Facts
The petitioner, Dr. Nabanita Banerjee, married respondent No. 4 (Santu Adhikary) in 2008 and gave birth to a male child on October 19, 2011
Source reference: p. 1-2Following a decree for divorce by mutual consent in 2015, the child remained in the petitioner’s custody
Source reference: p. 2While the child's Aadhaar card, PAN, school records, and bank accounts reflect the surname "Banerjee," the official birth certificate issued by the Serampore Municipality still records the surname "Adhikary"
Source reference: p. 2The petitioner sought a direction for the Municipality to alter the surname to "Banerjee" to facilitate the child's registration for upcoming Board examinations
Source reference: p. 3During the pendency of the writ, the Municipality passed an interim order expressing no objection in principle but cited pending procedural guidelines
Source reference: p. 3-4Issues
1. Whether a custodial parent has the right to alter the surname of a minor child in the birth register to reflect their own surname
Source reference: p. 5-62. Whether the Municipality can be directed to correct birth records under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, despite procedural delays or "anomalous" records
Source reference: p. 6Law Applied
Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, which provides for the correction or cancellation of entries in the register of births and deaths
Source reference: p. 5-6The case of Akella Lalitha v. Konda Hanumantha Rao (2022), which recognized the rights of a single parent in child-rearing and held that it is not mandatory to retain the biological father's surname
Source reference: p. 5Namita Das v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (2026) regarding the regularity of such record alterations
Source reference: p. 6Reasoning
The court found that the refusal or delay by the Municipality created an "anomalous situation" that hampered the minor child’s educational advancement
Source reference: p. 3By interacting with the 14-year-old minor in chambers, the court confirmed the practical necessity of the change
Source reference: p. 4The court reasoned that since the biological father (respondent No. 4) explicitly stated he had no objection to the alteration, there was no legal or familial conflict preventing the relief
Source reference: p. 3Applying Akella Lalitha, the court noted that "the society has moved forward" and a single parent possesses the autonomy to determine the child's surname in the child's best interest
Source reference: p. 5The court linked the necessity of the amendment to the need for consistency across all identity documents (Aadhaar, School, PAN) to resolve administrative confusion
Source reference: p. 6Holding
The court allowed the petition and directed the Serampore Municipality to issue a fresh birth certificate incorporating the petitioner’s maiden surname ("Banerjee") for the minor child
This is to be issued as an addendum, whereby both the original and the new certificates are to be read together
Source reference: p. 6The holding is subject to the condition that the minor child, upon attaining majority, shall have the option to exercise his own choice regarding his surname
Source reference: p. 6The writ petition was disposed of with a directive for the Municipality to act upon compliance with requisite formalities
Source reference: p. 6-7Original Court PDF
DT. NABANITA BANERJEEvsTHE SERAMPORE MUNICIPALITY AND ORS
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in