High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition disposed of with directions

Alimon C.H. v. Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Pandalam Municipality and Registrar of Births and Deaths

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No.14671 of 2021
Neutral Citation::

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Sathish Ninan
Judgment Date
2021-10-20
Court Decision / Holding
The writ petition is disposed of with directions: (i) The third respondent shall accept and consider the application for correction of the birth entry of Shameena Rahim; (ii) The petitioner shall surrender the original Ext.P9 birth certificate along with the application; (iii) The petitioner shall swear an affidavit authorizing filing on behalf of his wife and file the affidavit; (iv) The petitioner shall obtain affidavits from his wife through Notary or Indian Embassy in Malta; (v) On fulfillment, the third respondent shall obtain concurrence from the Chief Registrar and pass orders without delay; the directions aim to facilitate correction given the urgency.
Final Disposition
Writ petition disposed of with directions

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Alimon C.H

Respondents

  • Secretary, Local Self Government Department
  • Secretary, Pandalam Municipality
  • Registrar of Births and Deaths

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Ajeesh S. Brite
  • • Abhilash Augustine
  • • Stephy Joseph
  • • Sereena P.A.
  • • Saju K. Perutty

Counsels for Respondents

  • • K.R. Radhakrishnan Nair
  • • T.S. Maya
  • • Bimal K. Nath

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, Alimon C.H., challenges the refusal of the Registrar of Births and Deaths to accept and consider his wife Shameena Rahim’s application for correction of her date of birth in the birth certificate and for inclusion of her name in the register. Shameena’s birth is recorded as 15.06.1989 in Ext.P9, but the petitioner argues the correct date is 15.06.1988, a position supported by multiple documents: marriage certificate (Ext.P1), Aadhaar (Ext.P2), Voter ID (Ext.P3), SSLC (Ext.P4), passport (Ext.P5) and Malta college offer letter (Ext.P6). The case situates the matter within the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, and Kerala Rules, 1999, notably sections 14 and 15 with Rules 10 and 11, and a 1997 circular; case law from Chalakudy Municipality, Thomas Jacob and Abdul Rahiman is cited to show that authorities can correct misentries upon establishing genuine error, with five-year limits requiring Chief Registrar permission. The court acknowledges the wife’s current absence in India and urgency due to visa expiry, and directs that the application be accepted and considered, subject to conditions: the original Ext.P9 be surrendered; the applicant to furnish a notarized authorisation; the wife’s affidavit via Notary or Indian Embassy; and on fulfillment, Chief Registrar concurrence is to be obtained before final orders are passed, enabling timely correction.

