Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 128 (GUJ)

Patel Jigarkumar Jayantilal v. State Of Gujarat

2026-03-02

ANIRUDDHA P.MAYEE

body2026
ORDER : ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Kushal Desai waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No.2 and learned AGP waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No.1. 2. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in which the petitioners have prayed for the following relief(s):- “A. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit and allow the petition; B. This Hon'ble Court may be direct the respondent no. 2 to carry out the corrections / amendment (reproduced in para no. 3.9 of this petition) as per the applications dated 10.02.2026 (Annexure D & Annexure E) read with registered Adoption Deed dated 23.01.2026 (Annexure - C) in the birth certificate (Annexure A) of daughter "Khanak" and accordingly, issue the corrected fresh birth certificate of daughter "Khanak" containing details of the petitioners as per the applications dated 10.02.2026 (Annexure D & Annexure E) read with registered Adoption Deed dated 23.01.2026 (Annexure - C); C. Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 to decide the application dated 10.02.2026 of the petitioners. D. Any other and further relief or reliefs which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity in favour of the petitioners.” 3. Heard learned advocate for the petitioners. 4. Brief facts of the case are as under:- 4.1. The petitioners are the husband and wife and the marriage between the petitioners was solemnized on 24.01.2013. Petitioner no.1 is a Government Servant and is working as Deputy Executive Engineer at Irrigation Department of Gujarat. The petitioner no.2 is a Doctor by profession and has done BHMS. 4.2 It is the case of the petitioners that though more than 13 years of marriage life of the petitioners have passed, there is no child born out of their wedlock. Therefore, the petitioners have decided to adopt a child. 4.3 One couple Mr. Lalitbhai Ranchhodbhai Kori and Mrs. Poojaben Lalitbhai Kori are friends and known to the petitioners. The said couple was already having one son and two daughters out of their wedlock. The petitioners were not having any child and having emotions, feelings and friendly relations with the biological parents i.e., Mr. Lalitbhai Ranchhodbhai Kori and Mrs. 4.3 One couple Mr. Lalitbhai Ranchhodbhai Kori and Mrs. Poojaben Lalitbhai Kori are friends and known to the petitioners. The said couple was already having one son and two daughters out of their wedlock. The petitioners were not having any child and having emotions, feelings and friendly relations with the biological parents i.e., Mr. Lalitbhai Ranchhodbhai Kori and Mrs. Poojaben Lalitbhai Kori, the petitioners have shown the willingness to adopt the younger daughter namely "Khanak" from them and whereas the biological parents of "Khanak" Mr. Lalitbhai Ranchhodbhai Kori and Mrs. Poojaben Lalitbhai Kori with customs/rituals have willingly and happily given by way of adoption of their daughter "Khanak" to the petitioners. 4.4 As per the requirement of law, the adoption deed dated 23.01.2026 came to be executed between the petitioners being adoptive parents and the biological parents of daughter "Khanak". The adoption deed is registered bearing Registration No.197/2026 before the Sub Registrar, Unjha, Mehsana. 4.5 The petitioner No.1 - father made an application dated 10.02.2026 before the respondent No. 2 for amending /correcting the details of birth certificate no. B202624900550000030 issued by the respondent no. 2 in view of the registered adoption deed dated 23.01.2026. The petitioners have sought corrections/amendments of full name of minor daughter "Khanak", name of the father and mother, addresses/permanent addresses of the father and mother and Aadhar Card number of father and mother in birth certificate of their daughter "Khanak" as envisaged in the application form. The corrections in the birth certificate are to be carried out as per the adoption deed and details of biological parents are to be replaced by the details of adoptive parents. Submissions of the petitioners 5. Learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the impugned inactions of not correcting/ amending the details in Birth Certificate of their daughter "Khanak" and not issuing the corrected Birth Certificate are most unjust, improper, illegal, arbitrary, irrational and capricious. 5.1 It is submitted that there is no challenge to adoption deed and no objection is raised by the biological parents. In fact, it is evident from the perusal of the Registered Adoption Deed that the biological parents have already consented for change / correction in birth certificate. 5.2 Learned advocate for the petitioners further submits that the impugned inactions are contrary and violative of Circular dated 15.05.2015 directed by the Ministry of Home Affairs to all the Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths. 5.2 Learned advocate for the petitioners further submits that the impugned inactions are contrary and violative of Circular dated 15.05.2015 directed by the Ministry of Home Affairs to all the Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths. 5.3 It is submitted that Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 envisages the presumption in favour of the adoption in case it is by way of registered document. Thus, the inactions of the respondent no.2 in not carrying out the corrections and not issuing the corrected birth certificate of the daughter of the petitioners, despite production of registered adoption deed, is bad in law. 5.4 Learned advocate for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of this Court in case of Chhayaben @ Hetalben Atulbhai Asodariva vs. Registrar of Birth and Death/Chief Officer, reported in 2022 (4) GLR 3279 , wherein it was held that neither consent of biological father is required to be obtained by Registrar for altering name of father nor is he required to be arraigned as a party to writ petition. 5.5 Learned advocate for the petitioners also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of N.R. Trivedi v. District Education Officer Anand, AIR 2004 Guj 53 , where this Court held that the presumption with respect to an adoption by a registered deed would be in favour of the petitioners. 5.6 Learned advocate for the petitioners while relying upon the judgments of this Court in Sukumar Mehta vs. District Registrar, Births And Deaths, 1993 (1) G.L.R. 93 and Sejalben Mukundbhai Patel W/o Khodabhai Joitaram Patel, 2019 (3) G.L.R. 18661 submits that respondent no.2 is empowered and duty bound to correct the birth certificate under Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and Rules framed thereunder. 6. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 submits that appropriate order may be passed in view of the issue involved in the present petition. 7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material placed on record, it transpires that the name and other details of the petitioners’ daughter is required to be corrected. The petitioners have also provided all the necessary details, which was sought by the respondent No. 2 however, the respondent No. 2 has not acted upon the same. 8. The petitioners have also provided all the necessary details, which was sought by the respondent No. 2 however, the respondent No. 2 has not acted upon the same. 8. This Court in the case of Chhayaben @ Hetalben Atulbhai Asodariva (supra), had held that the consent of the biological father is not required to be obtained by the Registrar for altering the name of the father in the birth certificate. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are thus :- “13. …….. The stage of obtaining consent, as defined under section 9 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 cannot be invoked at the stage of incorporating the father’s name (adoptive) in the birth record of the son, after the divorce and adoption deeds have been registered and have not be questioned in any court of law or there is no other legal embargo and have remained uncontroveted. Thus, neither the biological father, i.e. the former husband of the petitioner no.1 is required to be made as a party to the writ proceedings for ascertaining his consent nor his opinion is necessary to be called for by the Registrar ……. 14. In such circumstances and in light of undisputed facts, the opinion of biological father is not necessary and if the same is sought for, it will create further complications and delay in make the correction. As per the provision of section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, a presumption has to be drawn in favour of the petitioners since there is no rebuttal of the adoption deed of the minor 'Devam'. The Registrar, who is the competent authority under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 can only verify the correction of the adoption deed and if the same is found to be duly registered and valid, he has to make necessary corrections/changes in the birth records of the adopted child. In the present case, the Registrar has not questioned the registration of the adoption deed.” 9. In view thereof, respondent No. 2 is directed to correct /amend full name of minor daughter "Khanak", name of the father and mother, addresses/permanent addresses of the father and mother and Aadhar Card number of father and mother in the birth certificate of their daughter "Khanak" as envisaged in the application form dated 10.02.2026 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. 10. The present writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.