Bombay High Court
MAYURI MONIKA BABARversusTHE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that the Registrar may decide the pending application, provided that notice is served to the private respondent, and the matter must be concluded within a specified period.
Summary
The petitioners, Mayuri Monika Babar and her mother, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Mumbai, to issue a birth certificate for the child naming the mother as a single parent and omitting the biological father's name. The mother alleged that her marriage was void because her husband was already married, a fact she discovered only after the marriage, and she obtained a decree of nullity from the Family Court. An application dated 17 November 2025 for the birth certificate remained pending, and the Registrar had not yet ruled on its merits. The High Court ordered that the Registrar may decide the application, that adequate notice be served on the newly added private respondent (the biological father), and that the matter be concluded within three weeks of the petitioners furnishing a certified copy of the order. The court emphasized the need for procedural fairness to the private respondent while allowing the Registrar discretion to grant the certificate. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed in the terms of the order.
Issues considered
- Whether the Registrar of Births and Deaths can be directed by a writ petition to issue a birth certificate naming the mother as a single parent without mentioning the biological father.
- Whether service of notice to a private respondent (the biological father) is required before the Registrar can decide the application.
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to intervene in a pending birth registration application under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969.
Subjects
- birth certificate
- single mother
- void marriage
- registration of births
- private respondent
- writ petition
- procedural fairness
Judgment
Digitally signed
by PALLAVI
PALLAVI MAHENDRA
MAHENDRA WARGAONKAR
WARGAONKAR Date:
2026.09.22
10:58:30 +0530
25-WP-4818-2026 (C).odt
Pallavi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4818 OF 2026
Mayuri Monika Babar & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
The Registrar Of Births And Deaths & Ors. ...Respondents
...
Ms. Mahalakshmi Dakshinamurthy h/f Mr. Sachinkumar P.
Rajepandhare for the Petitioners.
Mr. Vishal P. Shirke for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mrs. Neha S. Bhide, GP a/w Mr. O.A. Chandurkar and Mrs.
G.R. Raghuwanshi, AGP for Respondent No.3 – State.
...
CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. &
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.
DATE : 21st SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C.:
1. Heard Ms. Dakshinamurthy, learned counsel for the
Petitioner and Mr. Shirke, learned counsel for Respondent
Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. Chandurkar, the learned AGP appearing
for Respondent – State.
2. The instant Petition is preferred for a direction to the
Respondent No.1 – Registrar of Births and Deaths, Navi
1
25-WP-4818-2026 (C).odt
Mumbai Municipal Corporation to process the Application
dated 17th November 2025 moved by the Petitioner No.2 for
issuance of Birth Certificate of her daughter Ms. Mayuri
Monika Babar – Petitioner No.1 and mention the name of the
Petitioner No.2 as single mother without referring the name of
the Respondent No.4 i.e. her biological father.
3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner in support of her
submission contends that as at the time of solemnization of
marriage, the Petitioner No.2 was not aware about the past
track record of her alleged husband who was already married.
Consequently, she moved an Application and approached the
competent Family Court for divorce. In the said proceeding, the
marriage was already declared as null and void.
4. It is in the aforesaid background that this Application has
been made. Until date, the Respondent – Corporation has not
passed an order on merits. Even while entertaining the Writ
Petition, a notice has been issued. The record indicates that
steps were taken to serve Respondent No.4. He is not
represented today. Be that as it may.
5. However, at this stage, we are not inclined to keep the
2
25-WP-4818-2026 (C).odt
matter pending consideration. In the interests of justice, we
pass the following order:-
ORDER
(i) The Respondent No.1 may decide the Application
dated 17th November 2025, in case it is so
required.
(ii) Adequate notice be issued to the newly added
private Respondent No.4 by the Respondent No.1.
(iii) The proceeding may be finalised within three
weeks from the date of the Petitioners furnishing
a certified copy of this order before the
Respondent No.1.
6. The Writ Petition is Disposed Of, in the above terms, with
the assistance of parties through their Advocates/Counsel,
before us.
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]
3
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.