IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY R.F.A.No.589 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
1. Kum. Sahana A. Kumari Aged about 15 years.
2. Kum. A.B.Bhavana Aged about 14 years.
Since they are minors Represented by natural guardian and Father Sri. Anil Kumar, Aged about 47 years.
Both are R/a No.58/4, M.G.Road, Rajarajeshwari Layout, Gobbalala Village, Subramanyapura PO, Uttarahalli, Bangalore-560 062.
(By Sri. Leeladhar H.P., Advocate) AND:
1. Government of Karnataka Rep. by its Secretary, … Appellants Dept. of Education, M.S.Buildings, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Road, Bangalore-560 001.
2. Karnataka Secondary Educational Examination Board, Rep. by its Secretary, VI Cross, Sampige Road, Malleswaram, Bangalore-560 003.
3. The Block Educational Officer, Bangalore South Range-I, Bangalore-560 004.
4. Vasavi International School, Thalaghattapura, Kanakapura Main Road, Near Thalaghattapura, Police Station, Bangalore-560 062.
5. The Head Mistress Mahila Seva Samaja, No.80, K.R.Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore-560 004.
(By Smt. Jyothi Bhat, HCGP for R-1 to R-3; R-4 & R-5 served) **** …Respondents This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated:04-01-2016 passed in O.S.No.7780/2015 on the file of the XXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, at Bangalore City, (CCH-38) dismissing the suit for declaration.
This Regular First Appeal coming on for Hearing, this day, the Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T This is a Plaintiffs’ appeal. The prayer of the plaintiffs through their natural guardian/father for declaration that the changed names have to be considered as their names and be declared that the School records have to be made out in their changed/assumed names, came to be rejected by the Court of the learned XXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-38), Bangalore City (hereinafter for brevity called as “Trial Court”) in O.S.No.7780/2015 in its judgment and decree dated 04-01-2016. It is against the said judgment and decree, the plaintiffs have preferred this appeal.
2. The names of the plaintiffs are respectively Kum. Sahana A. Kumari and Kum. Bhavana A.B. Both are daughters of Sri. Anil Kumar M.A. Both the plaintiffs are said to be minors in their age and hence, represented by their natural guardian/father. Now, through this suit, the plaintiffs – Kum. Sahana A Kumari wants her name to be declared as “Vedika Navya Bhounsle” and Kum. Bhavana A.B. wants her name to be declared as “Vibha Aparna Bhounsle” and they want the necessary entries to be made in their educational records also. The reason shown by the plaintiffs for the alleged change in their respective names is, a suggestion by an astrologer/numerologist. The father of the plaintiffs who had instituted the suit on behalf of his minor daughters, has stated in his plaint that both the plaintiffs were poor in their studies and physically inactive at home and School. Hence, the father of the plaintiffs approached an Astrologer/numerologist on 08-04-2015 who suggested that, in the interest of plaintiffs’ educational career and other aspects in their life, their original names, i.e. Vedika Navya Bhounsle and Vibha Aparna bhounsle are more effective than the present names as Sahana A. Kumari and Bhavana A.B. The plaintiffs have also stated that, by calling them with the names they have sought for, their lifestyle will be standard manner and their career becomes best and pleasant in future.
The defendants though served with summons, failed to appear before the Trial Court and as such, they were placed ex-parte.
3. Based on the pleadings of the plaintiffs, the following points were raised by the Trial Court for its consideration:-
“1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief sought in the plaint?
2. What order?”
4. The father of the plaintiffs i.e. Sri. Anil Kumar M.A. examined himself as PW-1 and got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-17.
5. The Trial Court answered point No.1 in the negative and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs by its impugned judgment and decree dated 04-01-2016. It is against the said judgment and decree, the plaintiffs have preferred this appeal.
6. Lower Court records were called for and the same are placed before this Court.
7. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiffs and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3/ defendants 1 to 3.
8. Perused the materials placed before this Court including the memorandum of appeal and the impugned judgment.
9. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be henceforth referred to with the ranks they were holding before the Trial Court respectively.
10. In the light of the above, the points that arise for my consideration in this appeal are:-
[i] Whether the plaintiffs’ names be declared with their assumed names in their school records, as they have sought for?
[ii] Whether the judgment and decree under appeal warrants any interference at the hands of this Court?
11. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs in his brief argument submitted that, a person changing his name is his option and merely because an Astrologer’s suggestion was there to change their names, cannot be a ground for rejection of one’s choice to have the name of his/her choice.
