{"id":256590,"date":"2021-11-01T11:00:37","date_gmt":"2021-11-01T05:30:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=256590"},"modified":"2021-11-01T09:42:28","modified_gmt":"2021-11-01T04:12:28","slug":"differentiating-between-married-and-unmarried-fathers-in-relation-to-conferring-a-surname-on-a-child-amounts-to-unjustified-and-unfair-discrimination-on-the-grounds-of-marital-status-sex-and-gender","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/01\/differentiating-between-married-and-unmarried-fathers-in-relation-to-conferring-a-surname-on-a-child-amounts-to-unjustified-and-unfair-discrimination-on-the-grounds-of-marital-status-sex-and-gender\/","title":{"rendered":"Differentiating between married and unmarried fathers in relation to conferring a surname on a child, amounts to unjustified and unfair discrimination on the grounds of marital status, sex and gender"},"content":{"rendered":"

Constitutional Court of South Africa: <\/strong>While deciding the constitutional validity of S. 10 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act of 1992, the bench of the Court comprising of Mogoeng CJ, Jafta J, Khampepe J, Madlanga J, Majiedt J, Mathopo AJ, Mhlantla J, Theron J, Tshiqi J and Victor AJ., with a ratio of 8:2 declared S.10 of the 1992 Act unconstitutional in its entirety and therefore severed it from the Statute on the ground that the provision limited the ability of an unmarried father to confer his surname on his child. The Court further noted that there is no justification for differentiating between married and unmarried fathers in relation to conferring a surname on a child; thus S. 10 amounted to unfair discrimination on the listed grounds of marital status, sex and gender, which is prohibited by the South African Constitution.<\/p>\n

Background<\/span><\/h3>\n

\u00a0<\/strong>In 2016, Menzile Lawrence Naki, (South African citizen) and Dimitrila Marie Ndovya, (a citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo [hereinafter DRC]) sought to register the birth of their daughter, born in Grahamstown on 01-02-2016, with the Department of Home Affairs (Department) in Grahamstown. Before the child\u2019s birth, Dimitrila travelled to and from South Africa to the DRC on a visitor\u2019s visa. However, shortly before their daughter was born, her visa expired and due to her pregnancy, she could not renew the visa or travel back to the DRC.<\/p>\n

Department of Home Affairs refused to register the child\u2019s birth on the ground that the mother lacked a valid visa or permit and could not comply with certain Regulations on the Registration of Births and Deaths, 2014.<\/p>\n

Legal Trajectory<\/span><\/h3>\n

\u00a0<\/strong>The couple brought an application to the High Court to review and set aside the Department\u2019s refusal to register their daughter\u2019s birth, and challenged the constitutionality of the relevant Regulations. The Centre for Child Law upon being admitted as an intervening applicant, sought orders declaring Ss. 9 and 10 of the 1992 Act and sub-regulations (3) and (5) of Regulations 3, 4 and 5 and Regulation 12(1) of the Regulations on the Registration of Births and Deaths, as unconstitutional.<\/p>\n

The High Court held that, the first reference to \u201cmother\u201d in S.10(2) was intended to be \u201cfather\u201d, and on their current formulation, Ss. 9 and 10 do not prohibit unmarried fathers from, registering the births of their children in the absence of the mother who gave birth to such children.<\/p>\n

The Centre for Child Law appealed to the Full Court on the question of the constitutional validity of S. 10. The Full Court disagreed with the interpretation of the High Court and noted that even though S. 9 empowers an unmarried father to give notice of his child\u2019s birth, the exercise by an unmarried father of his right under S. 9(1) is contingent on either the mother\u2019s presence or her consent, in terms of S.10; thus the impugned provision prohibits a father giving notice of the birth of his child under his surname in the mother\u2019s absence. The Full Court thus declared section 10 invalid and incompatible with the Constitution.<\/p>\n

Submissions<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

The Centre for Child Law submitted that the differentiation between standards applicable to children born within or outside of wedlock is arbitrary; S.10 thus unlawfully discriminates against both unmarried fathers and children born out of wedlock on various grounds. As a result children born out of wedlock are not able to fully realise certain constitutionally guaranteed rights.<\/p>\n

