Father sought mandamus to direct Madurai Corporation to add his autistic daughter's name to her registered birth certificate. Though the respondents contended the application exceeded the time limit under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, the court directed sympathetic consideration within four weeks.
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.
W.P.(MD)No.34003 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
W.P.(MD).No.34003 of 2025
Ramakrishnan
... Petitioner
Vs.
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to register the name of petitioners daughter R. Renganayagi in the Birth Certificate registered in Registration No.144/2003/38, Sl. No.22118, SZ CAR/4148/06 based on petitioners representation dated 13.11.2025 and pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kishore Kumar For R2 : Mr.S.Vinayak
1/6
W.P.(MD)No.34003 of 2025
ORDER
The above writ petition has been filed for the following relief:-
“Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to register the name of petitioners daughter R. Renganayagi in the Birth Certificate registered in Registration No.144/2003/38, Sl. No.22118, SZ CAR/4148/06 based on petitioners representation dated 13.11.2025 and pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice. ”
2/6
W.P.(MD)No.34003 of 2025
petitioner's grievance the school management insist him to produce a birth certificate mentioning his daughter's name. Therefore, the petitioner has sent a representation dated 13.11.2025 to the respondents to issue a birth certificate to her daughter mentioning her name as R.Renganayaki. However, the same has not been considered to date and therefore, the petitioner has come before this Court.
respondents is that the application is made beyond the time limit as set out in Section 10 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. As per which the application ought to have been made within a period of 20 years from the date of registration of the birth certificate.
autistic child, the parents would have been so involved in taking care of the child that this formality of adding the name of the child in the birth certificate may have slipped their mind.
3/6
W.P.(MD)No.34003 of 2025
No costs.
27.11.2025
NCC :yes/No Index :yes/No Internet:yes/No rgm
4/6
W.P.(MD)No.34003 of 2025
To
5/6
W.P.(MD)No.34003 of 2025
P.T.ASHA, J.
rgm
W.P.(MD).No.34003 of 2025
27.11.2025
6/6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Corporation should add the child's name to a 2003 birth certificate despite the application being beyond the statutory time limit.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ramakrishnan
The Corporation Commissioner, Madurai Corporation
The City Health Welfare Office, Madurai Corporation
P.T.Asha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
