Birth records may include a stepfather’s name and surname, subject to the child’s option upon attaining majority.

The petitioner claimed that she married Subhankar Karmakar on 25 April 2012 and that a male child was born from the marriage.

The marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, dated 8 October 2021. She subsequently married Rajesh Ghosh on 6 March 2022, and the marriage was registered with the Registrar General of Marriages.

The petitioner asserted that the child resided with her and was being jointly cared for by her and her present husband, while the biological father had allegedly ceased to discharge his responsibilities.

She therefore sought alteration of the child’s birth certificate by incorporating the present husband’s name as father/stepfather and changing the child’s surname. After the municipal authorities declined the request, she filed the writ petition.

The biological father was ultimately served through newspaper publication, and the Court interacted with the child and the parents in chambers.

Whether, in the peculiar circumstances of the case and in the best interests of the minor child, the municipal authority could alter or supplement the existing birth certificate to incorporate the name of the petitioner’s present husband and change the child’s surname.

Whether such alteration should preserve the particulars of the original birth certificate and remain subject to the child’s independent choice upon attaining majority.

The Court relied on Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, which permits correction or alteration of entries in the register of births and deaths in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

It also relied on Akella Lalitha v. Konda Hanumantha Rao, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 928, recognizing that contemporary social conditions do not invariably require retention of the biological father’s name and that a single parent may determine the surname of a minor child in appropriate circumstances.

The governing consideration was the best interest and welfare of the minor, balanced against the child’s future autonomy to make an independent choice on attaining majority.

The Court found that the petitioner had entered into a valid subsequent marriage, that the child was living in the petitioner’s present matrimonial home, and that the petitioner and her present husband were jointly caring for him.

In light of the changed family circumstances and the alleged absence of responsibility on the part of the biological father, the continued recording of the biological father’s particulars was considered capable of causing psychological impact to the child.

Applying Section 15 and the principle recognized in Akella Lalitha, the Court held that an alteration was permissible and necessary for the child’s present welfare.

However, to preserve the historical record and the child’s future autonomy, the Court directed issuance of an addendum rather than an unqualified replacement certificate, requiring reference to the original certificate and reserving the child’s right to exercise an option after attaining majority.

The addendum was required to mention the serial number and date of issuance of the previous certificate and was made subject to the minor’s option to make an independent choice upon attaining majority.