Delhi High Court scrutinizes rules for married women’s maiden name change, questioning the necessity of husband’s NOC or divorce. The court has directed the Central Government to respond by May 28, emphasizing potential discrimination and infringement on constitutional rights.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
DELHI: On 29th February, The Delhi High Court, in response to a plea filed by Divya Modi Tongya, has directed the Central government to address concerns regarding a notification affecting married women wishing to use their maiden surname.
The notification, issued by the Union Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs under the title “Change of Name (Major & Minor),” mandates that women must provide either a divorce decree or a no objection certificate (NOC) from their husband to change their maiden surname. The court, comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, has set a deadline of May 28 for the government to respond.
ALSO READ: Social Media Must Remove Content in “Smriti Irani Case”: Delhi Court Changes Defamation Rules
Divya Modi Tongya, the petitioner, highlighted her desire to revert to her maiden surname after separating from her husband and undergoing divorce proceedings. The plea argues that the notification introduces unwarranted obstacles, creating arbitrary barriers for individuals exercising their constitutional right to choose their name. The requirement for divorce-related documentation or an NOC is criticized for disproportionately affecting divorced women.
According to the plea, the notification is considered gender-biased and a form of impermissible discrimination, imposing additional requisites exclusively on women.
“By subjecting women to more burdensome conditions compared to men seeking a change in name, the Notification unjustly discriminates against them, thereby violating their constitutional rights,”
-the plea emphasizes.
The petitioner contends that the notification violates Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. It asserts that the requirement for an NOC or a divorce decree infringes upon the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and unreasonably curtails personal identity, particularly for women.
The plea argues that the notification introduces an element of arbitrary delay by tying the name change process to the resolution of legal matters, burdening individuals awaiting judicial decisions under Article 21 of the Constitution.
CASE TITLE: [Divya Modi Tongya v Union of India]
