Quick Read
The Calcutta High Court has directed municipal authorities to issue an addendum to a minor child’s birth certificate by incorporating the name of his stepfather and changing the child’s surname. The Court held that the alteration was necessary in the “best interest of the minor child” and observed that retaining the biological father’s name in official records is not always necessary in present-day circumstances.
The Court, however, clarified that the child would retain the right to make an independent choice regarding his identity upon attaining majority.
Introduction
The Calcutta High Court has permitted the alteration of a minor child’s birth records to include the name of his stepfather and his present surname. The decision was passed by Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury while considering a mother’s plea seeking changes to her son’s birth certificate.
The Court considered the circumstances in which the child was being brought up and noted that he was residing with his mother and her present husband, who were jointly taking care of him. The Court concluded that changing the records was necessary to protect the welfare and best interests of the child.
Legal Issue
The primary issue before the Court was whether the name of a minor child’s biological father could be replaced in the birth records by the name of his stepfather and whether the child’s surname could also be altered.
The petitioner had married Subhankar Karmakar in 2012, and a male child was born from the marriage. Their marriage was subsequently dissolved by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in 2021.
The petitioner later married Rajesh Ghosh in 2022. According to her, the child had since been living with her and her present husband and was being brought up as their son. She submitted that retaining the biological father’s name in the birth certificate was having a psychological impact on the child.
The petitioner therefore sought alteration of the birth records to reflect the name of her present husband and the child’s current surname.
Court Decision
The High Court considered the circumstances of the child and also interacted with the minor in chambers in the presence of the parents and their advocates.
Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Akella Lalitha v. Konda Hanumantha Rao and Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, which permits correction of entries in birth and death records.
The Court observed that social circumstances have changed and that it is not always necessary for a child to retain the biological father’s name in official records.
The Court remarked, “Society has moved forward and in today’s world it is no longer necessary to retain the name of the biological father in the register or for that matter for a single parent to bring up a child and for the single mother to decide on the surname of the minor child.”
Considering the facts of the case, the Court held that alteration of the birth records was necessary in the best interest of the minor child.
The Court accordingly directed the municipal authorities to issue an addendum to the existing birth certificate incorporating the name of the child’s stepfather. The authorities were also directed to make the corresponding change in the child’s surname.
The Court clarified that the alteration would remain subject to the child’s own choice after attaining majority. The new certificate must also retain details of the earlier birth certificate, including its serial number and date of issuance.
Implications
The judgment highlights that a child’s identity in official records cannot always be viewed solely through the biological relationship between the child and the parents. The welfare and circumstances of the child can also be relevant when courts consider requests for alteration of birth records.
The decision also recognises the changing nature of family structures, including remarriage and children being raised by a parent and a step-parent. At the same time, the Court preserved the child’s autonomy by allowing the child to make an independent choice regarding his identity after attaining majority.
The ruling therefore places the best interests of the child at the centre of decisions concerning changes to birth records while ensuring that the child’s future right to determine his own identity remains protected.
Case Title: Smt. Barnali Ghosh (Karmakar) v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
