Kerala High Court names child after estranged parents find themselves unable to agree on a name

The Kerala High Court recently invoked the parents patriae jurisdiction (where the role of a parent or a guardian is adopted) to name a child born to estranged parents who could not agree on a name. .Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas passed the order after observing that the continued quarrels between the child’s parents should not impact the interests of the child.“The absence of a name for the child is not conducive to the welfare or the best interests of the child. The welfare of the child demands it be given a name. Continued quarrels between the parents also do not augur well in the interests of the child. Therefore, this is a typical case where the parens patri(a)e jurisdiction of this Court has to be exercised,” the judge said.He, therefore, ordered that the child be named Punya the mother's choice of name, with the father’s name being added as the surname..The Court added that in the exercise of such parens patriae jurisdiction, it has to select a name for the child by taking into consideration the welfare of the child, cultural considerations, interests of the parents and societal norms..The High Court was considering a petition filed by the mother of the child who was aggrieved as she could not register her child’s name in the absence of her estranged husband according to the registrar.As the couple could not agree on the name, the mother of the child approached the High Court for relief.She urged the Court to accept her application and to issue a birth certificate for her minor child with the name 'Punya', being the mother's choice of name.However, the father of the child wanted to name the child, ‘Padma’.A family dispute case between the estranged parents of the child was pending before the family court..The High Court noted that the child was at the threshold of her educational life and that the school authorities were insisting on a name before the child could be admitted to school."Since the birth certificate carries no name on it, the school authorities are refusing to accept such a certificate," the Court observed. The High Court also noted that there was no dispute that the child was born when the parents were married. The High Court also referred to the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, government circular, as well as various precedents before deciding that the name suggested by the mother has to be given due importance.Therefore, the child was named ‘Punya’ with the father’s name being added as the surname.The Court directed that the said changes be reflected in the child's birth certificate..The petitioner (mother) was represented by advocates AT Anilkumar, V Shylaja.The respondents were represented by advocates KT Thomas, Vinay Vijay Shanker, Thomas C Abraham, and Nikhil Berny.