The Kerala High Court upheld that men possess dignity, pride, self-respect, and social identity while permitting correction of a father’s name on a child’s birth certificate. It noted husbands may feel mocked publicly in cultures valuing marital fidelity.
The Kerala High Court affirmed that men also possess dignity and self-respect while allowing the correction of a father’s name on a child’s birth certificate.
This decision emerged from a case involving a child born from an extramarital affair of the mother with another man, while she was still married to her ex-husband.
Justice PV Kunhikrishnan characterized the situation as “a sad story of an unfortunate man whose wife led an adulterous life with another man while the marital relationship with him was in existence.”
The judge emphasized that in cultures valuing marital fidelity, a husband or ex-husband may experience public ridicule due to being identified as the father of a child from an affair.
He remarked,
“I am of the opinion that, in a situation like this in this case, all should stand behind the men as well, because they too have dignity, pride, self-respect, and social identity. In cultures like ours, where marital fidelity holds strong social value, a husband may feel publicly ridiculed in such a situation, as if his manhood and status have been mocked.”
In this case, the High Court acknowledged the ex-husband’s non-opposition to the mother’s request for changing the father’s name on the birth certificate.
The mother, who married her ex-husband in 2006, had a son during their marriage, and later, she had a daughter in 2017 from her extramarital relationship.
At the child’s birth, the ex-husband, believing the child to be his, had his name recorded as the father.
After marital disputes, the couple obtained a mutual divorce in 2023.
Following her divorce, the mother remarried the man she had the affair with. They approached the High Court to correct the father’s name on the birth certificate, as required by the school authorities.
The Court reviewed Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, along with Rule 11 of the Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999, which outline the parameters for correcting entries. The Court clarified that registrar powers are limited to addressing clerical errors and do not extend to contested paternity issues without verified proof, such as a DNA test and court ruling. In this instance, no DNA evidence confirmed the second petitioner as the biological father, thus the registrar lacked the authority to amend the father’s name.
Though the Court questioned the petitioners’ motives and raised doubts about their claims regarding school requirements, it still refrained from outright dismissal. It acknowledged the ex-husband’s ‘gentlemanly attitude’ for not pursuing the removal of his name from the records, considering the child’s future, even after learning the truth, and for not objecting to the mother’s request.
Using its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court instructed the petitioners to submit an application to the Thrissur Municipal Corporation.
It ordered the corporation to make a marginal amendment without altering the original entry and to issue a new birth certificate within 30 days of application receipt.
The Court stated,
“Therefore, considering the plight of the minor child and the gentlemanly attitude of the 4th respondent, I think the correction can be allowed, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. If this court finds an injustice to a citizen, it can step in to redress it and ensure complete justice. This court must also imagine the minor child’s future. Let the name of the 3rd petitioner’s father be correctly mentioned in the birth register before she becomes a major. Let there be a quietus,”
Additionally, the Court mandated that the names of the minor child and the ex-husband be masked in the judgment publication on the High Court’s website.
The petitioners were represented by advocates Happymon Babu and Blessy Mary Sebastian, while Santhosh P Poduval served as the standing counsel for Thrissur Municipal Corporation.
Senior government pleader Vidya Kuriakose represented the State, and the ex-husband was represented by advocates Sruthy Saijo and Jahra K.
Case Title: XXX & ors v State of Kerala & ors
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Child Custody