The MP High Court ruled that marital disputes cannot erase a biological father’s identity from a child’s school records. Schools and the State are duty-bound under the RTE Act to protect a child’s true parentage and the father’s parental rights.
Madhya Pradesh : The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior delivered an important judgment protecting the legal rights of a biological father in matters of a child’s education and identity. The petitioner is the biological father of a minor child studying at Little Angels High School, Gwalior. Earlier, the child had studied in reputed schools in Bengaluru where the petitioner’s name was duly recorded as the father in all school records.
Due to matrimonial disputes, multiple legal proceedings were pending between the parents, including custody matters. Although visitation rights had been granted to the father by the Karnataka High Court and he was regularly paying school fees, the mother allegedly denied him meaningful access to the child.
The father repeatedly requested the school and the concerned authorities to include his name as the father in the school records and to provide access to the child’s academic records and school application login. These requests were refused. The District Education Officer and the District Project Coordinator issued directions to the school for correction of records, but the school did not comply. The writ petition was dismissed by the Writ Court citing lack of maintainability.
In appeal, the father argued that schools perform public functions under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), and therefore writ jurisdiction is maintainable. He also contended that denial of access to school records violates his fundamental rights and parental rights.
The High Court examined the statutory framework under the RTE Act and the RTE Rules. It noted that the Act casts duties on the State and local authorities to maintain proper records of children and that even unaided private schools fall within the statutory definition of a school. Rule 10 specifically mandates that records must include the name and details of parents or guardians. The Court also noted that the petitioner’s paternity was undisputed.
The Court examined the scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and referred to settled Supreme Court principles explaining that writs can be issued against private bodies when they discharge public duties or statutory obligations.
On the issue of maintainability, the Court held that a clear public law element exists in the present case because maintenance of school records is governed by statute and monitored by government authorities. Therefore, the writ petition was maintainable and the Writ Court had erred in dismissing it.
The Court further observed that a child’s identity must correctly reflect both parents, and that school records form the foundation for future public documents such as Aadhaar, passport, and bank records.
The Court emphasized that statutory duties convert private conduct into public accountability:
“Public law remedy is available in present case, writ petition against them is maintainable.”
The Court relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in Jigya Yadav vs CBSE, where the concept of identity and name was discussed, particularly emphasizing the importance of personal identity and continuity, quoting the phrase exactly: “for all times”.
Balancing child welfare and parental rights, the Court allowed limited access to the father, ensuring that he receives academic updates through the school application but does not directly interact with school staff.
On statutory obligations under the RTE Act, the Court reaffirmed that record maintenance is not optional:
“It is abundantly clear that RTE Act is a statute which governs elementary education for a child between 6 to 14 years of age and it is the duty of the State to ensure the admission of the child and maintenance of records by the school.”
On the child’s welfare and identity, the Court strongly emphasized the importance of correct parental recording:
“Welfare of the child is of paramount consideration.”
“It is in the welfare of the child if he carries his identity in correct and proper manner. His identity owes the name of father as well as mother.”
Finally, the appeal was allowed and the earlier dismissal was set aside. The school was directed to correct its records and include the father’s name. The District Education authorities were directed to ensure compliance. The father was granted limited access to academic information only, and any conduct affecting the welfare of the child was restrained.
This judgment reinforces that biological fathers cannot be erased from a child’s educational identity due to matrimonial conflicts, and that private schools performing statutory duties under the RTE Act remain accountable under constitutional remedies.
Explanatory Table – Laws & Sections Involved
| Law/ Section | Purpose | How It Applied in This Case |
| Article 226 Constitution of India | High Court power to issue writs for enforcing legal rights and public duties. | Court held writ was maintainable because school and authorities were violating statutory duties. |
| Article 12 Constitution of India | Defines “State” for constitutional accountability. | Education authorities were treated as State and held answerable for non-compliance. |
| Section 2(1) MP Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 | Allows filing of writ appeal before Division Bench. | Appeal was legally maintainable under this provision. |
| Section 2(n) Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 | Defines “school”, including private unaided schools. | Respondent school was covered under RTE obligations. |
| Sections 8 & 9 Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 | Duties of State and local authorities to ensure admission and maintain records. | Authorities were directed to ensure correction of child’s school records. |
| Section 10 Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 | Parental duty to ensure child’s education. | Supports continuing parental responsibility of biological father. |
| Rule 10 Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2010 | Mandatory maintenance of child records including parent details. | Basis for directing insertion of father’s name in school records. |
| Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Restitution of conjugal rights. | Mentioned only as background of matrimonial litigation. |
Case Summary
- Case Title: Vickramh Kkalmady vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, Writ Appeal No. 2559 of 2025
- Court: High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior
- Date of Judgment: 17 December 2025
- Bench (Coram): Hon’ble Shri Justice Anand Pathak and Hon’ble Shri Justice Anil Verma
Counsels
- For Appellant:
- Ms. Smrati Sharma, Advocate
- Ms. Krati Sachdev, Advocate
- For State (Respondents No.1, 2 & 3):
- Shri Vivek Khedkar, Senior Advocate / Additional Advocate General
- Shri Ravindra Dixit, Government Advocate
- For Respondents No.4 & 5 (School): Shri Vishal Tripathi, Advocate
- For Respondent No.6:
- Shri Prashant Sharma, Advocate
- Shri M.K. Sharma, Advocate
- Shri Divakar Vyas, Advocate
Key Takeaways
- A biological father’s identity cannot be erased from a child’s school records due to marital disputes.
- Private schools under the RTE Act perform public duties and are answerable in writ jurisdiction.
- Child welfare includes preserving correct parental identity, not sidelining the father.
- Education authorities are legally bound to enforce record correction, not merely issue letters.
- Fathers retain parental rights even during ongoing custody or matrimonial litigation.
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.
If Biological father does not give his consent.
If child herself ready to apply to change biological father name from the records.
Can the name of biological father be removed after the child becomes over 18 years of age?
Biological fatherhood is a legal fact, not an optional entry.
Under Indian law, a biological father’s name cannot be removed from a child’s records without due process of law. For a minor, neither the mother nor the child has the legal capacity to seek such removal; courts apply the welfare of the child test and have repeatedly held that paternity is a matter of fact, not choice. Even after the child attains 18 years, only a personal name change is permissible — biological parentage cannot be altered unless there is lawful adoption under HAMA/JJ Act, a declaratory civil court decree, or proof of fraud or mistaken entry. Marital disputes or estrangement are not valid grounds to erase a biological father’s identity.