Can a child be stopped to carry the name of a father? In a judgment, the Bombay High Court says identity must reflect reality, not outdated formats.
MAHARASHTRA: The Bombay High Court has ruled that a child who is raised only by her mother cannot be forced to carry the father’s name or caste in school records if he has no role in her life. The Court made it clear that official records must reflect the real-life situation of the child and not blindly follow old institutional practices that automatically give priority to the father’s identity.
A Division Bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Hiten S. Venegavkar passed the order while setting aside a communication dated 02.06.2025 issued by education authorities. The authorities had earlier rejected the mother’s request to correct her daughter’s name and caste in school records. The High Court quashed that rejection and directed the school to replace the father’s name and surname with that of the mother in the general register and all related records, after verifying the Gazette notification.
The Court observed:
“The Constitution’s promise is not that the State will preserve old social assumptions; it is that the State will protect dignity and equal citizenship, particularly for children, who cannot be made to bear the consequences of adult conduct or social prejudice”.
The case involved a 12-year-old girl who is in the exclusive custody of her mother. The biological father under a recorded settlement gave up all relationship, responsibility, and involvement in the child’s upbringing. Since then, the mother alone has raised the child and acted as her sole parent and natural guardian.
After getting a Gazette notification, the mother applied to the school authorities to change her daughter’s name and caste in school records. However, her request was rejected on the ground that the Secondary School Code did not allow such corrections.
The High Court disagreed with this rigid interpretation. It held that administrative registers are meant to record the true and existing factual position. They cannot be used to permanently freeze identity even when circumstances have clearly changed.
The Bench further stated:
“We would be failing in our constitutional role if we did not state, plainly, what is at stake. Recognition of a single mother as a complete parent for purposes of a child’s civic identity is not an act of charity; it is constitutional fidelity. It reflects the movement from patriarchal compulsion to constitutional choice, from lineage as fate to dignity as right”.
The Court also directed that the child’s caste be recorded as “Scheduled Caste – Mahar” based on the mother’s caste. It allowed the mother to apply for a caste certificate for the child on that basis and instructed the competent authority to decide the claim by carefully examining the facts, without insisting on paternal documents.
The Bench noted that the State’s own Government Resolution already mandates inclusion of the mother’s name in official records, showing a policy approach based on equality and dignity. It emphasized that paternal identity cannot be treated as permanently fixed when custody, welfare, and lived reality clearly point otherwise.
According to the Court, forcing a child raised only by her mother to carry the father’s name in public records violates the right to dignity under Article 21 and the guarantee of equality under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. It stated that automatically treating the father’s identity as the default civic identity places a structural burden on women and their children and continues inequality through paperwork.
The Bench relied on the Full Bench decision in Janabai d/o Himmatrao Thakur v State of Maharashtra and held that correction of name, surname, or caste can fall within the category of an “obvious mistake” and cannot be rejected through blanket refusal.
On the issue of caste, the Court clarified that schools are not bodies meant to decide caste disputes. While safeguards against misuse must remain, a rigid rule that caste must always follow the father has no legal basis.
The Court firmly observed:
“A society that claims to be developing cannot insist that a child’s public identity must be anchored to a father who is absent from the child’s life, while the mother, who bears the entire burden of upbringing, remains administratively secondary. The State’s formats must not become moral judgments; they must become accurate instruments of welfare”.
Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika v State of Gujarat, the High Court reiterated that in inter-caste or special situations, caste determination depends on upbringing and social environment, not only biological descent. It also referred to earlier judgments recognizing that children raised by single mothers can claim the mother’s caste if the factual circumstances justify it.
Allowing the petition, the Bombay High Court directed correction of the child’s name and surname in school records, replacement of the father’s caste with the mother’s caste, and speedy processing of the caste certificate application. It also directed that the child should not face stigma or unnecessary disclosure within the school during this process.
