mother of minor seeking direction from the Court that petitioner 1 be appointed as a father of the minor female child and consequently, the minor child be entitled to the legal status of a biological daughter with all the rights of succession and inheritance in respect of the adopted father and a modified birth certificate of the minor be issued.

Adoption Regulations and the JJ Act

Petitioners have contended that the conditions prescribed under Adoption Regulations and the Juvenile Justice Act have fully been complied with while filing the present petition.

Bench on perusal of the facts and submission in the present matter stated that the parties are all Hindus and therefore bound by the provision of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.

In the instant matter, the biological father of the minor child died three years back, and hence proviso to Section 9(2) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 would not be applicable to the case.


Court observed that it is well open to the biological mother of the minor child to give her child to adoption and since both petitioner 1 and the petitioner 2 i.e. the biological mother of the child are happily married and living together and the minor has been living with them, there is no impediment to the said prayer of adoption.

 Birth Certificate of the minor cannot be modified

Bench stated that on the date when the birth certificate of the minor was issued, the biological father was alive and it is him who has been described as the father of the minor child in the birth certificate.

Adoption does not sever the relationship of the minor with her biological father. 

Only exception to the above is, when the biological father himself renounces his right as father of the minor and consents for the child to be taken by the adoptive father.

Court added that even in the above-stated cases, only the status of being a biological father does not change, only the status of adoptive father, custody and maintenance of the minor child changes hands.

In the present matter, the biological mother cannot deprive the minor child’s right to have the name of her biological father in her birth certificate.

Registration of the births is governed by the provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969.

Under what circumstances can a correction or cancellation of the entry in the register of births and deaths be made?

Court stated that only under the following circumstances the birth certificate can be modified:

(a) When the entry is erroneous in form or substance; and

(b) The entry has been fraudulently or improperly made.

Under Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 it is clear that the original entry cannot be corrected/deleted and the incorporation of the new details can be made only in the margin.

In the present matter, Rule 5 of Tamil Nadu Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2000 talks about adoption and prescribes a form. Serial Nos. 7 and 8 relate to the name of the adoptive mother and the adoptive father.

Hence, the petitioner’s request to delete the biological father’s name from the original birth certificate is not legally sustainable since the rules clearly provide for incorporating the name of the adoptive parents separately in column nos. 7 and 8 as adoptive parents and not as natural parents.

Court held that the substitution of the name of petitioner 1 as the biological father of the minor cannot be permitted and taking into consideration the Rule 5 of Tamil Nadu Registration of Births and Death Rules, 2000, Court directed for issuance of a birth certificate as contained in Form 1-A of the Rules by effecting entries in column nos. 6,7,8,9 and 10 and the original birth certificate shall remain unaltered.

In view of the above, the original petition was allowed. [Vivek Narendran, In Re., 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 1758, decided on 20-07-2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madras High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of M.S. Ramesh, J. addressing a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the issue of removal of a name recorded in the column of father’s name in the birth certificate of the petitioner’s child.

In the present case, the daughter of the petitioner was born through a treatment named ‘intrauterine fertility treatment’ in which the insemination was done with the help of a semen donor. The birth certificate of the child consisted of the petitioner’s name in the mother’s column whereas in the father’s column the name of Mr Manish Madanpal was mentioned which was wrongly entered as he had no relation with the child and was just helping the petitioner during her delivery on a humanitarian ground.

The petitioner’s request for the removal of the father’s name was rejected on the ground that only the mistakes and errors in the names of the father can be rectified and removal of the name from the birth certificate is not contemplated under the relevant law.

One of the pertinent issue that Court noticed was of the insistence of the authorities towards the petitioner in regard to the revelation of father’s name. The High Court established the fact that in a case like that of the petitioner’s, the name of the name of the father of the child cannot be disclosed. By placing reliance on the Supreme Court case in  ABC v. State (NCT of Delhi), AIR 2015 SC 2569, the High Court also stated that no women shall be insisted on revealing the father’s name when the details of the birth are registered in the books of the authorities concerned.

Therefore, on the directions of the Court, the birth certificate in the present case was rectified in which the father’s name was left blank. [Mathumitha Ramesh v. Chief Health Officer,2018 SCC OnLine Mad 2153, dated 11-06-2018]