Court order not needed to change adopted child’s name: Bombay high court

A registered adoption deed is sufficient to change an adopted child’s name, as reflected in the birth certificate, the Bombay high court recently ruled and directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to reconsider its September 2014 circular, stipulating that the adoption deed must be accompanied by a court order for amendments.

A registered adoption deed is sufficient to change an adopted child’s name, as reflected in the birth certificate, the Bombay high court recently ruled and directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to reconsider its September 2014 circular, stipulating that the adoption deed must be accompanied by a court order for amendments.

The bench directed the higher authorities of BMC to relook into the circular and make appropriate changes in view of the orders passed by high court from time to time. (HT file photo)

“The procedure adopted by the corporation shall be reasonable… and necessary care must be taken that no inconvenience is caused to citizens,” said a division bench of justices Naresh Patil and MS Karnik.

The bench directed the higher authorities of BMC to relook into the circular and make appropriate changes in view of the orders passed by high court from time to time.

The directive came on a petition filed by a Kandivli (East) resident, who was adopted by a relative in January 2011 through a registered adoption deed. In February 2016, the adoptive father approached the civic body to change the middle name of the child.

Although civic officials did not give any written response to the application, the father was orally told that the registered adoption deed was not enough and a court order was required for approval.

The demand for a court approval compelled the father to approach the high court.

The court asked the civic authorities to issue a revised birth certificate to the petitioner, should he or his adoptive father file an application along with necessary documents and the adoption deed.

In its defence, the civic body argued that the circular was based on instructions from the deputy director, health.