New Delhi, Feb 5 (PTI) Dissolution of a marriage does not efface the parental status of the mother and father of a child, the Delhi High Court has observed while allowing a man’s plea to have his name reflected in the school records of his minor son.
The high court said when the man was alive, there was no justification for his ex-wife to remove the father’s name in the school admission form of their son and replace it with the name of her second husband.
It said while the woman has every right to have her name reflected in the school records as the mother of the minor, that cannot authorise her to refuse the man’s right to have his name also entered in the documents as the child’s father.
“The dissolution of a marriage does not efface the parental status of the mother and father of the child borne out of the said marriage,” Justice C Hari Shankar said.
The court said the prayer of the man to have his name reflected in the school record as the father of the child cannot be refused.
“In these circumstances, this court deems it appropriate, while allowing the prayer of the petitioner to have his name reflected in the record of (school) as the father of (child), to direct the school to reflect, alongside, the name of (woman) as his mother. The school is directed to take necessary corrective steps within a period of two weeks,” it said.
The court was deciding the man’s plea seeking a direction to the school to correct its records and reflect his name as the father of the child.
The child was born in March 2006 and was first admitted to a school in 2012. In the two schools where he studied till March 2016, the man’s name was recorded in the documents as the boy’s father.
The grievance of the petitioner was that his name was not reflecting in the school records where his son has been studying since 2016 and instead the name of the woman’s second husband was appearing as the guardian of the child.
The court noted that certain matrimonial disputes arose between the estranged couple resulting in annulment of their marriage by a divorce decree granted in June 2015 by a family court.
In her counter affidavit, the woman did not dispute that the petitioner was the child’s father but stated that her relations with the man were so acrimonious that she does not “want to carry the legacy of the name of the petitioner to be linked with her minor son” as her present husband has accepted the boy as his own son and showers fatherly love and affection upon him.
The court, however, said the assertions in the woman’s reply revealed that they were driven more by emotion than by law.
“Howsoever, acrimonious the relationship between the woman and the petitioner may be, neither can the nature of the relations between them, nor the divorce that has taken place between them, divest the petitioner of his stature as the father of the child,” the judge said. PTI SKV DV DV
About the Author
