Calcutta HC Directs Addendum to Child's Birth Certificate Replacing Biological Father's Name with Step-Father's

Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury held that a divorced mother who remarried may seek alteration of her minor son's birth certificate, subject to the child's own option on attaining majority.

The High Court at Calcutta has directed the Purba Bardhaman Municipality to issue an addendum to a minor child's birth certificate, incorporating the name of his step-father and altering the child's surname accordingly. Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury, sitting singly in the Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction, allowed the writ petition filed by Smt. Barnali Ghosh (Karmakar), a woman who divorced her first husband under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, subsequently remarried, and sought to have her son's birth record reflect his present family. The court grounded its direction in Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, and the Supreme Court's decision in Akella Lalitha v. Konda Hanumantha Rao, 2022 SCC Online SC 928, while building in a specific safeguard: the altered certificate operates only until the child reaches majority, at which point he may exercise his own option.

The Dispute Before the High Court

Barnali married Subhankar Karmakar on 25 April 2012. A male child was born of that marriage. The marriage was dissolved by a divorce decree passed by the District Judge, Hooghly, on 8 October 2021, under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

On 6 March 2022, Barnali entered into a fresh matrimonial relationship with Rajesh Ghosh. That marriage was registered with the office of the Registrar General of Marriages. The child has since been residing with Barnali and Rajesh Ghosh in their matrimonial home.

Barnali affirmed an affidavit before the Executive Magistrate, Hooghly, and on 22 July 2022 applied before the Chairman, Purba Bardhaman Municipality, seeking alteration of her son's surname and his father's name in the birth register, and the issuance of a fresh birth certificate noting the step-father's name and the petitioner's present surname. The municipality did not accede to that prayer. She then filed WPA 21054 of 2025 before the Calcutta High Court.

The biological father — respondent no. 6 in the writ petition — did not appear before the court. Service could not initially be effected on him personally. After the matter was adjourned on 26 September 2025 and again on 28 October 2025, substitute service by newspaper publication was eventually completed and an affidavit of service was filed on 22 July 2026.

The Legal Issue

The petition raised a question that sits at the intersection of family law, child welfare, and municipal record-keeping: can a mother, after a lawful divorce and remarriage, require municipal authorities to alter a child's birth certificate to remove the biological father's name and substitute the step-father's, relying on Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969?

The petitioner's case was that retaining the biological father's name in the birth certificate was causing psychological harm to the child. The biological father, according to the petition, had absolved himself of all parental responsibility. The child was being raised jointly by Barnali and her present husband Rajesh Ghosh, and was growing up as Rajesh's son. In these circumstances, the continued presence of the biological father's name in the official birth record was said to create an adverse psychological impact on the minor.

The municipal authorities' refusal to act brought the statutory provision into focus. Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 does provide a mechanism for correction of entries in the register of births and deaths. The question was whether the facts of this case justified invoking that provision.

How the Bench Reasoned

Before delivering judgment, Justice Basu Chowdhury took an unusual but significant procedural step. By order dated 22 July 2026, the court had directed that the matter be placed in Chamber for interaction with the child. On 18 August 2026, the court interacted with the minor child and both parents in chamber, in the presence of counsel for all parties. The marriage certificate of Barnali and Rajesh Ghosh was also formally placed before the court by way of a supplementary affidavit.

The court noted that society had moved forward and that it was “no longer necessary to retain the name of the biological father in the register.” It drew on the Supreme Court's recognition in Akella Lalitha v. Konda Hanumantha Rao, 2022 SCC Online SC 928, that a single mother has the right to decide on the surname of a minor child. The court read that principle alongside Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, which permits correction of entries.

On the facts, the court found the alteration to be in the best interest of the minor child. It did not treat the case as one requiring wholesale replacement of the original certificate. Instead, the court fashioned a direction for an addendum — a supplementary document linked to the existing certificate — so that the chain of records remained traceable.

Importantly, the court acknowledged that the child is presently a minor and may hold independent views when he grows up. The direction was therefore structured with a built-in condition: the altered certificate operates subject to the child exercising his own option once he attains the age of majority. This condition recognises that the court's order is made in the child's present interest but does not permanently foreclose his future choice about his own identity.

Directions Issued

Justice Basu Chowdhury directed the municipal authorities to issue an addendum to the birth certificate already issued by the municipality. The addendum must incorporate the name of the step-father, Rajesh Ghosh, and must also carry an appropriate alteration of the child's surname. The certificate issued is required to bear the serial number and date of issuance of the previous certificate, preserving the documentary link.

The issuance of the addendum is expressly made subject to the exercise of option by the minor child upon attaining the age of majority.

Outcome

WPA 21054 of 2025 was disposed of on 18 August 2026 with the above directions. The court granted liberty to apply for urgent photostat certified copies upon compliance with requisite formalities.