Provisions of Law Cited

Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999Section 14 of the Act read with Rule 10Section 15 of the Act read with Rule 11Circular dated 24.03.1997 issued by the Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Power to correct entries in birth/death registers where genuine mistakes are proved; corrections beyond five years require Chief Registrar's permission.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that his wife’s correct date of birth is 15.06.1988, supported by multiple documents, and that the incorrect date 15.06.1989 in Ext.P9 is an error; he seeks correction under the Births and Deaths Act and Rules with urgency due to international travel and visa expiry; corrections beyond five years require Chief Registrar’s permission; given the factual matrix, the court should permit filing, with conditions (affidavits, Notary, embassy) so that the Registrar can pass orders after Chief Registrar concurrence.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents emphasize adherence to statutory procedure under the Births and Deaths Act and Rules; corrections beyond five years require permission of the Chief Registrar; the court should ensure proper process and not bypass statutory requirements; however, the final relief granted indicates willingness to facilitate correction under urgency.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Chalakkudy Municipality and Another v. Malavika and Another2009 (4) KLT 714 (DB)PositiveCited to support that authorities have ample power to order corrections in birth/death registers when there is a genuine mistake.
Thomas Jacob v. Registrar of Births and Deaths2011 (3) KLT 461PositiveCited to reinforce the view that corrections can be ordered for genuine errors in the register.
Abdul Rahiman v. Registrar of Births and Deaths2016 (4) KLJ 60PositiveCited as authority supporting corrective action for genuine mistakes.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Alimon C.H. v. Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Pandalam Municipality and Registrar of Births and Deaths and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 28TH ASWINA, 1943** **WP(C) NO. 14671 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER:** ALIMON C.H AGED 32 YEARS S/O.MOIDEEN,RESIDING AT CHERUVUKALAYIL HOUSE,KATTAPPANA,KATTAPPANAP.O, IDUKKI, KERALA-685508. BY ADVS. AJEESH S.BRITE ABHILASH AUGUSTINE M. STEPHY JOSEPH SEREENA P.A. SAJU.K.PERUTTY ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT 3RD FLOOR,NORTH BLOCK, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001. 2 SECRETARY, PANDALAM MUNICIPAL OFFICE,BUS STAND JUNCTION,PANDALAM, PANDALA.P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,PIN-689501. 3 REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS, PANDALAM MUNICIPAL OFFICE,BUS STAND JUNCTION,PANDALAM, PANDALAM.P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,PIN-689501. BY ADVS. K.R.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR SHRI.K.R.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, SC, PANDALAM MUNICIPALITY SMT.T.S.MAYA, SC, PANDALAM MUNCIPALITY BY SRI.BIMAL K. NATH, SR. GOVT. PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **SATHISH NINAN, J.** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W. P. (C) No.14671 of 2021 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 20[th] day of October, 2021** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the failure on the part of the third respondent Registrar of Births and Deaths to accept and consider the petitioner's application for correction of date of birth of the petitioner's wife-Shameena Rahim and also seeking incorporation of her name in the birth certificate. 2. The law regarding registration of births and deaths are the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and the Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999. Section 14 of the Act read with Rule 10 deals with registration of the name of the child. Section 15 of the Act read with Rule 11 deals with correction of entries in the register of birth and deaths. As per circular dated 24.03.1997 issued by the Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths, any correction **W. P. (C) No.14671 of 2021** **==> picture [34 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** sought for after five years can be made only with the permission of the Chief Registrar. That in terms of the above provisions, the authorities have ample power to order correction of mistaken entries in the registers, provided the authorities are convinced/satisfied of the errors that has occurred in the register, has been held by this Court in _**Chalakkudy Municipality and Another v. Malavika and Another [2009 (4) KLT 714 (DB)], Thomas Jacob v. Registrar of Births and Deaths [2011 (3) KLT 461]**_ and _**Abdul Rahiman v. Registrar of Births and Deaths [2016 (4) KLJ 60]**_ . 