Explanatory Table Of All Laws, Sections And Precedents Referred
| Provision / Case | Nature | What It Provides | How It Was Used in This Case |
| Article 21, Constitution of India | Fundamental Right | Protects right to life and personal liberty, including dignity | Court held forcing paternal identity on child violates dignity where father is absent and severed |
| Article 14, Constitution of India | Fundamental Right | Guarantees equality before law and equal protection | Court ruled automatic paternal identity is structurally unequal and unconstitutional |
| Article 15(1), Constitution of India | Fundamental Right | Prohibits discrimination on grounds of sex, caste, etc. | Used to reject rigid paternal default that perpetuates inequality |
| Article 15(3), Constitution of India | Protective Clause | Permits special provisions for women and children | Strengthened recognition of maternal identity in child welfare context |
| Article 15(4), Constitution of India | Social Justice Clause | Enables advancement of Scheduled Castes and backward classes | Supported correction of caste entry based on maternal SC status |
| Article 39(f), Constitution of India | Directive Principle | Protects children from moral and material abandonment | Court emphasized child welfare as paramount consideration |
| Article 46, Constitution of India | Directive Principle | Promotes educational and economic interests of Scheduled Castes | Justified enabling caste certificate process without mechanical rejection |
| Articles 226 & 227, Constitution of India | Writ Jurisdiction | High Court’s power of judicial review and superintendence | Basis of writ petition challenging administrative rejection |
| Secondary School Code (Clauses 26.3 & 26.4) | Administrative Code | Governs correction of school records | Authorities relied on it to deny correction; Court rejected blanket refusal |
| Government Resolution dated 14 March 2024 (Maharashtra) | Policy Document | Mandates inclusion of mother’s name in government records | Demonstrated State’s shift toward recognizing maternal identity |
| Janabai d/o Himmatrao Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, AIR OnLine 2019 Bom 1055 | Full Bench Judgment | Name/surname/caste corrections fall within “obvious mistakes” | Court relied to quash rejection and permit correction |
| Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika v. State of Gujarat, (2012) 3 SCC 400 | Supreme Court | Caste presumption from father not conclusive; depends on upbringing | Central precedent for allowing caste based on maternal social milieu |
| Ku. Noopur d/o Prashant Ambre v. ST Caste Scrutiny Committee, 2020 (1) MhLJ 884 | Bombay HC (Nagpur Bench) | Single mother cases require fact-sensitive approach | Supported claim of caste through mother |
| Sonal Pratapsingh Vahanwala v. Deputy District Collector, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 628 | Bombay HC | Recognized caste claim via single mother in special circumstances | Reinforced non-mechanical approach |
| The Tahsildar & Ors. v. S. Sivapriya, SLP (C) Diary No. 52656/2025 | Supreme Court Order | Refused interference in SC certificate granted to minor based on mother’s caste | Showed judicial sensitivity to educational welfare |
Case Details
- Case Title: X.Y.Z. and Anr. vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors.
- Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad
- Writ Petition No.: 15528 of 2025
- Date of Judgment: 02 February 2026
- Coram (Bench): Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J. & Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.
- Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:7179-DB
- Advocate for Petitioners: Sanghmitra Wadmare
- AGP for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2: Mr. V.M. Kagne
- Petitioners:
- X.Y.Z. (Minor, aged 12 years)
- A.B.C. (Mother and natural guardian)
- Respondents:
- State of Maharashtra (Education Department)
- Education Officer, Higher Secondary, Zilla Parishad, Beed
- Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Beed
- Headmaster, Kankaleshwar Vidyalaya, Beed
Key Takeaways
- The judgment reinforces a growing legal trend where paternal identity can be removed from official records once the father is declared absent, raising concerns about how easily men can be institutionally erased.
- While the Court spoke of dismantling “patriarchal defaults,” it did not equally examine the structural presumption that men remain permanently liable in other areas like maintenance and criminal prosecution, even when excluded from identity rights.
- Caste determination was shifted from biological descent to social upbringing, but this flexibility appears selectively applied — often disadvantaging men when rights and identity are concerned.
- The case demonstrates how administrative systems can rapidly adapt to remove paternal recognition, yet remain rigid when men seek relief from financial, legal, or custodial burdens.
- True gender neutrality requires balance — if the father can be excluded from civic identity due to severance, then laws must also reconsider automatic paternal liabilities imposed irrespective of actual involvement.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.