Department of Home Affairs and the Minister of Home Affairs did not oppose the confirmation of the constitutional invalidity of S.10. The Department further put forth before the Court that that S. 10 places restrictions on parents who are not married to each other, thereby unfairly discriminating against and impermissibly infringing the rights of both unmarried parents and the rights of children born to parents out of wedlock.<\/p>\n

Significant Observations <\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

Majority Opinion: <\/strong>The majority opinion was authored by Victor AJ (with Jafta J, Khampepe J, Madlanga J, Majiedt J, Mhlantla J, Theron J and Tshiqi J concurring). It was noted that the bifurcated procedures of Sections 9 and 10 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act, presents an range of difficulties \u2013 firstly<\/em>, which are faced by unmarried fathers in registering the births of their children in their own surnames, if the consent of the mothers has not been obtained or if the mothers are unavailable; and secondly<\/em> the problem of undocumented mothers who live and give birth to children in South Africa and are unable to register the births of these children; and thirdly<\/em>, another difficulty arises (as a result of the requirement) that parents who are non- South African citizens must produce a certified copy of a valid passport or visa.<\/p>\n

Applying the test laid out in Harksen<\/em> v Lane N.O<\/em>.<\/strong> 1997 SCC OnLine ZACC 12<\/a> (Harksen <\/em>Test)<\/strong>, the majority noted that, the impugned law differentiates between married and unmarried fathers in relation to their capacity to confer their surname onto their new-born child when giving notice of their child\u2019s birth. In addition, the impugned law differentiates between mothers (irrespective of their marital status) and unmarried fathers (as a category). It was stated in clear terms that, \u201cNo legitimate government purpose is advanced by distinguishing between married and unmarried fathers, at least not in respect of their capacity to register their new-born child\u2019s birth and confer their surname on him or her. Nor is there any legitimate basis for this gendered differentiation<\/em><\/strong> of the conferral of a surname where a child automatically bears the mother\u2019s surname but cannot assume their father\u2019s surname<\/strong><\/em>\u201d<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The majority also deliberated that whether \u201cmarital supremacy is a necessity for the registration process for the surname of his child? Should the concept of marriage even factor in the registration process<\/em>?\u201d – as an answer to which the majority observed that \u00a0a marital neutral approach would better give effect to substantive equality as envisioned in the Constitution. The Court also noted that S. 10 impairs the dignity of both unmarried fathers, whose bonds with their children are deemed less worthy, and the children of unmarried parents- \u201cSection 10 is problematic because it perpetuates stereotypical gender roles and the assumption that child-care is inherently a mother\u2019s duty<\/em><\/strong>\u201d<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Vis-\u00e0-vis the child, the Majority held that the concept of \u201cillegitimacy\u201d and differential rights for children born in and out of wedlock is inconsistent with the principle in S. 28(2) of the Constitution that the rights of the child are paramount.<\/p>\n

It was further noted that S.10 also infringes a child\u2019s right to not to be discriminated against on the grounds of social origin or birth. Thus the majority concluded that S.10 of the Act is contradictory with the rights to equality, dignity and the best interests of the child and invalid to the extent that it limits the rights of unmarried fathers to give notice of the birth of their child in their surname.<\/em> The majority also declared that the proviso in S. 9(2) of the Act stating that the provision is \u201csubject to the provisions of S.10<\/em>\u201d is severed from S. 9(2) by reason of the declaration of constitutional invalidity of section 10.<\/p>\n

Dissenting Opinion: <\/strong>Mogoeng CJ, with Mathopo AJ (concurring) delivered a dissenting opinion on the matter. They observed that even though S. 10 of the 1992 Act discriminates against unmarried fathers on the basis of marital status, however the discrimination is reasonable, justifiable and fair -\u201cThe differentiation between married and unmarried fathers is not about stereotyping women as those who should bear the primary or sole responsibility for raising children, but about confronting the practical realities that unmarried South African mothers and children have to contend with most of the time\u201d<\/em><\/strong>.<\/em><\/p>\n

They observed that the provisions in question are grounded in the lived experiences of South Africans relating to some men who are happy to claim and give their surnames to children without any regard for a concomitant duty of care for them. \u201cA child\u2019s mother must therefore necessarily be asked to say: (i) whether the man claiming to be the father is indeed the father; and (ii) even if he is, whether he is the kind that would help advance the best interests of the child and give expression to the paramountcy of those interests or one whose somewhat formalised association with the child would be prejudicial to the child\u2019s best interests<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n