3. Now coming to the facts of this case, the petitioner is the husband of Shameena Rahim. Their marriage was solemnized on 24.01.2016 as is evidenced by Ext.P1 Marriage Certificate issued by the Municipality. The petitioner's wife-Shameena Rahim is now in Malta in relation to her studies-undergraduate certificate in Nursing studies at Malta College of Arts, Science and Technology. To complete the registration process of her ## **W. P. (C) No.14671 of 2021** -: 3 :- course, birth certificate is necessary. Accordingly Ext.P8 application was submitted before the third respondent through her mother. On the application Ext.P9 birth certificate dated 01.07.2021 was issued. In the birth certificate, the name of the child is shown as, 'not registered' and the date of birth was shown as **15.06.1989** . The correct date of birth of Shameena Rahim is **15.06.1988** . All the other particulars including the name of the parents are correctly stated. The petitioner asserts that the date of birth of his wife is 15.06.1988 but has been erroneously shown in the birth certificate (Ext.P9) as 15.06.1989. The petitioner relies on the following documents to substantiate that the year mentioned in Ext.P9 birth certificate as 1989 instead 1988 is erroneous: - (a) **Marriage Certificate** showing date of birth as **15.06.1988** - (b) **Aadhar** Card showing year of birth shown as **1988** - (c) **Voters identity card** showing date of birth as **W. P. (C) No.14671 of 2021** -: 4 :- ## **15.06.1988** (d) **Secondary School Leaving Certificate** showing date of birth as **15.06.1988** (e) **Passport** showing date of birth as **15.06.1988** (f) Offer letter issued from the Malta College of Arts, Science and Technology showing date of birth as **15.06.1988** . 4. As held by this Court, the Registrar is to consider the application and if satisfied that there is a genuine mistake/error that has crept in the register of births he can order correction. The request having been made beyond five years, corrections could be done only with the permission of the Chief Registrar. Be that as it may, it is for the authorities to consider the application in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. Since Shameena Rahim-the wife of the petitioner is presently at Malta and her mother is also stated to be not in India now, considering the urgency pointed out namely that the visa has expired on 29-06-2021, the **W. P. (C) No.14671 of 2021** -: 5 :- petitioner could be permitted to submit application with conditions imposed. 5. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:- - (i) The third respondent shall accept and consider the application, if any, submitted by the petitioner with respect to the corrections - as first above mentioned, in the birth register of the petitioner's wife-Shameena Rahim. - (ii) The petitioner shall surrender the - original of Ext.P9 birth certificate along with the application. - (iii) The petitioner shall swear to an affidavit before a Notary Public that he has been duly authorised by his wife-Shameena Rahim to file the application, and file the affidavit along with the application. ## **W. P. (C) No.14671 of 2021** -: 6 :- - (iv) In the course of the proceedings, the petitioner shall submit an affidavit sworn to by his wife-Shameena Rahim before a Notary Public or before the Indian Embassy at Malta, swearing to the submission of the application by the petitioner on her behalf. - (v) On fulfilment of the conditions as above, - the 3[rd] respondent shall, on obtaining concurrence from the Chief Registrar pass orders on the application without delay and taking due note of the urgency pointed out by the petitioner. Sd/- **SATHISH NINAN** **JUDGE** kns/- //True Copy// P.S. to Judge ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14671/2021** ## PETITIONER EXHIBITS |Exhibit P1|TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED| |---|---| ||BY<br>THE<br>LOCAL<br>REGISTRAR<br>KATTAPPANA| ||MUNICIPALITY DATED 22/07/2016.| |Exhibit P2|TRUE COPY OF THE AADHAR CARD NO.8323 5574| ||2184 IN FAVOUR OF THE WIFE OF THE PETITIONER.| |Exhibit P3|TRUE COPY OF THE VOTERS IDENTITY CARD ISSUED| ||BY THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA DATED| ||03/06/2013.| |Exhibit P4|TRUE COPY OF THE SECONDARY SCHOOL LEAVING| ||CERTIFICATE ISSUED DATED 31/05/2004.| |Exhibit P5|TRUE COPY OF THE PASSPORT NO.K1078389 ISSUED| ||BY THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE AT KOCHI| ||DATED 07/05/2012.| |Exhibit P6|TRUE COPY OF THE OFFER LETTER DATED| ||23/12/2020 ISSUED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER| ||MALTA COLLEGE OF ARTS,SCIENE AND TECHNOLOGY.| |Exhibit P7|TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE| ||ADMINISTRATOR,NSS MEDICAL MISSION HOSPITAL| ||DATED 19/03/2021| |Exhibit P8|TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE| ||MOTHER<br>OF<br>MRS.SHAMEENA<br>RAHIM<br>DATED| ||22/06/2021.| |Exhibit P9|TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE| ||NO.B0020425-89061871433 ISSUED BY REGISTRAR| ||OF BIRTH AND DEATH,PANDALAM MUNICIPALITY| |Exhibit P10|TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED| ||BY<br>THE<br>LOCAL<br>REGISTRAR<br>KATTAPPANA| ||MUNICIPALITY DATED 22/07/2016.| -----