Your name, your dignity: Why Karnataka High Court says you can reclaim biological father’s name over stepfather’s

The order added that in matters touching upon declaration of parentage and correction of public records reflecting such parentage, particularly when the aggrieved person was a minor at the time of the earlier proceedings, strict application of limitation would defeat substantive justice.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj was dealing with the plea of a 22-year-old woman seeking to restore her biological father’s name across her official records.

What was the case?

• The petitioner’s biological father’s name had been substituted in the Register of Births by the name of her stepfather.
• This alteration followed a 2015 order by a competent court, which directed the authorities to register the petitioner as the daughter of her stepfather while correcting her date of birth.
• Upon reaching the age of 22, the petitioner contended that parentage and surname are essential attributes of personality and dignity.
• She argued that the continued reflection of her stepfather as her biological father in public records caused prejudice and required rectification to reflect her true paternal identity.

‘Grievance relates to her continuing civil identity’

• The change in the entry relating to the father’s name is directly traceable to the order passed by a competent court.
• The respondents have acted in compliance with that order.
• In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the alteration was effected without the authority of law.
• So long as the order dated June 18, 2015, remains valid and operative, the consequential entry in the Register of Births cannot be held to be illegal.
• It is well settled that the writ jurisdiction of this court cannot be invoked to indirectly nullify or circumvent a subsisting judicial order.
• If the petitioner is aggrieved by the manner in which her parentage has been described in the said order, or if she contends that the order does not reflect the true factual position, the appropriate course would be to challenge the order dated June 18, 2015, before the competent forum in accordance with law.
• It is necessary to address the aspect of limitation.
• If the petitioner initiates appropriate proceedings challenging the order, the question of limitation shall be considered by the competent court in the light of the fact that the petitioner was a minor at the relevant point in time and that the grievance relates to her continuing civil identity.
• It is further clarified that the period during which the petitioner was a minor shall not operate to her prejudice, and the plea of limitation shall not, by itself, stand in the way of adjudication on merits.