Mother Cannot Seek Birth Certificate Naming Only Herself: Bombay High Court Terms Petition 'Ego-Driven' While Dismissing With Costs

The Bombay High Court dismissed a Writ Petition filed by a woman seeking to be recorded as the sole parent in her child’s birth certificate while omitting the name of the biological father.

The Court criticized the petitioner’s approach as “ego-driven” and found that the plea undermined the welfare of the child, which is the paramount consideration in such matters.

The Division Bench of Justice Mangesh S. Patil and Justice YG Khobragade observed that the petition reflected a growing trend of multiplicity of litigation arising from matrimonial disputes, which often spiral into various legal actions such as divorce, custody battles, domestic violence cases, and maintenance claims.

The Court remarked that this petition was “an addition in that series” and displayed the extent to which parents embroiled in marital discord can go to satisfy personal grievances, disregarding the best interests of the child.

"This petition substantiates a common experience as to how a matrimonial dispute is genesis for multiple litigations. Apart from the series of litigations in the form of divorce proceedings, restitution proceedings, domestic violence cases, maintenance, and child custody, the present petition in that series is an addition. This demonstrates as to what extent the parents embroiled in a matrimonial dispute can go to satisfy their ego," the Bench said.

Background

The petitioner, the estranged wife of Respondent No. 3, approached the Court seeking a writ of mandamus against the municipal authorities (Respondent No. 2), directing them to issue a birth certificate for her child naming only her as the parent, effectively treating the child as born to a single mother.

Citing earlier judgments in ABC v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (2018) and ABC v. Mumbai Municipal Corporation (2018), the petitioner sought to justify her claim, arguing that since the father (Respondent No. 3) had not even seen the child and was addicted to vices, she should be entitled to have her name recorded alone.

Court’s Observations

The High Court, however, rejected this argument outright, stating, “It is quite evident that the petitioner, in order to satisfy her ego, is not bothered about the interest of the child. The very request for recording her name as a single parent undermines the child’s interest.”

The Court noted that the child was not even made a party to the petition and condemned the attempt to treat the child like property, over which the petitioner claimed exclusive rights.

The Bench observed, “One wonders as to how a mother, for whatever reason, could wish to mask its paternity… Only because she alleges the father never saw the child and is addicted to vices, she cannot claim a right to be recorded as a single parent.”

The Bench further clarified that the ABC cases relied upon by the petitioner involved unwed mothers, which was not the case here, as the petitioner herself acknowledged that the child was born out of wedlock with the respondent.

Even in the Supreme Court judgment in ABC v. Union of India, the Court had ensured that the identity of the father was preserved in a sealed envelope, underscoring the child’s right to know the identity of both parents.

The High Court reiterated that neither parent has the right to unilaterally decide the identity of the child in official records. “This clearly underscores the right of a child—how he wishes to be known by society. Neither of the parents can exercise any right in respect of the child’s birth record.”

Dismissal and Costs

Calling the petition a “sheer abuse of process and waste of precious time,” the Court dismissed it with costs of Rs. 5,000, to be deposited within two weeks, failing which recovery shall be made as arrears of land revenue.

Cause Title: ABC v. The Commissioner [Neutral Citation No. 2025:BHC-AUG:9522-DB]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Advocates Sanket S. Kulkarni, Suvidh S. Kulkarni

Click here to read/download the Order