DNA report mandatory for changing father's name in birth certificate, rules High Court

Kochi: The Kerala High Court has ruled that a father's name on a birth certificate cannot be altered without a DNA report and a court order.

The court clarified that registrars are only empowered to correct clerical errors, irregularly added details or mistakes resulting from changes in official formats. Disputes related to paternity that require legal examination must be resolved through trial and judicial intervention.

Delivering the order, Justice C S Dias also allowed a petition challenging the inclusion of another man's name as the father on a birth certificate issued by the Payyannur municipality. The municipality had made the change based on an application submitted by the petitioner’s estranged wife and her partner.

As per Section 112 of the Kerala Birth and Death Registration Rules, if a child is born during a valid marriage or within 280 days of separation and contact with another man cannot be proven, the husband is presumed to be the father.

A circular issued by the Local Self Government Department on December 16, 2015, also mandates a DNA report, a consent agreement, testified by a notary and a court verdict for changing the father's name in official records.

The court noted that these conditions were not met in this case, rendering the correction invalid. It directed that any such legally binding correction must follow proper procedures, including a thorough review of the application.

The case
The petitioner married on May 26 2010, and their son’s birth was registered on March 7, 2011. After the delivery, his wife returned to her family home and subsequently went missing with the child.

She later reappeared in court in response to a habeas corpus petition filed by the petitioner. During the proceedings, she expressed her wish to live with her partner, leading to the dismissal of the petition and formal separation from the petitioner.

Later, through a Right to Information (RTI) request, the petitioner learned that his wife and her partner had applied for and obtained a correction in the birth certificate, replacing his name with that of her partner. The petitioner moved the court, arguing that this change was made without his knowledge or consent.

The municipality explained that the registrar had processed the correction based on a hospital record, a certificate from the village officer, affidavits from two individuals, and the child’s SSLC certificate.

However, the court observed that the child was born during a valid marriage and there was no legal challenge or dispute regarding the petitioner’s paternity. It further noted that the original entry in the birth register had never been alleged to be a clerical error. Concluding that the change was made without following the required legal protocols and the circular by the LSG department, the court ordered the correction to be annulled.