It was noted that declaring Sections 10 and 9 as unconstitutional will pose serious risks to the best interests of a child. They reasoned that, \u201cThis is not a case of needless, unfair discrimination on the basis of marital status, sex or gender. The impugned provisions are predicated on the need to give practical expression to the best interests of a child and their paramount importance<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n

[Center for Child Law v. Director-General: Dept. of Home Affairs, [2021] ZACC 31, decided on 22-09-2021]<\/p>\n

\n

Sucheta Sarkar, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.<\/span><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Constitutional Court of South Africa: While deciding the constitutional validity of S. 10 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act of 1992, <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":167554,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,12],"tags":[33862,47695,33223],"class_list":["post-256590","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-foreigncourts","tag-child-rights","tag-children-born-out-of-wedlock","tag-illegitimate-child"],"yoast_head":"\nDifferentiating between married and unmarried fathers in relation to conferring a surname on a child, amounts to unjustified and unfair discrimination on the grounds of marital status, sex and gender | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Differentiating between married and unmarried fathers in relation to conferring a surname on a child, amounts to unjustified and unfair discrimination on the grounds of marital status, sex and gender\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/01\/differentiating-between-married-and-unmarried-fathers-in-relation-to-conferring-a-surname-on-a-child-amounts-to-unjustified-and-unfair-discrimination-on-the-grounds-of-marital-status-sex-and-gender\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Differentiating between married and unmarried fathers in relation to conferring a surname on a child, amounts to unjustified and unfair discrimination on the grounds of marital status, sex and gender\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Differentiating between married and unmarried fathers in relation to conferring a surname on a child, amounts to unjustified and unfair discrimination on the grounds of marital status, sex and gender\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/01\/differentiating-between-married-and-unmarried-fathers-in-relation-to-conferring-a-surname-on-a-child-amounts-to-unjustified-and-unfair-discrimination-on-the-grounds-of-marital-status-sex-and-gender\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-11-01T05:30:37+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Constitutional-Court-of-South-Africa.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/01\/differentiating-between-married-and-unmarried-fathers-in-relation-to-conferring-a-surname-on-a-child-amounts-to-unjustified-and-unfair-discrimination-on-the-grounds-of-marital-status-sex-and-gender\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/01\/differentiating-between-married-and-unmarried-fathers-in-relation-to-conferring-a-surname-on-a-child-amounts-to-unjustified-and-unfair-discrimination-on-the-grounds-of-marital-status-sex-and-gender\/\",\"name\":\"Differentiating between married and unmarried fathers in relation to conferring a surname on a child, amounts to unjustified and unfair discrimination on the grounds of marital status, sex and gender | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/01\/differentiating-between-married-and-unmarried-fathers-in-relation-to-conferring-a-surname-on-a-child-amounts-to-unjustified-and-unfair-discrimination-on-the-grounds-of-marital-status-sex-and-gender\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/01\/differentiating-between-married-and-unmarried-fathers-in-relation-to-conferring-a-surname-on-a-child-amounts-to-unjustified-and-unfair-discrimination-on-the-grounds-of-marital-status-sex-and-gender\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Constitutional-Court-of-South-Africa.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-11-01T05:30:37+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Differentiating between married and unmarried fathers in relation to conferring a surname on a child, amounts to unjustified and unfair discrimination on the grounds of marital status, sex and gender\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/01\/differentiating-between-married-and-unmarried-fathers-in-relation-to-conferring-a-surname-on-a-child-amounts-to-unjustified-and-unfair-discrimination-on-the-grounds-of-marital-status-sex-and-gender\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/01\/differentiating-between-married-and-unmarried-fathers-in-relation-to-conferring-a-surname-on-a-child-amounts-to-unjustified-and-unfair-discrimination-on-the-grounds-of-marital-status-sex-and-gender\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/01\/differentiating-between-married-and-unmarried-fathers-in-relation-to-conferring-a-surname-on-a-child-amounts-to-unjustified-and-unfair-discrimination-on-the-grounds-of-marital-status-sex-and-gender\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Constitutional-Court-of-South-Africa.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Constitutional-Court-of-South-Africa.