Allowed

Mstr.Mohammed Aris v. Assistant Director Statistics and the Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths

Karnataka HC24 Feb 2026WP/4498/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A minor sought correction of his birth certificate where the grandmother's name appeared as father's name. Relying on divorce proceedings and settlement where the father admitted paternity, the court quashed the endorsement and directed BBMP to enter the correct father's name within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Endorsement dated 08.12.2025 quashed; respondent directed to enter 'Muhammed Umarulla' as father, delete grandmother's name, and issue corrected certificate within 30 days.

Mstr.Mohammed Aris Vs Assistant Director… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:11567 WP No. 4498 of 2026

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 4498 OF 2026 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MSTR. MOHAMMED ARIS S/O MOHAMMED UMARULLA AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS

¶9

SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER ASMA TAJ W/O MOHAMMED UMARULLA, D/O ALLAH BAKASH RESIDING AT NO. 20, GOVINDAPPA LAYOUT, SANJYNAGARA, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU - 560 094.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

(BY SRI. KUMARA K.G, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR STATISTICS AND THE CHIEF REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BASHYAM PARK, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE - 560 003 AT PRESENT GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY WEST ZONE OF BBMP, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 003.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:11567 WP No. 4498 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD. 08.12.2025 VIDE BEARING NO.S.N(SAM)P/J/M/P.R/163/25-26 (ANNX-D) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AND ETC.,

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶24

a. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order quashing the endorsement dated 08.12.2025 vide bearing no.S.N(SAM)P/J/M/P.R/163/25-26 (Annexure-D) issued by the respondent.

¶25

b. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent to mention the name of the petitioner's father name as MOHAMMED UMARULLA Instead of RASHEEDA who was born on 20.04.2021 and enter in the register of birth maintained by the Respondent and direct the Respondent to issue correct birth certificate in the interest of justice and equity.

¶26

c. Issue any other writ or order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may be deems fit and necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

¶27

The petitioner is a four-year-old minor represented by his

¶28

natural guardian, his mother, who is before this Court

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:11567 WP No. 4498 of 2026

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

seeking for correction in the birth certificate of the petitioner, inasmuch as it is contended that the grandmother's name has been reflected in the row dealing with the name of the father and the name of the father had not been mentioned. Since the petition had been filed only by the mother, the petitioner was called upon to produce a no-objection from the father for the entry of his name.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner had then submitted that the mother and father had divorced and as such, it is not possible for the petitioner to obtain such a noobjection. In that background, he had been called upon to file any documents evidencing an admission on the part of the father as regards the paternity. Hence today, a memo has been filed along with the memo, the proceedings in O.S.No.464/2022 for dissolution of the Muslim marriage has been filed.

¶33

A perusal of the order sheet dated 07.01.2025 indicates that the compromise entered into between the parties has been recorded, where Mohammed Umarulla, who is

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:11567 WP No. 4498 of 2026

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

the defendant therein, had admitted that from the wedlock between the plaintiff and the defendant therein, Mohammed Aris was born.

¶38

A perusal of the memorandum of settlement also indicates that in the said settlement deed Mohammed Umarulla has admitted that the son by name Mohammed Aris, i.e., the petitioner, was aged about 3 years and is in the care and custody of the plaintiff's mother therein and that the father had no objection in continuing the care and custody of the minor child with the mother. These documents indicate that Mohammed Umarulla is the father and as such, the request made by the petitioner is supported by the aforesaid documents. As such, I pass the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

i) Writ petition is allowed .

¶41

ii) A certiorari is issued, the endorsement dated 08.12.2025 at Annexure-D is quashed.

¶42

iii) A mandamus is issued directing the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner in

¶43

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:11567 WP No. 4498 of 2026

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

terms of the aforesaid documents with the above observations and include the name of the father as "Muhammed Umarulla" by deleting the name of the grandmother "Rasheeda" in the birth certificate issued in respect of the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶46

iv) The petitioner shall also furnish a deed of indemnity and an affidavit as required to the respondent for doing the needful.

¶47

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶48

GJM

¶49

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 15

Mstr.Mohammed Aris v. Assistant Director Statistics and the Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mstr.Mohammed Aris v. Assistant Director Statistics and the Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths

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

Sri Ajay Mandira Cariappa Vs the Chief Commissioner

Smt. Ambuja G Vs Bangalore Central City Corporation.

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs Bangalore Central City Corporation Circle

Mr M Krishnappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M Mohan Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.M.Dilip Kumar Vs the Commissioner