Registrar Can't Alter Father's Name In Child's Birth Certificate Without Hearing Him, Must Consider Conclusive Proof U/S 118 Evidence Act: Kerala HC

As per the provision, when a child is born during the subsistence of a valid marriage or within 280 days after its dissolution, it is conclusive proof that the child is a legitimate offspring of the husband unless otherwise proved.

Referring to Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, Rule 11 of the Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999, Justice C.S. Dias observed:

“The powers conferred on a Registrar under Section 15 and Rule 11 are circumscribed and limited to the correction of clerical or formal errors or entries fraudulently or improperly made, and not matters of disputed paternity, which require a full-fledged trial and adjudication, and a judicial imprimatur.”

In the present case, the petitioner and the 7^th respondent were a married couple and a son (9^th respondent) were born to them. The petitioner's name was recorded as the father in the birth certificate. Subsequently, based on the 7^th respondent's wish to live with the 8^th respondent, the petitioner and the 7^th respondent executed Exhibit P3 agreement to live separately. Thereafter, their marriage was dissolved.

Years later, through an RTI reply, the petitioner came to know that his name was substituted with that of the 8^th respondent as the father of the 9^th respondent in the birth register and birth certificate. The Registrar (4^th respondent) had effected the change based on a joint application filed by 7^th and 8^th respondents along with certain documents.

Considering the submissions, the Court observed:

“Here, the Registrar has substituted the names solely on a joint application and certain documents submitted by the respondents' 7 and 8, and without comprehending the conclusive proof of Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act and Ext.P19 circular dated 16.12.2015 issued by the Local Self Government Department. The circular mandates that, if the father's name has to be changed in the birth records, a DNA test report, an agreement attested before a Notary Public and an order from a competent Court are to be produced. It is without following the above procedures that the 4th respondent has carried out the substitution.”

Flagging the decision-making process behind the changed birth certificate and birth report as a violation of the principles of natural justice, the Court quashed the same. It directed the 4^th respondent to reconsider the joint application of the 7^th and 8^th respondents in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner.

Case No: WP(C) No. 26123 of 2024

Case Title: AAA v. State of Kerala and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 454

Counsel for the petitioners: Reshma E., Anna Sonie, Atheena Antony, Anjitha Santhosh, Athira V.M.

Counsel for the respondents: M. Sasindran, Vidya Kuriakose - Sr. PP

Click To Read/Download Judgment