It is most significant to note that in a praiseworthy, progressive and pragmatic step, the Kerala High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled XXX & Ors vs State of Kerala & Ors in W.P.(C) No. 44739 of 2024 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2026:KER:17057 that was pronounced just recently on February 23, 2026 has minced absolutely just no words to hold in no uncertain terms that men too are entitled to dignity and self-respect while allowing the correction of the father’s name in the birth certificate of a child born from an extra-marital relationship between the child’s mother and another man. It must be noted that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice PV Kunhikrishnan while taking note of and appreciating the former husband’s decision not to oppose the mother’s plea seeking alteration of the child’s birth certificate to reflect a change in the father’s name granted permission to a married woman and her lover to change the father’s name on the birth certificate of a girl born from their relationship replacing the name of her legally wedded husband with that of the biological father. We also need to note that the Kerala High Court observed that this is a sad story of an unfortunate man whose wife led an adulterous life with another man while her marital relationship with him was still in existence.
While mincing absolutely just no words, the Bench was most unequivocal in holding that, “I am of the opinion that, in a situation like this, all should stand behind the men as well, because they too have dignity, pride, self-respect, and social identity. In cultures like ours, where marital fidelity holds strong social value, a husband may feel publicly ridiculed in such a situation as if his manhood and status have been mocked.” Absolutely right! No denying or disputing it!
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice PV Kunhikrishnan sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth most commendably in para 1 that, “This Court in Balachandra Menon v. State of Kerala [2024 KHC 1634] observed that pride and dignity are not only to woman, but also for men. The present case is also a sad story of an unfortunate man whose wife led an adulterous life with another man while the marital relationship with him was in existence. A child was also born in her illicit relationship with that man. Usually, if the husband has an illicit relationship with another woman, that will be a big story, and the man will be humiliated to the extent possible by the wife and her relatives. Of course, there will be genuine grievance on the part of the wife toward her husband in such cases, and the husband may deserve it. I am of the opinion that, in a situation like this in this case, all should stand behind the men as well, because they too have dignity, pride, self-respect, and social identity. In cultures like ours, where marital fidelity holds strong social value, a husband may feel publicly ridiculed in such a situation, as if his manhood and status have been mocked.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 while elaborating briefly on the facts of the case stating that, “I will narrate the facts in brief: The 1st petitioner is the mother of the 3rd petitioner. The 1st petitioner initially married the additional 4th respondent, and the marriage was solemnised on 23.04.2006. There was a male child in that relationship, and he is now a major. After marriage, the 4th respondent was working in Bangalore as an Accountant. According to the 1st petitioner, the 4th respondent was not taking care of the family as a husband and was not satisfying the needs of the 1st petitioner. When the marital relationship of the 1st petitioner with the 4th respondent was in existence, the 1st petitioner fell in love with the 2nd petitioner and conceived a child in that relationship with the 2nd petitioner. The 3rd petitioner, a girl child, was born out of the relationship between the 1st and 2nd petitioner, when the marital relationship of the 1st petitioner with the 4th respondent was in existence. Ext. P1 is the birth certificate of the 3rd petitioner, and in that birth certificate, the 4th respondent is shown as the father of the 3rd petitioner and the date of birth of the child is shown as 20.09.2017. The child continued with the 1st petitioner and the 4th respondent. According to the petitioners, the 4th respondent engaged in heated arguments that led to prolonged fights in the matrimonial house, denying the biological parenthood of the 3rd petitioner. Therefore, the 1st petitioner left the house of the 4th respondent on 02.02.2023 at 4 pm. The 4th respondent lodged a missing FIR of his wife, which led to the registration of Ext.P2 FIR by the Vellikulangara Police Station. According to the petitioners, the marriage between the 1st petitioner and the 4th respondent was problematic for the above reason, and matters worsened, leading the 1st petitioner and the 4th respondent to decide to obtain a divorce by mutual consent. Accordingly, Ext.P3 order was passed by the Family Court, Irinjalakuda, ordering divorce on 04.04.2023. After the divorce, the 1st petitioner married the 2nd petitioner. Ext.P4 is the marriage certificate of the same. According to the petitioners, since the name of the father in the birth certificate of the 3rd petitioner is wrongly shown as the 4th respondent, the school authorities informed the petitioners that the child will not be permitted to continue her studies in the said school if the birth certificate bearing the proper name of the father is not produced within the specified time. Hence, the petitioner prayed for changing the entry of the father’s name of the 3rd petitioner to that of the 2nd petitioner instead of the 4th respondent. Hence, this writ petition.”
