The Kerala High Court recently observed that men, too, possess dignity and self-respect. The Court allowed correction of the father’s name in the birth certificate of a minor girl born from an extra-marital relationship during the subsistence of the mother’s marriage.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan made the remarks in XXX & Ors v State of Kerala & Ors. He described the case 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 Court noted that in societies where marital fidelity carries strong social value, a husband or ex-husband may feel publicly humiliated if his name continues as the father of a child born from an extra-marital relationship.
“I am of the opinion that in situations like this, all should stand behind the men as well, because they too have dignity, pride, self-respect, and social identity,” the Court observed.
Background
The petitioner married her ex-husband in 2006. They had a son from that marriage. During the marriage, she entered into an extra-marital relationship with another man. In 2017, she gave birth to a girl child.
At the time of delivery, the husband believed the child was his. He informed the hospital accordingly. Authorities entered his name as the father in the birth register.
Marital disputes later arose. In 2023, the couple obtained a mutual consent divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. After the divorce, the petitioner married the man with whom she had the relationship.
The petitioners then approached the High Court. They sought correction of the father’s name in the birth certificate. They stated that school authorities required an accurate birth record.
Legal Provisions and Court’s Findings
The Court examined Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and Rule 11 of the Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999.
The Court relied on earlier precedents. It reiterated that a Registrar can correct only clerical or formal errors. The Registrar cannot alter disputed paternity entries without proper proof.
The Court noted that no DNA test established the biological fatherhood of the second petitioner. Therefore, the Registrar lacked independent authority to change the father’s name.
The Court also expressed concern about the petitioners’ conduct. It questioned their claim that the school insisted on correction. The Court further noted that the petition did not mask the minor child’s name.
Relief Under Article 226
Despite these concerns, the Court did not dismiss the petition. It appreciated the ex-husband’s stand. He did not oppose the request to correct the record.
Justice Kunhikrishnan described his conduct as “gentlemanly.” The ex-husband did not seek removal of his name even after learning the truth. He kept the child’s future in mind.
Invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court directed the petitioners to apply to the Thrissur Municipal Corporation.
The Court ordered the Corporation to make a marginal entry correcting the father’s name. It clarified that officials should not delete the original entry. The Corporation must issue a fresh birth certificate within 30 days of receiving the application.
“Considering the plight of the minor child and the gentlemanly attitude of the 4th respondent, I think the correction can be allowed… Let there be a quietus,” the Court stated.
Representation
Advocates Happymon Babu and Blessy Mary Sebastian appeared for the petitioners.
Standing counsel Santhosh P. Poduval represented the Thrissur Municipal Corporation.
Senior Government Pleader Vidya Kuriakose appeared for the State.
Advocates Sruthy Saijo and Jahra K. represented the ex-husband.
