JUDGMENT : Anant S. Dave, J. 1. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon perusal of the record, it appears that before learned single Judge, a writ petition was filed by the petitioner - mother with a prayer to quash and set aside order dated 16.06.2016, passed by District Education Officer and direct respondent No. 1 to continue name of her minor daughter as "Hrudi Riddhi Desai" 2. In the above order dated 16.06.2016, District Education Officer ordered to correct the name of the daughter of petitioner from "Desai Hrudi Riddhi" to "Hrudi Sanjaybhai Shah". Learned single Judge adverted to certain matrimonial disputes and proceedings initiated before learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Navsari, in Hindu Marriage Petition No. 38/2008 for divorce by consent under Section 13(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which as granted on 22.10.2008. The Court further ordered that till minor Hrudi attains the age of majority, she will reside with mother and so was accepted by the father subject to his visitation rights. 3. However, it appears that Miscellaneous (Guardian) Application No. 9/2009 was filed before learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Surat, by respondent - husband seeking custody of minor daughter and after hearing the parties, the learned Judge, Family Court, rejected the application on 23.01.2013. Later on, respondent No. 2 gave an application to the school authorities for changing the name of his daughter on which the order came to be passed by the District Education Officer giving rise to filing of the writ petition. 4. After referring to various provisions of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, as well as decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Githa Hariharan and another v. Reserve Bank of India and another, reported in AIR 1999 SC 1149 , which was followed by this Court, learned single Judge quashed and set aside the order dated 16.06.2016, passed by District Education Officer by observing as under: "If the Respondent No. 2 as the biological father has the feeling and feels that he has an obligation or out of love and affection desires to grant any benefit, it would not preclude him merely because the name is not mentioned in the record. Therefore, these submissions are also thoroughly misconceived and cannot be readily accepted. The present petition therefore deserves to be allowed and accordingly stands allowed. Therefore, these submissions are also thoroughly misconceived and cannot be readily accepted. The present petition therefore deserves to be allowed and accordingly stands allowed. The impugned order passed by the authority is hereby quashed and set aside and it is directed that the name of the mother may be restored in place of the name of Respondent No. 2 forthwith to avoid any further complication when the mark sheet is issued...:" 5. Before us, an affidavit is filed by Riddhi, now a major, on 09.09.2017, whereby she has declared that her full name should be as "Hrudi Riddhi Desai", and to be considered by all authorities accordingly. 6. In view of her declaration as above, we find that no case having been made out by the appellant to interfere with the oral judgment dated 03.10.2016 and we are in agreement with the reasoning given therein by the learned single Judge. 7. Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.