IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2011 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 27260 of 2011(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ARCHANA. S, D/O.S.RAVI KUMAR, PRASANTHI, H.NO.6, THOPPIL NAGAR, KAVANAD P.O., KOLLAM-3, NOW RESIDING AT VIPANCHIKA, VISHNATHUKAVU NAGAR, THIRUMULLAVARAM P.O., KLOLLAM-12. BY ADV. MR.B.MOHANLAL MS.P.S.PREETHA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE CHIEF REGISTRATION OF BIRTH AND DEATH, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, PUBLIC BUILDING OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 2. THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTH AND DEATH, KOLLAM CORPORATION, KOLLAM-1. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BIJU MEENATTOOR FOR R1. ADV.MR.T.GOPALAKRISHNAN, SC FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 27260 of 2011(F) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER'S DAUGHTER DTD. 6.11.2009 ISSUED BY R2. EXT.P2: APPLICATION JOINTLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND HER HUSBAND SRI.PRAVEEN KUMAR BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM IN O.P. (HMA)NO.198/2010. EXT.P3: JUDGMENT IN O.P.(HMA).NO.198/2010 DTD. 25.2.2010 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM. EXT.P4: COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, BISHOP BENZIGAR HOSPITAL, KOLLAM TO R2. EXT.P5: AFFIDAVIT CUM INDEMNITY SUBMITED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R2 DTD. 26.5.2011. EXT.P6: COMMUNICATION NO.114-23682/2011 DTD. 24.6.2011 ISSUED BY R2. EXT.P7: COMMUNICATION NO.YNDIS.B1.2011 DTD. 4.10.2011 ISSUED BY R1. EXT.P8: RELEVANT PAGES OF THE ABOVE CIRCULAR NO.B1-20741/2009 DTD. 8.12.2010 ISSUED BY R1. EXT.P9: APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R2. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL .... // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.27260 Of 2011 ---------------------- Dated this the 27th day of October, 2011. J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed for a direction commanding the 2nd respondent to correct the name of the petitioner’s daughter as 'Mandhira.A' instead of 'Sneha Praveen' and the name of the petitioner as 'Archana.S' instead of 'Archana Praveen' in Ext.P1 Birth Certificate within the time stipulated by this Court. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the alleged inaction on the part of the 2nd respondent in not taking steps to correct the name of the petitioner’s daughter as 'Mandhira.A' instead of 'Sneha Praveen' and the name of the petitioner as 'Archana.S' instead of 'Archana Praveen' in the birth certificate as per Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act r/w Rule 11(2) of the Rules. 3. The petitioner married Praveen on 25.12.2004. A girl child was born by name Sneha Praveen on 14.3.2006 at Benzigar Hospital, Kollam. The birth was registered before the 2nd respondent authority. The name of the petitioner is Archana S. ::2:: W.P.(C).No.27260 Of 2011 After marriage the maiden name of the petitioner was Archana Praveen. Ext.P1 is the copy of the birth certificate of the daughter of the petitioner which would go to show that the name entered in the birth register is Sneha Praveen. The date of birth shown in Ext.P1 is 14.3.2006. Subsequently, the relationship between the husband and wife got strained and both approached the Family Court for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent by preferring application under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The parties preferred O.P.(HMA) 198/2010 for dissolution of marriage. Ext.P2 is the copy of the joint application filed under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The judgment of the Family Court, Kollam is produced as Ext.P3. The Family Court passed an order dissolving the marriage by a decree of divorce. 4. Subsequently, the petitioner re-married and at present she is residing with her present husband and the daughter, born in the first marriage, Sneha Praveen. The petitioner subsequently, submitted an application on 25.4.2011 along with Exts.P2 to P5 before the 2nd respondent to correct the name of her daughter. The petitioner also produced the records and ::3:: W.P.(C).No.27260 Of 2011 register maintained by Bishop Benzigar Hospital, Kollam. Ext.P4 is the communication issued by the Administrator, Bishop Benzigar Hospital, Kollam, addressed to the 2nd respondent. Ext.P2 is the copy of the application submitted by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent dated 15.2.2010. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent has not passed orders correcting the name of the petitioner’s daughter and her name in Ext.P1 birth certificate. The petitioner again filed an application on 7.10.2011 requesting to correct the name of the petitioner and her daughter. Ext.P9 is the copy of the said application dated 7.10.2011. Aggrieved by the alleged inaction on the part of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner approached this Court for the aforesaid reliefs. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, allows the Registrar to correct the wrong entries made in the birth register. The 1st respondent has the authority to correct an improper entry made in the birth register and corresponding entry in the birth certificate. ::4:: W.P.(C).No.27260 Of 2011 6. This Court had occasion to consider similar question in the decision reported in Shipna Jose v. Registrar (2010 (2) KLT 978). This Court considered similar questions and held that Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 allows correction or cancellation of entry in the Register of Births and Deaths, that the legal position has now been laid down in the later decision by the Division Bench of this Court reported in Chalakudy Municipality v. Malavika (2009 (4) KLT 714). The Division Bench after considering various aspects laid won the law which reads as follows: “The law does not contemplate a person to have a wrong name in the register or a mistaken identity in the register or to have wrong particulars regarding the date, place etc. in the register of birth or death. It is also to be noted that the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 does not create or extinguish any right; the Act is intended only to regulate the process and procedures of registration of births and deaths and the correction of any such entry. Once the Act permits such correction either in form or substance, the Rules are intended only to regulate the procedure and not to prohibit such correction. ::5:: W.P.(C).No.27260 Of 2011 In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of the application submitted by the petitioner on merits and allow the correction on being satisfied that it requires such a correction. The order shall be passed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-