Petitioner sought correction of daughter’s name in birth register as it was allegedly entered without his consent. Court held Registrar must conduct enquiry under Section 15 of Act, 1969 after hearing both parties.
The Registrar to conduct an enquiry under Section 15 of the Act after hearing both parties and make corrections if applicable within three months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 29TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.9721 OF 2020(M)
PETITIONER:
DON PAUL AGED 37 YEARS S/O. PAUL PAUL, THENGUMPALLY HOUSE, MANJOOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM 686 603.
BY ADV. PARTY IN PERSON (DON PAUL)
RESPONDENTS:
WP(C).No.9721 OF 2020(M)
2
R1-7 BY ADV.SRI.K.J.MANURAJ,GOVERNMENT PLEADER R8 BY SRI.SIBY CHENAPPADY, SC, ETTUMANOOR MUNICIPALITY R9 BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM P.GEORGE R9 BY ADV. SMT.M.SANTHY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 1801-2021, THE COURT ON 19-01-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.9721 OF 2020(M)
3
W.P.(C) No.9721 of 2020
J U D G M E N T
The ninth respondent is the divorced wife of the petitioner. Earlier, the birth of the female child born to them on 22.03.2014 was registered without the name of the child. Thereafter, on Ext.P4 application purported to have been preferred by both the petitioner and the ninth respondent on 17.08.2015, the name of the child was entered in the relevant column of the Birth Register as 'Elena Maria'. On 05.08.2016, the petitioner preferred Ext.P8 complaint to the Registrar of Births, the Secretary of the eighth respondent Municipality alleging that Ext.P4 application is one filed without his knowledge and consent. On Ext.P8 complaint, the petitioner has been given Ext.P9 communication by the Registrar, stating th at he is in formed that a litigation is pending between the parties concerning the inclusion of the name of the child in the Birth Register and action on the complaint can therefore be taken only after the culmination of the pending court proceedings. The writ petition is essentially one challenging Ext.P9 communication. The petitioner also seeks appropriate directions to the respondents concerned to correct the name of the child in the Birth Register as 'Maria Don'.
WP(C).No.9721 OF 2020(M)
5
respondent without his knowledge and consent. The relevant
paragraph in Ext.P8 complaint dealing with the said case reads thus:
“4. That, on the basis of this application your office had issued Birth Certificate of my child incorporating her name as 'ELENA MARIA' to my wife. In this regard it is respectfully submitted that, the above said application was filed without my knowledge, information and consent and even without obtaining my signature legally.”
It is clear from the extracted passage of Ext.P8 complaint that the case of the petitioner is that the name of his daughter has been entered in the Birth Register fraudulently. Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (the Act) confers jurisdiction on the Registrar to correct such entries. Section 15 of the Act reads thus:
“15. Correction or Cancellation of entry in the register of 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.”
A reading of the extracted provision indicates that in a case of this nature, it is obligatory on the part of the Registrar to conduct an enquiry to ascertain whether the case put forward by the petitioner is correct. Admittedly, such an enquiry has not been conducted by the
WP(C).No.9721 OF 2020(M)
6
Registrar.
The writ petition, in the circumstances is disposed of directing the Registrar of Births attached to the eighth respondent Municipality to conduct an enquiry as provided for under Section 15 of the Act, after affording both the petitioner as also the ninth respondent an opportunity of hearing. Needless to say that if it is found in the said enquiry that Ext.P4 is an application preferred without the knowledge and consent of the petitioner, appropriate correction shall be made in the Birth Register. The direction aforesaid shall be complied with, within three months.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR
JUDGE
Mn
WP(C).No.9721 OF 2020(M)
7
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
| EXHIBIT P1 | TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 54/2015 OF KADUTHURUTHI POLICE STATION. |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2 | TRUE COPY OF THE PRINTOUT OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE DATED 14.05.2016 OF THE MINOR CHILD ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT TO THE 9TH RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P3 | TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 16.06.2016 ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P4 | TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR BIRTH CERTIFICATE DATED 17.08.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE 9TH RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P5 | TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE DATED 22.03.2014 ISSUED BY THE CARITHAS HOSPITAL. |
| EXHIBIT P6 | TRUE COPY OF THE AADHAR CARD OF THE 9TH RESPONDENT WHICH WERE PRODUCED ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P4 APPLICATION BY THE 9TH RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P7 | TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE WHICH WERE PRODUCED ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P4 APPLICATION BY THE 9TH RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P8 | TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 05.08.2016 PREFERRED BY THE PETITION TO THE 8TH RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY. |
| EXHIBIT P9 | TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 10.08.2016 ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P10 | TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 6.6.2019 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT CHIEF REGISTRAR. |
| EXHIBIT P11 | TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 20.08.2019 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE MINISTER OF LSGD. |
| EXHIBIT P12 EXHIBIT P13 |
TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATE 27-06- 2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 8TH RESPONDENT TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 12-07-2019 |
WP(C).No.9721 OF 2020(M)
8
| PREFERRED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT |
|
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P14 | TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 03.08.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DEPUTY DIRECTOR. |
| EXHIBIT P15 | TRUE COPY OF THE FILE NOTES IN EXHIBIT P10 COMPLAINT OBTAINED UNDER THE RTI ACT FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT OFFICE. |
| EXHIBIT P16 | TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 1.10.2019 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH. |
| EXHIBIT P17 | TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 25.10.2019 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P18 | TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 11.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P19 | TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED21.01.2020 OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS. |
| EXHIBIT P20 | TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 1.2.2020 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DIRECTOR OT THE 2ND RESPONDENT CHIEF REGISTRAR. |
| EXHIBIT P21 | TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 4.3.2020 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P22 | TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VICAR OF EPARCHY OF PALAI |
| EXHIBIT P23 | TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE IN THE NAME OF ELENA MARIA, DOWNLOADED ON 7.10.2020 FOR THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE 9TH RESPONDENT |
| EXHIBIT P24 | TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 6.7.2020 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT |
| RESPONDENT'S/S EX | HIBITS: |
| EXHIBIT R5(a): | TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.B1-4356/15 DATED 07/02/2015. |
//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Registrar was justified in entering the child's name in the Birth Register without the petitioner's consent.
Whether the petitioner was entitled to an enquiry under Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 regarding the fraudulent entry.
Whether the Registrar was obliged to afford an opportunity of hearing before making the correction.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
DON PAUL
STATE OF KERALA
THE CHIEF REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH
SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT (RURAL) DEPARTMENT
THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS
P.B. SURESH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
