The petitioner, a resident of Ranip, approached HC because he was having trouble getting the child admitted to a school with his name as the father. The child’s mother had contracted a second marriage with him after her divorce from the first husband. The applicant had adopted her child and an adoption certificate was prepared and duly registered with a civil status office.
On March 3, the petitioner asked the AMC to make changes to the child’s birth certificate by replacing the biological father’s name with his own. On March 24, he received a response from the civic body that he would need an order from a competent court to make the correction in the birth certificate. He applied to the High Court through Barrister Bakul Panchal, and the court issued an opinion to the AMC.
In response to the notice, AMC’s attorney argued that the adoptive father withdrew his request on March 21. This led the petitioner’s attorney to raise a question about AMC’s order to dismiss the claim on the merits.
He claimed that a valid, registered adoption certificate is the only requirement for such a correction in the birth certificate, but AMC unnecessarily insisted on the court order. After hearing these arguments, Judge VD Nanavati asked the civic body to file a response to the motion on June 6.