IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2009 / 13TH SRAVANA 1931 OP.No. 15069 of 2002(R) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- NARAYANI VAVA, KUNNATHIL, KUDAVACHOOR, VECHOOR P.O., VAIKOM. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY CHIEF REGISTRAR FOR BIRTH AND DEATH, KERALA STATE, TRIVANDRUM. 2. BEENA, KUNNATHIL, KUDAVECHOOR P.O., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. THE SECRETARY, ARPOOKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ARPOOKKARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. ADV. SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI FOR R2 SMT.REJI RAMACHANDRAN FOR R2 SMT.MINI K.D. FOR R2 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE ISSUED BY THE SNDP UNION, CHERTHALA NO. 71/2000 DATED 26.4.2000 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERITIFICATE NO. A3-72/2000 DATED 23.2.2000 OBTAINED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FROM THE THIRD RESPONDENT, FOR HER CHILD UMA DEVI. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT ON 30.6.2000 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 17.5.2000 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VECHOOR TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY THE WIFE OF LATE ANIRUDHAN, DATED 10.5.1999 IN FAVOUR OF SARASAMMA, BEENALAYAM, CHERTHALA. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. B1-20165/2000 DATED 15.12.2001 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 17.5.2000 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, VAIKOM TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- O. P. NO. 15069 OF 2002 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging the correctness of a birth certificate issued to the second respondent for her child . It is seen from Ext.P2 certificate that the father of the child is one Anirudhan, K.V., who according to the petitioner, is her late son. According to the petitioner second respondent was previously married to one Mohanan whose name was originally included in the birth certificate and the same is later corrected to the petitioner's son's name. Even though no counter affidavit is filed, it is seen that the child referred to Ext.P2 was born in the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. Normally intimation with name and address of the parents is sent by the hospital authorities to the local body based on which birth is registered. There is nothing to indicate from Ext.P2 that there is any change in the name of the father of the child. In any case, I do not think there is any justification for the petitioner to challenge Ext.P2 or Ext.P6 rejecting petitioner's complaint against the second respondent because petitioner cannot deny that her deceased son did not get 2 child in second respondent. However, if there is claim for succession to the estate of the petitioner or any claim is made for property in the name of the deceased son, I leave it open to the petitioner to demand from second respondent proof of marriage, or birth of the child for the deceased, etc. O.P. is disposed of with the above observation. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3