Learned counsel also submitted that the plaintiffs have duly changed their names in the process known to law, i.e. by swearing to an Affidavit before the Notary Public and also carried out Newspaper publication.
12. Learned High Court Government Pleader, appearing for respondents 1 to 3, in her argument submitted that, though she would not dispute that a person having a name of his/her choice is one’s liberty, but the change which the plaintiffs want to have in the form of a declaration since substitutes their name in their entirety with an unconnected and with an unknown name, the Trial Court has rightly rejected their prayer.
13. Admittedly, as on the date of institution of the suit, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 were shown to have been studying in X and IX Standards respectively, with their respective ages shown as 14 years and 13 years respectively, as such, it is their father on behalf of his minor children and in his capacity as a natural guardian, has instituted the suit. The reason shown by him for seeking a change in the names of his two minor daughters is the alleged advise of an astrologer/numerologist. However, it cannot be ignored of the fact that, he being the natural guardian of two minor children, it is his desire to have a changed name to his children in their best interest. The plaint averment as well the evidence of PW-1 would go to show that, he is concerned with the better future of his children and in their best interest, he is changing their names. The father has also sworn to the affidavits on behalf of his minor children before the Notary Public showing the old names of his children and with their assumed names. Those two affidavits are marked at Exs.P-1 and P-2 respectively. Exs.P-3 and P-4 are the newspaper publications where the change in the name of the plaintiffs has also been published in a newspaper bringing the same to the notice of the general public. The School records including Transfer Certificates which are at Exs.P-5, P-6, P-7 and P-8 would go to show that, till the institution of the suit, both the plaintiffs were pursuing their studies with their then prevailing given names as ‘Sahana A. Kumari’ and ‘Bhavana A.B.’ respectively. However, the Trial Court even after observing that the defendants did not contest the matter and it remained ex-parte, still, attributing its own reason that the advise of an astrologer/numerologist cannot be a ground to change one’s name, rejected the prayer made by the plaintiffs by dismissing the suit. In my opinion, since having a name of his/her choice, which is not violative of any law, is one’s liberty, which, for no valid reasons, be curtailed. Rejection of such a person’s liberty, only by holding that an astrologer/numerologist’s advise cannot be accepted, is not a valid reason to deny the plaintiffs of their desire to assume a new name, which, according to the respondents 1 to 3 is not violative of any law.
14. Therefore, without mentioning on the correctness of the reason given by the plaintiffs, however, at the same time, recognising their right to have the names of their choice for once, in my view, the request of the plaintiffs for changing their names, cannot be denied.
15. As per the practice prevailing in the State, the plaintiffs through their father have sworn to the affidavits before the Notary Public and also have given public notice by taking out a paper publication.
16. Learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that, there are no prescribed rules or guidelines regarding the change of name issued by the respondents 1, 2 and 3. In that situation, since the names which are said to have been assumed by the plaintiffs vide affidavits at Exs.P-1 and P-2 prove to be in no way detrimental to the interest of any body or prejudice to the interest of the society or cause any confusion in the mind of anyone, the plaintiffs cannot be denied their liberty to have the names of their choice.
17. Considering the above circumstances and the facts of this case and confining it to the present appeal, I am of the view that the appeal deserves to be allowed in part.
18. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:-
O R D E R [i] The appeal is allowed in part;
[ii] The impugned judgment and decree dated 04-01-2016 passed by the learned XXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-38), Bangalore City, in O.S.No.7780/ 2015, is hereby set aside;
[iii] The suit of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.7780/2015 before the learned XXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-38), Bangalore City, is decreed in part;
[iv] It is declared that ‘Sahana A. Kumari’ D/o. Sri. Anil Kumar M.A. and ‘Bhavana A.B.’ D/o. Sri.Anil Kumar M.A., have, in a manner known to law, changed their names respectively to ‘Vedika Navya Bhounsle’ and ‘Vibha Aparna Bhounsle’ from the date of they swearing to the affidavits as per Exs.P-1 and P-2 which are dated 08-04-2015.
Hence, the School records from the said date be made in the assumed names of the plaintiffs i.e. ‘Vedika Navya Bhounsle’ and ‘Vibha Aparna Bhounsle’ respectively;
[v] The respondents/defendants are directed to carryout necessary changes accordingly;
[vi] The appellants to comply any other requirement under law, if they are required to do so;
[vii] Draw the modified decree accordingly.
Registry to transmit a copy of this judgment together with the Lower Court records to the Court below without delay.
Learned High Court Government Pleader is granted ten days’ time to file her memo of appearance in the registry.
BMV* Sd/- JUDGE