SOHAM SANATBHAI SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Mr. Vinay Pandya, learned AGP and Mr. D. G. Nanavati, learned counsel waive service of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to 4 respectively.

(2.) IN this petition, the petitioner has prayed for appropriate writ, order or direction to be issued to respondent No. 3 authority of Vadodara Municipal Corporation to correct the name in the Birth Certificate of adoptive one year old baby from "surbhi" to "ren".

(3.) IT is contended by the petitioner that the child was born at the Home for Women protection. It is, therefore, obvious that, either the name of the mother or father would not be intimated to the Corporation about the birth of the child. The Administrators managing the affairs of the protection home tentatively arranged to enter her name as "surbhi" in the Birth Certificate of the Vadodara Municipal Corporation on 9th Oct. 2006. There is no dispute as to the date of birth, i. e. 26. 9. 2006, and accordingly the Birth Certificate was issued by respondent Corporation. Since the petitioner was not having any child, the petitioner and his wife, Bhargaviben showed their willingness to adopt one year old baby "surbhi" from State Home for Women, Vadodara. After necessary formalities, the child was ordered to be handed over to the petitioner by order dated 9. 8. 2007 passed by the Principal District Judge, Vadodara, passed under Section 9 (4) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 which is at Annexure. B at page No. 13 of the petition and the Certificate of Guardianship was also granted on 27. 8. 2007, which is at Annexure. C at page No. 18 to the petition. The formal deed of adoption has been executed by the Superintendent of State Home for Women, Nizampura, Vadodara.