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887,\"caption\":\"Constitutional-Court-of-South-Africa\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/01\/differentiating-between-married-and-unmarried-fathers-in-relation-to-conferring-a-surname-on-a-child-amounts-to-unjustified-and-unfair-discrimination-on-the-grounds-of-marital-status-sex-and-gender\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Differentiating between married and unmarried fathers in relation to conferring a surname on a child, amounts to unjustified and unfair discrimination on the grounds of marital status, sex and gender\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Differentiating between married and unmarried fathers in relation to conferring a surname on a child, amounts to unjustified and unfair discrimination on the grounds of marital status, sex and gender | SCC Times","description":"Differentiating between married and unmarried fathers in relation to conferring a surname on a child, amounts to unjustified and unfair discrimination on the grounds of marital status, sex and gender","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/01\/differentiating-between-married-and-unmarried-fathers-in-relation-to-conferring-a-surname-on-a-child-amounts-to-unjustified-and-unfair-discrimination-on-the-grounds-of-marital-status-sex-and-gender\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Differentiating between married and unmarried fathers in relation to conferring a surname on a child, amounts to unjustified and unfair discrimination on the grounds of marital status, sex and gender","og_description":"Differentiating between married and unmarried fathers in relation to conferring a surname on a child, amounts to unjustified and unfair discrimination on the grounds of marital status, sex and gender","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/01\/differentiating-between-married-and-unmarried-fathers-in-relation-to-conferring-a-surname-on-a-child-amounts-to-unjustified-and-unfair-discrimination-on-the-grounds-of-marital-status-sex-and-gender\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2021-11-01T05:30:37+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Constitutional-Court-of-South-Africa.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/01\/differentiating-between-married-and-unmarried-fathers-in-relation-to-conferring-a-surname-on-a-child-amounts-to-unjustified-and-unfair-discrimination-on-the-grounds-of-marital-status-sex-and-gender\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/01\/differentiating-between-married-and-unmarried-fathers-in-relation-to-conferring-a-surname-on-a-child-amounts-to-unjustified-and-unfair-discrimination-on-the-grounds-of-marital-status-sex-and-gender\/","name":"Differentiating between married and unmarried fathers in relation to conferring a surname on a child, amounts to unjustified and unfair discrimination on the grounds of marital status, sex and gender | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/01\/differentiating-between-married-and-unmarried-fathers-in-relation-to-conferring-a-surname-on-a-child-amounts-to-unjustified-and-unfair-discrimination-on-the-grounds-of-marital-status-sex-and-gender\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/01\/differentiating-between-married-and-unmarried-fathers-in-relation-to-conferring-a-surname-on-a-child-amounts-to-unjustified-and-unfair-discrimination-on-the-grounds-of-marital-status-sex-and-gender\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Constitutional-Court-of-South-Africa.jpg","datePublished":"2021-11-01T05:30:37+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Differentiating between married and unmarried fathers in relation to conferring a surname on a child, amounts to unjustified and unfair discrimination on the grounds of marital status, sex and gender","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/01\/differentiating-between-married-and-unmarried-fathers-in-relation-to-conferring-a-surname-on-a-child-amounts-to-unjustified-and-unfair-discrimination-on-the-grounds-of-marital-status-sex-and-gender\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/01\/differentiating-between-married-and-unmarried-fathers-in-relation-to-conferring-a-surname-on-a-child-amounts-to-unjustified-and-unfair-discrimination-on-the-grounds-of-marital-status-sex-and-gender\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/01\/differentiating-between-married-and-unmarried-fathers-in-relation-to-conferring-a-surname-on-a-child-amounts-to-unjustified-and-unfair-discrimination-on-the-grounds-of-marital-status-sex-and-gender\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Constitutional-Court-of-South-Africa.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Constitutional-Court-of-South-Africa.jpg","width":1330,"height":887,"caption":"Constitutional-Court-of-South-Africa"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/01\/differentiating-between-married-and-unmarried-fathers-in-relation-to-conferring-a-surname-on-a-child-amounts-to-unjustified-and-unfair-discrimination-on-the-grounds-of-marital-status-sex-and-gender\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Differentiating between married and unmarried fathers in relation to conferring a surname on a child, amounts to unjustified and unfair discrimination on the grounds of marital status, sex and gender"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Constitutional-Court-of-South-Africa.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":260603,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/25\/continued-distinction-between-children-born-within-or-out-of-wedlock-stigmatises-children-born-out-of-wedlock\/","url_meta":{"origin":256590,"position":0},"title":"Continued distinction between children born within or out of wedlock, stigmatises children born out of wedlock: Does it causes indignity to child & unmarried parents? Here\u2019s why Constitutional Court of SA declared S. 10 of Births and Deaths Registration Act as \u2018Unconstitutional\u2019","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"January 25, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Constitutional Court of South Africa: The Bench of Victor AJ (Jafta J, Khampepe J, Madlanga J, Majiedt J, Mhlantla J, Theron J and Tshiqi J concurring) and Mogoeng CJ (Mathopo AJ dissenting) expressed that, Children born to parents outside the marital bond are blameless, yet the retention of Section 10\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Constitutional-Court-of-South-Africa","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Constitutional-Court-of-South-Africa.