It is submitted by Mr. Nanavati, learned advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 that there cannot be any over-writing in the Register and the entry can be made in the margin, but the legal entry would be made on the strength of the order made to the satisfaction of the Registrar and the entry made in the margin can be said to be correct and final and such correction would make the original entry redundant or ineffective. It is not possible to accept the argument of Mr. Nanavati merely because the Deed of Adoption refers to two names and the respondent Municipality cannot give birth certificates mentioning two names of the child. So, it would be with additional name "Surbhi @ Rene". If the parents want to see that the shadow of the previous name of the baby child does not appear in the birth certificate permanently as given by the Administrators of the Women Protection Home, then the adoptive parents can request the authority to cancel the same. The documents produced by the learned Counsels satisfactorily prove that the name of the baby child is "Rene" who was earlier named by the Women Protection Home as "Surbhi". In the decision rendered by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 6227 of 2007, this Court had ordered that necessary correction may be made in the Register and the Birth Certificate as prayed for in the petition and the corrected birth certificate be issued within four weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of this Court.
Print Page
Gujarat High Court
Soham Sanatbhai Shukla vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 5 February, 2008
Equivalent citations: AIR 2008 Guj 86
1. Rule. Mr. Vinay Pandya, learned AGP and Mr. D.G. Nanavati, learned Counsel waive service of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to 4 respectively.
2. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for appropriate writ, order or direction to be issued to respondent No. 3 authority of Vadodara Municipal Corporation to correct the name in the Birth Certificate of adoptive one year old baby from "Surbhi" to "Rene".
3. It is contended by the petitioner that the child was born at the Home for Women protection. It is, therefore, obvious that, either the name of the mother or father would not be intimated to the Corporation about the birth of the child. The Administrators managing the affairs of the protection home tentatively arranged to enter her name as "Surbhi" in the Birth Certificate of the Vadodara Municipal Corporation on 9th Oct. 2006. There is no dispute as to the date of birth, i.e. 26-9-2006, and accordingly the Birth Certificate was issued by respondent Corporation. Since the petitioner was not having any child, the petitioner and his wife, Bhargaviben showed their willingness to adopt one year old baby "Surbhi" from State Home for Women, Vadodara. After necessary formalities, the child was ordered to be handed over to the petitioner by order dated 9-8-2007 passed by the Principal District Judge, Vadodara, passed under Section 9(4) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 which is at Annexure. B at page No. 13 of the petition and the Certificate of Guardianship was also granted on 27-8- 2007, which is at Annexure C at Page No. 18 to the petition. The formal deed of adop tion has been executed by the Superinten dent of State Home for Women, Nizampura, Vadodara.
3. Later on, the parents wanted to change the name of the baby child "Surbhi" to "Rene". Considering the nature of relief prayed for by the petitioner in the present petition, it appears to be genuine. It is relevant to refer to the portion which is quoted in the Adoption Deed, which is reproduced at page Nos. 20-21 as under: "Now therefore this deed of adoption witnessed that the opponent gave the child named "Surbhi @ Rene" in adoption to the applicants and the applicants have accepted and took the said child in adoption as their own child. That the ceremony thus of giving and taking in adoption has been duly performed in respect of adoption of child "Surbhi @ Rene" and now the applicants are the adoptive father and mother respectively of child "Surbhi @ Rene".
Now this deed witnesses that and the parties do hereby declare that child "Surbhi @ Rene" has been duly adopted by the applicants would have all the legal rights legally as adopted daughter of the applicants.
It is hereby declared that the said child Surbhi @ Rene" will get the name of applicant No. 1 Soham Sanatbhai Shukla as her father and she will be named and called as Surbhi @ Rene Sohambhai Shukla, and she will now acquire all the legal rights in the family of the applicants as their own child.
4. It is submitted by Mr. Modi, learned Counsel that after completing all the legal formalities, the petitioner decided to substitute the name of the child in the Birth and Death Register and therefore, necessary correction was required to be made in the Register. The learned Principal District Judge, Vadodara has already passed order directing the respondent Corporation to enter the name of the child.
