Dismissed¶54

Koya Tejaswi v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Mar 2025WP/1660/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Change of surname of minor child; birth register correction; Section 15 Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1969; Rule 10 and Rule 11(4) A.P. Registration of Birth and Death Rules 1999; mother as natural guardian; Vijayawada Municipal Corporation; erroneous, fraudulent or improper entry; 12-month / 15-year naming window; Akella Lalitha v. Konda Hanumantha Rao distinguished; Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956. Outcome: writ petition dismissed on 18.03.2025, no costs.

What did the court decide?

On a reading of the provisions of the Act, only an erroneous or fraudulently/improperly made entry of birth can be corrected; the respondent authorities may change, alter or rectify entries only in the situations specified in the Act and the Rules. ¶43

Koya Tejaswi Vs the State of Ap — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶54

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's application for change of her son's surname falls within the correction/cancellation provisions of Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and the A.P. Rules of 1999, i.e., whether the authorities were unjustified in rejecting it. +1 more

¶52

Court's answer

¶43

Ratio / Principle

First statutory route: under Rule 10, where a birth was registered without a name, the parent or guardian who did not name the child at the time of entry in the Register of Births may inform the Registrar and have the child's name registered within an outer limit of 15 years (12-month period with proviso extension).

¶46

Key takeaways

Second statutory route: correction of an entry asserted to be erroneous in substance is available under Rule 11(4) of the Rules by following the procedure prescribed under Section 15 of the Act.ratio¶47
In the present case the child was already named at the date of entry in the Birth register; since the petitioner's grievance stems from her husband's neglect and not from any error in the register, she cannot maintain her grievance against the official respondents exercising statutory jurisdiction.ratio¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction) — Writ Petition No. 1660 of 2025, decided 18.03.2025 by Smt Justice Kiranmayee Mandava. A mother sought change of her minor son's surname from 'Jayanth Kondragunta' to 'Koya Jayanth' through the municipal authorities; the 2nd respondent rejected the application on the footing that only mistakes or errors in recording a name can be changed, modified or rectified under Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 read with Rule 11 of the A.P. Registration of Birth and Death Rules, 1999. The Court held that only erroneous or fraudulently/improperly made entries can be corrected; Rule 10 permits furnishing a child's name within 12 months of registration (proviso extending to an outer limit of 15 years) where birth was registered without a name, and Rule 11(4) permits correction of entries erroneous in substance on declaration by two credible persons. As the child was named at the date of entry in the Birth register and the grievance arose from the husband's neglect rather than any recording error, the petitioner could not maintain her claim against the statutory authorities. The Apex Court decision in Akella Lalitha v. Konda Hanumantha Rao was held distinguishable as arising under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs; pending interlocutory applications closed.

¶1

APHC010030052025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

[3458]

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 1660/2025

Between:

Koya Tejaswi

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Ap and Others

¶13

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶15

1.A SYAM SUNDAR REDDY

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶17

1.A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP)

¶18

2.GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FW

¶19

The Court made the following:

¶20

ORDER:-

¶21

Heard Sri A.Syam Sundar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.S.C.Bose, learned Standing Counsel for Vijayawada Municipal Corporation appearing for the 5^th respondent and learned Government Pleader for Medical Health and Family Welfare appearing for the 1^st , 2^nd and 3^rd respondents.

¶22

The writ petition is filed challenging the action of the respondents in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner seeking a change of surname of the petitioner's son to “Koya Jayanth” from “Jayanth Kondragunta”. The

¶23

¶24

petitioner contends that her husband, who is the father of the child, had neglected her and abandoned her and had taken divorce without the knowledge of the petitioner. She further contended that the unofficial 5^th respondent is not even mindful of his son's existence. As the mother and natural guardian of the child, she wishes to have her surname to her child rather than that of her husband since he never cared about the child. Thus, made a representation to the Municipal Authorities. The 2^nd respondent rejected the application filed by the petitioner, observing that only in case of mistakes or errors in recording the name of the person can be changed, modified, or rectified. However, since the petitioner's request is not referable to Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act,1969 (for short “the Act”) and Rule 11 of A.P. Registration of Birth and Death Rules,1999, (for short “the Rules”), the 2^nd respondent rejected the petitioner's claim.

¶25

It is relevant to refer to the provisions of Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act,1969.

¶26

“ 15 . Correction or cancellation of entry in the register of

¶27

births and deaths .- If it is proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar that any entry of a birth or death in any register kept by him under this Act is erroneous in form or substance, or has been fraudulently or improperly made, he may, subject to such rules as may be made by the State Government with respect to the conditions on which and the circumstances in which such entries may be corrected or cancelled correct the error or cancel the entry by suitable entry in the margin, without any alteration of the original entry, and shall sign the marginal entry and add thereto the date of the correction or cancellation.”

