SACHIN NARAYANA PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As both these writ petitions involve a common issue, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed by this common judgment.

(2.) The petitioners in both these writ petitions are wife and husband respectively, and in their respective writ petitions they are both aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent Municipality to issue a birth certificate in respect of their second child showing the name of the child as per their respective wishes. The facts in these writ petitions would indicate that the petitioners were married as per Christian Rites on 29.08.2010. The petitioner in WP(C) No.6457 of 2017 has a case that on the very next day, there was another ceremony conducted in accordance with the Hindu Rites and there is a marriage certificate certifying the marriage as per Hindu Rites as well. Two children were admittedly born in the wedlock and they were born on 09.10.2011 and 20.09.2013 respectively. The first child was given the name "Siddharth Sachin", Sachin being the first name of the father of the children, who is the petitioner in WP(C) No. 6457 of 2017. After the birth of the second child, the relationship between the petitioners in both these writ petitions became strained and it appears that proceedings are pending before the Family Court for dissolution of the marriage and incidental matters such as custody of the children etc. It is while so, that the need for a birth certificate in respect of the second child has arisen, since the second child is now stated to be of school going age and it would be a necessary pre-requisite for the second child to attend school to get a birth certificate in his name.

(3.) While the mother of the child states that the child was baptised with the name "Johan Mani Sachin" as evidenced by Ext.P15 baptism certificate, it is the case of the father of the child that the name, that was agreed to between the parents, for the second child was "Abhinav Sachin", as this was the name that was given to the child on the 28th day ceremony. In the application filed by both the parties before the Municipality, the Registrar of Births and Deaths of the Municipality, the 2nd respondent in WP(C) No.19913 of 2017, took a stand that in the absence of a consensus between the parents of the child, the Municipality could not assign a name to the child for the purposes of issuing a birth certificate in respect of the child. It is also indicated that in the absence of a consensus, a Court order would be required for the Municipality to act. It is faced with this predicament that, both these writ petitions have been filed by the respective parents of the child.