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 9 that, “Even after the marriage of the 1st petitioner with the 2nd petitioner, and even after knowing that the 3rd petitioner is the child of the 1st petitioner in the relationship with the 2nd petitioner during the subsistence of the marriage between the 1st petitioner and the 4th respondent, the 4th respondent has not filed any petition to change the birth certificate of the 3rd petitioner for correcting the father’s name in it as the 2nd petitioner. That shows the gentlemanly behaviour of the 4th respondent and his affection towards the child, who was with him till the 1st petitioner eloped with the 2nd petitioner, taking the child. It seems that he does not want the public to know that the 3rd petitioner is a child born in an illicit relationship between petitioners 1 and 2 during the subsistence of the lawful marriage between 1st petitioner and the 4th respondent. I think the 4th respondent does not want to embarrass the child when the child becomes a major, and that may be one of the reasons for not approaching the authorities to correct the father’s name. But petitioners 1 and 2 filed this writ petition stating that the father’s name of the 3rd petitioner, as entered in Ext.P1 birth certificate, is to be changed, and the name of the 2nd petitioner is to be added. That shows that the 1st petitioner admits her adulterous life with the 2nd petitioner when her marital relationship with the 4th respondent was in existence. Moreover, this petition was filed without impleading the fourth respondent, and the petitioners, Nos. 1 and 2, seek an order behind the back of the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent was impleaded as directed by this court. Again, the 1st and 2nd petitioners did not even mask the minor child’s name in this writ petition. That shows their attitude towards that innocent child, as well as their attitude towards the fourth respondent. Here is a case where the 1st petitioner submitted before this Court that she was living in adultery with the 2nd petitioner when her marital relationship with the 4th respondent was in existence. She became pregnant in the year 2017 and gave birth to the 3rd petitioner. At that time, the 1st petitioner was also aware that the 3rd petitioner was not the child of the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent, who is an unfortunate husband, on a bona fide belief that he is the father of the 3rd petitioner, informed the hospital authorities that he is the father of the 3rd petitioner, and accordingly, in the birth register, his name was entered as the father of the child. Thereafter, years have elapsed. In 2023, when the 3rd petitioner’s minor child was 6 years old, the 1st petitioner eloped with the 2nd petitioner. That is why I said that the 4th respondent is an unfortunate husband. As I mentioned earlier, not only women but also men have dignity, pride, and individuality. If the 1st petitioner wants to continue the relationship with the 2nd petitioner, there is no problem with her leaving the 4th respondent and staying with the 2nd petitioner. A perusal of the FIR would show that there was some dispute between the 1st petitioner and the 4th respondent about the illicit relationship of petitioners 1 and 2. Even then, the 4th respondent does not want to leave the 1st petitioner. That again shows the gentlemanly attitude of the 4th respondent. Again, as I said earlier, the 4th respondent does not want to change the name of the father of the 3rd petitioner in the birth certificate by filing any application before the authority. Here, petitioners 1 and 2 filed this writ petition, stating that the father’s name of the 3rd petitioner should be changed and that the 2nd petitioner’s name should be added as the father’s name, without impleading the 4th respondent. The ground mentioned in the writ petition is that the school authorities stated that the child will not be allowed to study unless the father’s name is changed. I cannot believe the petitioners’ statements. How do the school authorities know that the fourth respondent is not the father of the third petitioner, unless the petitioners also made it public to the school authorities? Moreover, it is difficult to accept the petitioners’ claim that the school authorities insist that the father’s name of the third petitioner is to be changed to allow the child to continue at the school. Therefore, the attitude of petitioners 1 and 2 is to be deprecated, and they are not entitled to any relief from this Court, as this Court is exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is a discretionary jurisdiction.”