5. Mr. Modi has further submitted that in similar fact situation, this Court (Coram: D.N. Patel, J.) while dealing with such issue, in Special Civil Application No. 6227 of 2007 decided on 15-3-2007, after referring to Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 has observed that it is possible to correct or cancel the entry in the Register of Births and deaths. Section 15 of the said Act reads as under:
Section 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.
6. Mr. Modi also relied upon Rule 11 of the Gujarat Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2004, which reads as under:
(1) If it is reported to the Registrar that a clerical or formal error has been made in the register or if such error is otherwise noticed by him and if the register is in his possession, the Registrar shall inquire into the matter and if he is satisfied that any such error has been made, he shall correct the error (by correcting or cancelling the entry) as provided in Section 15 of the Act and shall send an extract of the entry showing the error and how it has been corrected to the District Registrar of Births and Deaths.
(2) In the case referred to Sub-rule (1) if the register is not in the possession of the Registrar, he/she shall make a report to the District Registrar of Births and Deaths and call for the relevant register and after inquiring into the matter, if he is satisfied that any such error has been made, make the necessary correction.
(3) Any such correction as mentioned in Sub-rule (2) shall be countersigned by the District Registrar of Births and Deaths when the register is received from the Registrar.
(4) If any person asserts that any entry in the register of births and deaths is erroneous in substance, the Registrar may correct the entry in the manner prescribed under Section 15 of the Act upon production by that person a declaration setting forth the nature of the error and true facts of the case made by two credible persons having knowledge of the facts of the case.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-rule (1) and Sub-rule (4) the Registrar shall make report of any correction of the kind referred to therein giving necessary details to the District Registrar of Births and Deaths.
(6) If it is proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar that any entry in the register of births and deaths has been made fraudulently or improperly, he shall make a report giving necessary details to the officer authorised by the Chief Registrar by general or special order in this behalf under Section 25 of the Act and on hearing from him take necessary action in the matter.
(7) In every case in which an entry is corrected or cancelled under this rule, intimation thereof should be sent to the permanent address of the person who has given information under Section 8 or Section 9 of the Act.
7. In the present case, ample evidence is there on record to show that the baby child has born in State Home for Women and after she was abandoned by her mother, the Administrators of this Women Protection Centre, gave her the name, "Surbhi". Now, on adoption, the parents have requested to re-name the baby child by making necessary corrections in her birth certificate as "Rene" and to cancel the earlier name "Surbhi".
8. It is submitted by Mr. Nanavati, learned advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 that there cannot be any over-writing in the Register and the entry can be made in the margin, but the legal entry would be made on the strength of the order made to the satisfaction of the Registrar and the entry made in the margin can be said to be correct and final and such correction would make the original entry redundant or ineffective. It is not possible to accept the argument of Mr. Nanavati merely because the Deed of Adoption refers to two names and the respondent Municipality cannot give birth certificates mentioning two names of the child. So, it would be with additional name "Surbhi @ Rene". If the parents want to see that the shadow of the previous name of the baby child does not appear in the birth certificate permanently as given by the Administrators of the Women Protection Home, then the adoptive parents can request the authority to cancel the same. The documents produced by the learned Counsels satisfactorily prove that the name of the baby child is "Rene" who was earlier named by the Women Protection Home as "Surbhi". In the decision rendered by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 6227 of 2007, this Court had ordered that necessary correction may be made in the Register and the Birth Certificate as prayed for in the petition and the corrected birth certificate be issued within four weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of this Court.
9. It may be possible that if the prayer of the petitioner is not accepted as a whole, then it is very likely that after some years, the very child "Rene" may ask her parents as to why she is having two names in the school and or any other occasions, when the scheme provides for cancellation of a particular name from the register. This Court finds that the prayer made by the petitioner is genuine as it is legally permissible under law and therefore, the petition is required to be allowed and it is allowed accordingly.
10. It is, therefore, ordered that the respondent Municipal Corporation/competent authority shall change the name of the adoptive baby child from "Surbhi" to "Rene" and the necessary correction/entry should be made in the register and to issue the corrected new Birth Certificate mentioning the name of the child as "Rene" as daughter of the petitioner and his wife, without giving any reference to the earlier name "Surbhi". Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are directed accordingly and shall comply with the directions at the earliest within four weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of this order. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted.
No comments:
Post a Comment