Allowed

Miss. Manvi. K. Krishna v. the Secretary

Karnataka HC22 Jul 2021RFA/686/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed an appeal challenging a trial court order dismissing a suit for changing a minor's name. The court held there is no law mandating astrological examination, affirming parental discretion for a child's name change, and directed respondents to update records.

What did the court decide?

Name changed from Manvi K. Krishna to Roshini K.Krishna; respondents directed to delete old name and make necessary changes in their records.

Miss. Manvi. K. Krishna Vs the Secretary — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶5

RFA NO.686 OF 2019 (DEC)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

MISS. MANVI K. KRISHNA D/O SRI KRISHNAPPA K.E. AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS SINCE MINOR REP. BY HER FATHER/ NATURAL GUARDIAN SRI KRISHNAPPA K.E. AGE: 38 YEARS S/O SRI HEERAGUDIAPPA R/AT NO.160/B NEAR AGS LAYOUT ITTAMADU ROAD BENGALURU 560 061 … APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI.R.B.SADASIVAPPA, ADV.)

¶9

AND :

¶10

1 . THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU 560 001

¶11

2 . THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS SOUTH ZONE-1, SHANKARMUTT ROAD SHANKARPURAM, BENGALURU 560 004

¶12

¶13

3 . THE PRINCIPAL, CARMEL SCHOOL PADMANABHANAGARA BANASHANKARI 2^ND STAGE BENGALURU 560 070 … RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SMT. JYOTHI BHAT, HCGP FOR R1 & R2; SRI. K.P.BHUVAN, ADV. FOR R3 (ABSENT))

¶15

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.12.2018 PASSED IN OS.NO.3662/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION.

¶16

THIS RFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

This appeal is directed against the judgment and

¶19

decree dated 18.12.2018 passed by XXXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S.No.3662/2017 dismissing the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff.

¶20

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein as per their status before the trial court.

¶21

¶22

The said original suit has been filed by the plaintiff (who was ten years old at the time of filing of the suit) duly represented by her father to declare her name as Roshini K.Krishna. The relevant government departments were arrayed as defendant nos.1 and 2 and the Principal of Carmel School where the plaintiff is studying was arrayed as defendant no.3 in the original suit. Defendant nos.1 and 2 have not contested the suit and they were placed ex parte . Defendant no.3-School has contested the suit.

¶23

The suit pertains to change of name of a child. It is the wish of the plaintiff and her parents to change the name of the plaintiff as they like. The school authorities cannot have any say in the same. However, the trial court on the ground that astrologer upon whose recommendation the parents decided to change the name of the plaintiff has not been

¶24

¶25

examined has dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff therein has preferred this appeal.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned HCGP for respondent nos.1 and 2. Despite service of notice, defendant no.3-school, though represented by Advocate, is not represented at the time of hearing.

¶27

Upon questioning, the learned HCGP submits that there is no law pertaining to change of name of a person. As already stated above, it is the pleasure of the person and in case of a minor, it is the pleasure of the parents to have the name of the child changed as they deem fit. The trial court erred in coming to the conclusion that the astrologer ought to have been examined as a witness. For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal needs to be allowed. Hence, the following:

¶28

¶29

ORDER

¶30

(i) The appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 18.12.2018 passed by XXXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S.No.3662/2017 is hereby set aside;

¶31

(ii) It is declared that the name of the plaintiff/appellant is changed from Ms. Manvi K.Krishna to Ms. Roshini K.Krishna;

¶32

(iii) The defendants/respondents are directed to make necessary changes in the records maintained by them concerning the name of the plaintiff/appellant as Ms. Roshini K.Krishna by deleting the name of Ms. Manvi K.Krishna.

¶33

(iv) No order as to costs.

¶34

hkh.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

Miss. Manvi. K. Krishna v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Miss. Manvi. K. Krishna v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Metropoli Overseas Limited Vs Mr G P Trivedi

Mr S Madhusudhan Vs M/S Canara Bank

Sri. G Venkatesh Vs Sri. Y S Rangaswamy

K.S.Nagarathnamma Vs B.N.Gowramma

Mrs Dorathy Verigas Vs Mr. M Titus

Mrs Sylvia Saldanha Vs Mr M Titus