¶28

¶29

And Rule 11 of the Rules:

¶30

11. Correction or cancellation of entry in the register of births and deaths:

¶31

(1)If it is reported to the Registrar that a clerical or formal error has been made in the register or if such error is otherwise noticed by him and if the register is in his possession, the Registrar shall enquire into the matter and if he is satisfied that any such error has been made, he shall correct the error by correcting or cancelling the entry as provided in Section 15 and shall send an extract of the entry showing the error and how it has been corrected to the Chief Registrar.

¶32

(2)In the case referred to in sub-rule (1) if the register is not in his possession, the Registrar in rural areas shall make a report to the M.R.O. and call for the relevant register and after enquiring into the matter, if he is satisfied that any such error has been made, make the necessary correction and shall send an extract of the entry showing the error and how it has been corrected to the Chief Registrar through the concerned M.R.O.

¶33

(3)Any such correction as mentioned in sub-rule (2) shall be countersigned by M.R.O. in the rural areas when the register is received from the V.A.O. and by the concerned Registrar in other areas.

¶34

(4)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. (5)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (4) the Registrar shall make report of any correction of the kind referred to therein giving necessary details to the Chief Registrar.

¶35

(6)If it is proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar that any entry in the register of births and deaths has been fraudulently or improperly made, he shall make a report giving necessary details to the officer authorised by the Chief Registrar by general or special order in this behalf under Section 25 and on hearing from him take necessary action in the matter. (7)In every case in which an entry is corrected or cancelled under this rule, intimation thereof should be sent to the permanent address of the person who has given information under Section 8 or Section 9.

¶36

¶37

Under the Act and the Rules, the respondent authorities must change, alter, or rectify the errors under the situations mentioned, therein.

¶38

Rule 10 of the Rules provides that where the birth of the child had

¶39

been registered without a name, the guardian of such child shall within 12 months from the date of registration of birth give information regarding the name of the child to the Registrar either orally or in writing.

¶40

Proviso to the said rule provides that if the information is given after the aforesaid period of 12 months but within a period of 15 years which shall be reckoned.

¶41

Rule 11 of the Rules provides that if it is reported to the District Registrar that a clerical error or formal error has been made in the register if such error is otherwise noticed by him, he can correct the same after causing enquiry.

¶42

Sub-rule(4) of the Rule 11 provides 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 of the Act 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.

¶43

Therefore, a conspicuous reading of the provisions of the Act reflects that only an erroneous and fraudulent improper entry of Birth can be

¶44

¶45

corrected. The relevant rules made under the Act, specifically Rule 10 of the Rules, stipulate that if the Birth of the child has been recorded without a name, within 12 months from the date of registration, shall inform the name of the child. Proviso to the rule further provides that if such information is furnished

¶46

after the expiry of 12 months but within 15 years, it shall be reckoned. Meaning that if the parent or guardian did not name the child at the time when the entry was made in the Register of Births and the birth certificate was issued, in such cases within an outer limit of 15 years, they can inform the Registrar, and have the name of the child registered.

¶47

The second procedure is under Rule 11 of the Rules by following the procedure under Rule 11(4) of the Rules.

¶48

However, in the present case, the child was named by the date of entry in the Birth register. The petitioner's grievance is that her husband neglected her and her child. Therefore, she does not want his son to carry his father's surname. Under these circumstances, the petitioner cannot maintain her grievance against the official respondents who exercises his jurisdiction in terms of the provisions of the statute.

¶49

The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the following decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Akella Lalitha Vs. Konda Hanumantha Rao and Another.

¶50

Having regard to the contentions advanced, the Court is of the view that the order of the respondents passed under Section 15 of the Act cannot be found fault with unless it is her case that the name is erroneously

¶51

¶52

entered. A perusal of the birth certificate annexed to the writ petition, petitioner herein also carries her husband’s surname. The decision relied upon by the petitioner is distinguishable, in as much as the said decision arises under the provisions of the HinduAdoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. Under the said circumstances, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that the mother has the right to decide the surname of the child whereas in the instant case, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of the authorities under the provisions of the Act. Except under the circumstances mentioned under Section 15 of the Act, the statutedoes not provide for alteration of the name of the child. Having regard to the same, since it has not been established that the nature of correction sought would fall under the provisions Section 15 of the Act.

¶53