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Constitutional-Court-of-South-Africa.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Constitutional-Court-of-South-Africa.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Constitutional-Court-of-South-Africa.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Constitutional-Court-of-South-Africa.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":195286,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/04\/17\/a-major-unmarried-daughter-is-entitled-to-maintenance-from-her-father-under-s-125-crpc\/","url_meta":{"origin":256590,"position":1},"title":"A major unmarried daughter is entitled to maintenance from her father under Section 125 CrPC","author":"Saba","date":"April 17, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Bharati H. Dangre, J., decided a writ petition filed by the petitioner-mother, wherein maintenance was allowed to the unmarried adult daughter holding that such a child was entitled to maintenance from her father under Section 125 CrPC. The petitioner and husband\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":256986,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/11\/scc-online-weekly-rewind-episode-35-ft-bhumika-indulia\/","url_meta":{"origin":256590,"position":2},"title":"SCC Online Weekly Rewind Episode 35 ft. Bhumika Indulia","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 11, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=47y1lxYQC-Q SUPREME COURT Same offence but separate trials \u2013 Appellate court cannot pass common judgment based on evidence recorded in only one trial READ MORE HERE\u00a0 Some out of five accused abscond; remaining can still be tried for dacoity READ MORE HERE HIGH COURTS Kerala High Court Ensure no new\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "SCC Times Newsflash"","block_context":{"text":"SCC Times Newsflash","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/watch-now-2\/scc-times-newsflash\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/WEEKLY-REWIND-BHUMIKA.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/WEEKLY-REWIND-BHUMIKA.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/WEEKLY-REWIND-BHUMIKA.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/WEEKLY-REWIND-BHUMIKA.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/WEEKLY-REWIND-BHUMIKA.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":199527,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/02\/day-2-adultery-section-497-ipc-de-criminalising-adultery-is-not-licensing-adultery-dy-chandrachud-j\/","url_meta":{"origin":256590,"position":3},"title":"[Day-2] Adultery: Section 497 IPC | De-criminalising adultery is not licensing adultery: Dr DY Chandrachud J.","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 2, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The 5-Judge Constitution bench comprising of CJ Dipak Misra and RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, Dr DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, JJ., commenced with the day 2 on the Constitutional validity of Section 497 IPC hearing in regard to \u201cAdultery\u201d. Learned Counsel Kaleeswaram began with the arguments and placed\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":162914,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/10\/11\/sexual-intercourse-wife-18-years-age-rape-sc-holds\/","url_meta":{"origin":256590,"position":4},"title":"Sexual Intercourse with minor wife is rape [Full Report]","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"October 11, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: In order to harmonise Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC of the with the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), the spirit of other pro-child legislations and the human rights of a married girl child, the bench of Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":324551,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/17\/marital-status-of-woman-cannot-be-the-determining-factor-for-giving-her-child-in-adoption-madras-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":256590,"position":5},"title":"\u2018Marital status of woman cannot be the determining factor for giving her child in adoption\u2019, Madras HC sets aside Registering Authority’s order refusing to register adoption deed","author":"Apoorva","date":"June 17, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Madras High Court said that the reason given in the impugned refusal check slip reveals the patriarchal mind set of the registering authority, giving an underlying assumption that an unmarried woman above the age of 18 years cannot give her biological child in adoption.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Madras High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/256590","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=256590"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/256590\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/167554"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=256590"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=256590"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=256590"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}