The Bombay High Court ruled that a child raised solely by her mother cannot be compelled to adopt her father’s name, surname, or caste due to outdated formats, affirming that recognizing single mothers as complete parents upholds constitutional dignity over patriarchal norms.
MUMBAI: A child raised solely by her mother cannot be forced to adopt her father’s name, surname, or caste solely based on outdated formats, the Bombay High Court ruled. Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Hiten Venegavkar, from the Aurangabad bench, expressed this view in their judgment, which was made public recently.
They emphasized that recognizing a single mother as a complete parent for a child’s civic identity is not merely an act of kindness, but a reflection of constitutional fidelity.
The court stated,
“It reflects the movement from patriarchal compulsion to constitutional choice, from lineage as fate to dignity as right,”
ALSO READ: Child Custody Laws in India: Legal Rights of Parents| Explained
The justices pointed out that a progressive society shouldn’t require a child’s public identity to rely on an absent father while the mother, who takes on the entire responsibility of raising the child, remains administratively secondary.
The court asserted,
“A child raised exclusively by her mother cannot be compelled to carry, as the state’s chosen description of her, the father’s name and surname merely because the format once demanded it,”
This judgment arose from a petition filed by a 12-year-old girl seeking adjustments in her school records, including a name change and a modification of her caste designation from ‘Maratha’ to ‘Scheduled Caste-Mahar.’
The petition explained that the child’s mother is her sole guardian, and her father had been accused of sexual assault. Although both parties later reached a settlement, it was decided that the child would remain permanently with her mother. The school initially rejected the child’s request for changes, prompting her to seek intervention from the High Court.
ALSO READ: Bombay High Court Slams Judge For Denying Urgent Hearing in Child’s Surgery Custody Case
The court noted that when the Maharashtra government has officially accepted that a mother’s name is crucial for identity documentation, lower authorities cannot refuse such requests.
The HC remarked,
“The Constitution provides a life with dignity which includes the right to an identity that is not forcibly tethered to an absent parent where such tethering serves no welfare purpose and causes avoidable social harm,”
It emphasized that school records are public documents that accompany a child throughout their education and into their professional life. The court criticized the notion that identity must be derived from the father, describing it as a societal presumption rooted in a patriarchal framework that views lineage as male property and women as secondary.
The court noted,
“To insist on this presumption in contemporary India, especially in cases of single motherhood and exclusive maternal custody, imposes a structural burden upon women and their children,”
It recognized the mother’s full accountability but insufficient visibility concerning identity, asserting that such an imbalance violates the principle of equality.
The bench concluded,
“An administration that insists the father’s name is indispensable while making the mother’s name optional does not merely follow a custom; it reproduces inequality through documentation,”
The court underscored the necessity for the State to evolve, especially given the father’s serious allegations in this case. They highlighted that the child has grown up entirely within her mother’s social environment and caste community, directing school authorities to amend its records in line with her petition.
Case Title: XYZ & ABC Vs State of Maharashtra WP No 15528 of 2025
Read Attachment:
