Men too have dignity and self-respect, the Kerala High Court recently said while permitting correction of the father's name in the birth certificate of a child born out of an extra-marital relationship the child's mother had with another man [XXX & ors v State of Kerala & ors].

Justice PV Kunhikrishnan described the case as "a sad story of an unfortunate man whose wife led an adulterous life with another man while the marital relationship with him was in existence."

The single-judge further said that in cultures where marriage fidelity is held in esteem, a husband/ ex-husband in such circumstances might feel ridiculed in the eyes of the public, having his name being used as father for a child born out of an extra marital relationship.

"I am of the opinion that, in a situation like this in this case, all should stand behind the men as well, because they too have dignity, pride, self-respect, and social identity. In cultures like ours, where marital fidelity holds strong social value, a husband may feel publicly ridiculed in such a situation, as if his manhood and status have been mocked," the Court observed.

In the present case, the Court appreciated the ex-husband's stand of not opposing to the mother's request to change the name of the child's father in the birth certificate.

The petitioner, who is the mother of the minor child, married her ex-husband, in 2006 and had a son out of that wedlock.

During the subsistence of the marriage, she entered into an extra-marital relationship with another man and gave birth to a girl child in 2017.

At the time of birth, the husband, under a bona fide belief that the child was his, informed the hospital authorities accordingly, leading to his name being entered as the father in the birth register.

Marital disputes followed and in 2023 the couple obtained a divorce by mutual consent under the Hindu Marriage Act before a family court.

Thereafter, the petitioner-woman married the person with whom she was having an affair.

They later approached the High Court seeking correction of the father's name in the birth certificate claiming that the school authorities required a correct certificate.

The Court examined Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and Rule 11 of the Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999, which govern correction of entries.

Relying on earlier precedents, the Court reiterated that the registrar's powers are limited to correcting clerical or formal errors and do not extent to disputed paternity without proper proof, such as a DNA test and court order.

In the present case, there was no DNA test establishing that the second petitioner was the biological father and hence, the registrar had no independent jurisdiction to make changes or corrections to the father's name.

The Court was critical of the petitioner's conduct and even expressed doubts about their claim that school authorities insisted on correction of name while noting that even the minor's name had not been masked in the petition by the petitioners.

Despite these observations, the Court chose not to dismiss the petition outright and characterised the ex-husband of having a 'gentlemanly attitude' for not taking steps to remove his name from the records keeping in mind the child's future even after knowing the truth and for not objecting to the petitioners request.

Thus, invoking its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court directed the petitioners to apply before the Thrissur municipal Corporation, and ordered the corporation to correct the father's name by making a marginal entry without altering the original entry and issue a fresh birth certificate within 30 days of receiving the application.

"Therefore, considering the plight of the minor child and the gentlemanly attitude of the 4th respondent, I think the correction can be allowed, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. If this court finds an injustice to a citizen, it can step in to redress it and ensure complete justice. This court must also imagine the minor child's future. Let the name of the 3rd petitioner’s father be correctly mentioned in the birth register before she become major. Let there be a quietus," the Court added.

The Court also directed its registry to mask the names of the minor child and the ex-husband while uploading the judgment to the High Court website.

The petitioners were represented by advocates Happymon Babu and Blessy Mary Sebastian.

Standing counsel Santhosh P Poduval appeared for Thrissur Municipal Corporation.

Senior government pleader Vidya Kuriakose appeared for the State.

The ex-husband was represented by advocates Sruthy Saijo and Jahra K.

[Read Judgment]