Finally, the Bench then concludes by directing and holding in para 10 that, “Even then, this Court cannot dismiss the writ petition considering the plight of the 3rd petitioner, who is the minor child and also the innocent former husband of the 1st petitioner, who is the 4th respondent herein. The counsel who appeared for the 4th respondent submitted before this Court that his client has no objection to the correction of the birth certificate as prayed for by petitioners 1 and 2. That is the gentlemanly attitude of the 4th respondent. Moreover, the 3rd petitioner is a minor girl. I do not want her to be in an embarrassing situation when she becomes major, if the father’s name is not correctly mentioned in the birth register. Therefore, considering the plight of the minor child and the gentlemanly attitude of the 4th respondent, I think the correction can be allowed, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. If this court finds an injustice to a citizen, it can step in to redress it and ensure complete justice. This court must also imagine the minor child’s future. Let the name of the 3rd petitioner’s father be correctly mentioned in the birth register before she become major. Let there be a quietus. But the Registry shall mask the names of the 3rd petitioner and 4th respondent in the cause title of the judgment when uploading it to the official site of this Court. Even if the 1st and 2nd petitioner is not bothered about the same while filing the writ petition by masking the name of the child, this court exercises the principle of ‘Parens patriae’ rule and protects the privacy of the child. The 4th respondent is also entitled to privacy, and his name should be masked as well. The registry will provide sufficient certified copies of the judgment, along with the details of the 3rd petitioner and 4th respondent, in a separate sealed cover, if a copy application is filed by the petitioners for the purpose of producing the judgment before the 2nd respondent. Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following manner:
1. Petitioners are free to submit an application before the competent authority of the 2nd respondent for correction of the father’s name of the 3rd petitioner in Ext.P1 birth certificate, as the 2nd petitioner instead of the 4th respondent.
2. If such an application is received, the competent authority of the 2nd respondent is directed to correct the father’s name of the 3rd petitioner as the 2nd petitioner by making a suitable entry in the margin of the register without any alteration of the original entry, and shall sign the marginal entry and add thereto the date of correction or cancellation. Based on that correction in the register, a fresh birth certificate should be issued to the petitioners within 30 days of receipt of the application.
3. Registry shall mask the name of the 3rd petitioner and the 4th respondent in the cause title of the judgment while uploading to the official site of this Court. The registry will provide sufficient number of certified copies of the judgment, along with the details of the 3rd petitioner and 4th respondent, in a separate sealed cover, if a copy application is filed for the purpose of producing the judgment before the 2nd respondent by the petitioners.”
In a nutshell, we thus see that the Kerala High Court described the case as a painful situation for the former husband whose marital life had been affected by the extra-marital relationship of his wife. In this leading case, the Bench allowed the correction of the father’s name in the birth certificate of the minor girl who was born during the marriage of her mother but from an extra-marital relationship with another man. While exercising its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Bench rightly applauded the conduct of her former husband who had no problem in allowing the correction while also acknowledging the dignity and social standing of the former husband whose name was earlier recorded as the father. The Bench further very rightly directed the petitioners to approach the competent authority of the Thrissur Municipal Corporation with an application for correction of the father’s name in the birth register. In the fitness of things, the Bench took potshots at the petitioners for not masking the name of the minor child while filing the petition and directed the Registry to mask the names of both the child and former husband while publishing the judgment! Very rightly so!
Sanjeev Sirohi