High Court of Gujarat
RATHOD MITALBEN BRIJESHKUMARversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 47-DISPOSAL IN ANY OTHER MODE FH
- Bench
- HEMANT M PRACHCHHAK
Holding
The Court held that the registration authority must consider the petition, afford a hearing, and issue a reasoned order correcting the birth certificate within six weeks.
Summary
The petitioner, a mother and natural guardian of her minor daughter Drashti, sought a writ of mandamus directing the registration authority to replace the father's name on the child's birth certificate with her own name. The original certificate listed the first husband’s name; after a second marriage, the second husband’s name was entered, and following a second divorce the petitioner applied to have it corrected but received no response. Relying on Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and prior case law, she argued that the authority had a duty to amend the entry. The Court examined the facts, noted the authority’s inaction, and referred to a previous judgment of the same High Court ordering similar correction. It directed the respondent authority to give the petitioner a hearing and pass a reasoned order within six weeks, thereby disposing of the petition.
Issues considered
- The registration authority’s power under Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 to correct the father's name in a birth certificate to the mother’s name.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing such correction.
- Whether the authority’s failure to act violates the petitioner’s constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19, and 226 of the Constitution.
Legislation cited
Subjects
birth certificate correctionRegistration of Births and Deaths Actmandamusconstitutional rightscustodydivorcegender equality
Judgment
C/SCA/13613/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13613 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
RATHOD MITALBEN BRIJESHKUMAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AM PAREKH(562) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS NIRALI SARDA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1, 3
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
==========================================================
Digitally signed by: SURESHKUMAR MOTIBHAI SOLANKI(HC00208), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 23/03/2026 17:33:08
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 20/03/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP waives service
of the rule on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 3.
2. Present petition is preferred by the petitioner under
Articles 14, 19 and 226 of the Constitution of India r/w
the provisions of Birth and Death Act, 1969 with below
mentioned relief/s:-
17. (A) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to admit and allow
the present petition;
Page 1 of 4
C/SCA/13613/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026
(B) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction the respondent- authorities to amend /or
correction in the name of the petitioner in column no.5
in place of Minor Daughter 'Drashti in the column of
Father name the birth certi)cate which is issued by the
Respondents authority as per the application dated
21.08.2024. Ann. E.
(C) Pending admission, )nal hearing and disposal of this
petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the
respondents, their agents, servants, employees to
correct the name of the petitioner daughter in column
No. 5 in place of the father name and remove the name
of the Girishkumar and name of the petitioner may
inserted in the certi)cate in the interest of justice;
(D) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant any other and
further relief as deemed )t and expedient."
3. The facts giving rise to present petition are that the
petitioner, being the natural guardians of her minor
daughter Drashti, seek a direction to the respondent
authorities to correct the entry in the birth certi.cate by
substituting the petitioner’s name in place of the existing
entry in the column of “father’s name”.
3.1 Petitioner was married to Rathod Brijeshkumar
Surendrakumar on 01.05.2016, and during the
subsistence of the said marriage, their daughter Drashti
was born on 04.04.2019. Her birth was registered on
18.04.2019. Due to matrimonial disputes, the marriage
was dissolved by a Deed of Divorce dated 06.03.2023
whereby custody of the minor remained with petitioner.
Page 2 of 4
C/SCA/13613/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026
Thereafter, petitioner remarried Parmar Girishbhai
Dineshbhai on 27.08.2023, and pursuant to an
application, the respondent authority substituted his
name in the birth certi.cate.
3.2 Subsequently, the said marriage was also dissolved by
a Deed of Divorce dated 23.07.2024 and the petitioner
retained full responsibility of the minor. The petitioner
thereafter applied on 21.08.2024 to correct the birth
certi.cate by removing the said name and inserting her
own name but no decision has been taken.
3.3 It is submitted that under Section 15 of the
Registration of Births and Deaths Act, the respondent
authority has the power to correct such entries, as held
by this Court in Chhayaben Atulbhai Asodiya vs. State of
Gujarat. Despite this, the respondents have failed to act,
compelling the petitioner to approach this Hon’ble Court.
4. Heard Mr. A.M. Parekh, learned counsel for the
petitioner and perused the record of the petition.
5. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case,
and upon considering the judgment dated 15.06.2022
passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Special
Civil Application No. 15757 of 2021, this Court is of the
opinion that the respondent authority, i.e. respondent
No.2, shall consider all the averments made in the
Page 3 of 4
C/SCA/13613/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026
present petition and, after a<ording an opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner, pass a reasoned and
appropriate order on the representation dated 21.08.2024
(at page 26 of the petition), in accordance with law,
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
6. In view of the above, present petition stands
disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
extent.
Direct service is permitted.
Sd/-
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
SURESH SOLANKI
Page 4 of 4
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "birth certificate correction"Sign in to search