Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 527 (KER)

Jyothy v. Baby VS State of Kerala

2021-05-31

N.NAGARESH

body2021
JUDGMENT : The petitioner states that she is a non-resident Indian now working in the United States of America. She was born in Kuttanad Taluk in Alappuzha District on 02.05.1985. However, as disclosed from Ext.P1 Birth Certificate, in the Register of Births, the petitioner’s name “Jyothy V. Baby” was shown as “Jyothy V. Babay” and the date of birth was erroneously recorded as “02.07.1985”. The name of the mother was recorded as “Soosamma”, instead of “Susamma Baby”. The house name was also wrongly recorded as “Angilimoottil”, instead of “Anjilimoottil”. 2. The petitioner would state that the said entries in the Birth Register were clerical errors and the date of birth, mother’s name and house name were correctly recorded in all other documents namely, SSLC, Passport, Marriage Certificate and Aadhaar as can be seen from Exts.P2 to P5. The petitioner filed an application for correction of particulars in Birth Register invoking Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 read with Rule 11 of the Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999. 3. However, the petitioner was served with Ext.P7 intimation of the Sub Registrar of Births and Deaths, Thalavady Grama Panchayat requiring the petitioner to produce Affidavit, Recognised School Certificate, Documents in proof of name and address of mother and the original of Birth Certificate already issued, and if the same is lost, an affidavit to that effect on stamp paper of Rs.100/-. The 2nd respondent further informed that under the existing law, correction of date of birth is impermissible. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Ext.P6 application of the petitioner is supported by Declarations given by two neighbouring citizens and correction in Register of Births can be effected based on these Declarations in the light of the judgments of this Court in The Registrar of Births and Deaths v. Thomas Jacob ( 2011 (3) KLT 461 ) and in Sajil v. State of Kerala ( 2019 (1) KLT 607 ). The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the extreme urgency in the matter, the 2nd respondent may be directed to reconsider the application and process the same in the light of the aforesaid judgments of this Court. 5. In view of the nature of relief being granted in this writ petition, notice to the 2nd respondent is dispensed with. 6. 5. In view of the nature of relief being granted in this writ petition, notice to the 2nd respondent is dispensed with. 6. This Court in the judgment in The Registrar of Births and Deaths v. Thomas Jacob (supra) has held that if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar that any entry of a birth or death in any Register kept by him under the Act is erroneous in form or substances, he may subject to such rules as may be made by the State Government with respect to conditions on which and the circumstances in which such entries may be corrected or cancelled, correct the error or cancel the entry by suitable entry in the margin, and shall sign the marginal entry and add thereto the date of correction or cancellation. Rule 11 provides that if a clerical or formal error made in the register is either reported or noticed by the Registrar, he shall enquire into the matter and if he is satisfied that any error has been made, he shall correct the error in the manner as provided therein. Sub-rule (2) provides that if any person asserts that any entry in the register of births and deaths is erroneous in substance, the Registrar may correct the entry in the manner as prescribed under Section 15 of the Act upon production by that person a declaration setting forth the nature of the error and true facts of the case made by two credible persons having knowledge of the facts of the case. 7. In view of the afore judgment, correction of date of birth in the Birth Register is permissible and the Registrar has power to make such correction. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to reconsider Ext.P6 application submitted by the petitioner for correction of entries in the Birth Register including the entry as to Date of Birth in the light of the judgment of this Court in The Registrar of Births and Deaths v. Thomas Jacob (supra) within a period of three weeks. To enable the 2nd respondent to consider the application as directed above, Ext.P7 communication is set aside. To enable the 2nd respondent to consider the application as directed above, Ext.P7 communication is set aside. The petitioner shall serve a copy of the judgment of this Court reported in The Registrar of Births and Deaths v. Thomas Jacob ( 2011 (3) KLT 461 ) and certified copy of this judgment, on the 2nd respondent for compliance.