Allowed

Asha v. the Chief Secretary

Karnataka HC5 Dec 2023RFA/1188/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Trial Court's judgment dismissing a suit for change of name. Holding that changed circumstances post-marriage justified the appellants claim to revert to her maiden name 'Ayesha Siddiqua', the Court decreed the suit.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment and decree set aside; suit decrdes for change of name from 'Asha B.' to 'Ayesha Siddiqua'.

Asha Vs the Chief Secretary — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:43794 RFA No. 1188 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1188 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

ASHA W/O MR. MOHAMMED KHAJA KHUTBUDDIN AGED 30 YEARS R/AT NO.239B, LIG 3^RD PHASE YELAHANKA NEW TOWN BENGALURU - 560064

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. RAGHU PRASAD B S., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA ROOM NO.110, GATE NO.2 M S BUILDING AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGLAURU - 560001 KARNATAKA

¶12

HEAD MASTER SRI STELLA CONVENT AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS VV PURAM GOWRIBIDANUR CHIKKABALAPURA DISTRICT – 561208

¶13

THE SECRETARY KARNATAKA SECONDARY EDUCATION EXAMINATION BOARD OFFICE AT 6^TH CROSS ROAD MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU – 560003

¶14

¶15

NC: 2023:KHC:43794 RFA No. 1188 of 2023

¶16

THE PRINCIPAL ACHARIA JUNIOR COLLEGE M G ROAD GOWRIBIDANUR CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT- 561208

¶17

THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION SAMPIGE ROAD, 18^TH CROSS MALLESHWARAM

¶18

BENGALURU – 560012

¶19

THE PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT FIRST GRADE COLLEGE BELGAUM DISTRICT – 562420

¶20

THE CHANCELLOR VISVESHWARAIAH TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY, BELGAUM BELGAUM DISTRICT – 562420

¶21

THE PRINCIPAL M S RAMAIAH INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY BENGALURU - 560054.

¶22

THE DDPI GOWRIBIDANUR, V.V.PURAM KARNATAKA – 562159

¶23

THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER GOWRIBIDANUR KARNATAKA - 562159

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1, R3, R5, R6 & R10; SRI. SANTHOSH S. NAGARALE, ADVOCATE FOR R9; SRI. G.V. ASHOK, ADVOCATE FOR R8)

¶26

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.04.2023 PASSED IN OS NO.2589/2022 ON THE FILE OF VII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH NO.19), BENGALURU DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION

¶27

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

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:43794 RFA No. 1188 of 2023

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

This appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiff is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 01.04.2023 passed in O.S.No.2589/2022 by the VII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereby the said suit filed by the appellant – plaintiff for declaration that her name was ‘Ayesha Siddiqua’ instead of ‘Asha B.’ in the records of the respondents – defendants and for consequential mandatory injunction directing the respondents – defendants to change the name of the appellant – plaintiff from ‘Asha B.’ to ‘Ayesha Siddiqua’ was dismissed by the Trial Court.

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶32

The material on record discloses that the appellant was born on 24.07.1993 and her maiden name was ‘Ayesha Siddiqua’, being born to a hindu father Sri. C.P. Banu and a muslim mother Smt. Shakeela Banu. It is contended that due to popular perception and culture of her parents a suit in OS.No.57/1999 was filed by the appellant’s parents on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Gowribidnur, seeking change of the aforesaid

¶33

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:43794 RFA No. 1188 of 2023

¶34

maiden name of the appellant, Ayesha Siddiqua and her siblings to different names. In the said suit, the appellant – plaintiff No.1 sought for change of her name from ‘Ayesha Siddiqua’ to ‘Asha B.’ By judgment and decree dated 28.03.2001, the said suit was decreed in favour of the appellants thereby declaring and changing the name of the appellant from ‘Ayesha Siddiqua’ to ‘Asha B.’ Pursuant to the said change of name of the appellant to ‘Asha B.’, all records pertaining to her school, college, University were changed to ‘Asha B’.

¶35

The appellant contends that subsequently, she got married to a muslim, Mohammed Khaja Khutbuddin on 25.03.2011 pursuant to which a daughter – Aleena and son – Muhammed Rayyan were born to them. It is contended that though the appellant, her husband and children belong to Muslim community with their names signifying the same as stated supra, the appellant’s name continues to remain ‘Asha B.’ and in view of community opinion, horoscope concerns and advise by family members and astrologer and for other reasons mentioned in the plaint, the appellant – plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit before the Trial Court.

¶36

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:43794 RFA No. 1188 of 2023

¶37

The respondents – defendants filed their written

¶38

statement and contested the suit, pursuant to which, the appellant examined herself as PW1 and documentary evidence at exhibits P1 to P19 were marked on her behalf. Though nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of PW1 so as to impeach her testimony by the respondents – defendants who also did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and decree dismissing the suit filed by the appellant – plaintiff, who is before this Court by way of the present appeal.

¶39

A perusal of the material on record including the impugned judgment and decree will clearly indicate that the Trial Court failed to consider and appreciate the unimpeached, uncontroverted and unchallenged material on record produced by the appellant – plaintiff which clearly established that due to change of circumstances on account of her marriage with a person belonging to Muslim community, as a result of which, the appellant, her husband and children belonged to Muslim community as reflected in their names, the appellant was fully justified in instituting the aforesaid suit before the Trial Court. The impugned

¶40

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:43794 RFA No. 1188 of 2023

¶41

judgment and decree will indicate that the Trial Court misdirected itself in coming to the conclusion that since the appellant had got her name changed from ‘Ayesha Siddiqua’ to ‘Asha B.’ by virtue of the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2001 passed in O.S.No.57/1999, it was impermissible for her to get her name changed back to ‘Ayesha Siddiqua’. In this context, it is relevant to state that the appellant had got her name changed to ‘Asha B’ on 28.03.2001 much prior to her marriage that was solemnized on 25.03.2011 with a Muslim community member pursuant to which the appellant was entitled to seek change of her name from ‘Asha B.’ to ‘Ayesha Siddiqua’ due to subsequent events and changed circumstances that occurred subsequent to 28.03.2001 and consequently, merely because the appellant had earlier got her name changed to ‘Asha B’., the said circumstance could not have made the basis by the Trial Court to reject the claim of the appellant. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the Trial Court completely misdirected itself in dismissing the suit by assigning wholly untenable reasons which are contrary to the material on record and consequently, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court deserve

¶42

¶43

NC: 2023:KHC:43794 RFA No. 1188 of 2023

¶44

to be set aside and the suit filed by the appellant – plaintiff deserves to be decreed in her favour.

¶45

In the result, I pass the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

(i) Appeal is hereby allowed .

¶48

(ii) Impugned judgment and decree dated 01.04.2023 passed in O.S.No.2589/2022 by the VII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside

¶49

(iii) The suit of the appellant – plaintiff is decreed as

¶50

sought for by her.

¶51

(iv) Registry is directed to draw decree accordingly.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

JT / SV

¶54

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Asha v. the Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asha v. the Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Yellamma Vs Smt Jyothamma

Smt Pramila Devi B., Vs Smt L Padmini

Sri Srujan Gowda G Vs the Block Education Officer

Sri. T G Babu Vs Sri. a Bhaskar

The Basavanagudi Vs Vasudeva Rao

M/S Satchmo Holdings Limited Vs M/S Pasolite Electricals Pvt. Ltd.