Kerala High Court recently observed that men too are entitled to dignity and self-respect, while allowing the correction of the father’s name in the birth certificate of a child born from an extra-marital relationship between the child’s mother and another man.

Justice PV Kunhikrishnan described the matter as “a sad story of an unfortunate man whose wife led an adulterous life with another man during the subsistence of their marriage.”

The single judge further observed that in societies where marital fidelity is highly valued, a husband or former husband in such a situation may feel humiliated in the eyes of society if his name continues to be shown as the father of a child born from an extra-marital relationship.

“I am of the opinion that, in a situation like this, everyone should also stand by the man, as he too has dignity, pride, self-respect and a social identity. In cultures like ours, where marital fidelity carries significant social value, a husband may feel publicly humiliated in such circumstances, as though his manhood and status have been mocked,” the Court observed.

In the present case, the Court took note of and appreciated the former husband’s decision not to oppose the mother’s plea seeking alteration of the child’s birth certificate to reflect a change in the father’s name.

In a case concerning correction of paternity details in a birth certificate, the petitioner–mother approached the High Court seeking modification of the father’s name in her minor daughter’s birth record.

The petitioner had married her former husband in 2006, and a son was born from the marriage. During the subsistence of the marriage, she entered into an extra-marital relationship with another man and gave birth to a daughter in 2017. At the time of the child’s birth, her then-husband, under a bona fide belief that he was the biological father, informed the hospital authorities accordingly. His name was consequently entered as the father in the birth register.

Subsequently, marital disputes arose and in 2023 the couple obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent under the Hindu Marriage Act from a family court. The petitioner later married the man with whom she had been in a relationship.

Claiming that school authorities required a corrected birth certificate, the petitioner and her current husband moved the High Court seeking rectification of the father’s name.

The Court examined Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, along with Rule 11 of the Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999, which regulate correction of entries in birth records. Referring to earlier precedents, the Court reiterated that the Registrar’s powers are confined to correcting clerical or formal errors and do not extend to adjudicating disputed questions of paternity. Such changes, the Court observed, would ordinarily require proper proof, including a DNA test and a competent court’s declaration.

In the present case, no DNA test had been conducted to establish that the petitioner’s current husband was the biological father. Therefore, the Registrar had no independent authority to alter the entry relating to paternity.

The Court also expressed disapproval of the petitioner’s conduct and doubted the claim that school authorities had insisted on correction, particularly noting that even the minor child’s name had not been masked in the pleadings.

However, the Court refrained from dismissing the petition outright. It appreciated the former husband’s stand in not seeking removal of his name from the records despite learning the truth, describing his conduct as “gentlemanly” and mindful of the child’s future. The Court noted that he had not opposed the relief sought.

Invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court directed the petitioners to submit an application before the Thrissur Municipal Corporation for correction of the father’s name. The Corporation was instructed to make a marginal entry reflecting the change, without disturbing the original entry, and to issue a fresh birth certificate within 30 days of receipt of the application.

Observing that the Court must consider the minor child’s future and step in to remedy injustice where necessary, it allowed the correction in the peculiar facts of the case and expressed hope that the matter would attain finality.

The Court further directed its Registry to mask the names of the minor child and the former husband while uploading the judgment on the High Court website.

Advocates Happymon Babu and Blessy Mary Sebastian appeared for the petitioners. Standing counsel Santhosh P. Poduval represented the Thrissur Municipal Corporation. Senior Government Pleader Vidya Kuriakose appeared for the State, while advocates Sruthy Saijo and Jahra K represented the former husband.