Calcutta High Court
WPA/1113/2026 of ANKITA KHORIA Vs JALPAIGURI MUNICIPALITY, A BODY CORPORATE AND ORS on 17 August 2026
2026,
A. Roy,J.
Form J(2)
Sl. No. 39
AB
High Court at Calcutta
In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon’ble Justice Aniruddha Roy
W.P.A. 1113 of 2026
Ankita Khoria
Vs.
Jalpaiguri Municipality & Ors.
For the petitioner
:
Mr. Ajay Kumar Singhania
Ms. Taniya Bhowmik
For respondent nos. 1-3
:
Mr. Pretom Das
Mr. Abhishek Sen
For respondent no. 4
:
Mr. Subhonkar Dutta
Heard on
:
August 17, 2026
Judgment on :
:
August 17, 2026
[ IN COURT ]
Aniruddha Roy,J.
Fact:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The petitioner claims to be the mother of Aakriti Mandal, who was born out of the wedlock of the writ petitioner and the added respondent no. 4. The Birth Certificate is annexure P-2 at page 12 to the writ petition.
A. Roy,J.
2. The mother/writ petitioner alleges that, she is divorced and the added respondent No. 4/ father does not care of the daughter, therefore, she prays for change of the surname of the daughter.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that, the law permits such change when father is ignorant of the ward and does not perform his duties and obligations of a father towards the ward. In support, she has referred to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court In the matter of: ABC Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported at (2015) 10 SCC 1.
Decision:
4. After hearing the parties through their respective learned advocates and on perusal of the materials on record, it appears that, there is no legal embargo that the daughter cannot use her surname, as recorded in the Birth Certificate, even after the mother is divorced or the added respondent No. 4/father is not attentive to the daughter.
5. The surname along with the name as recorded in the official State record, would definitely give an identity to the individual for the purpose of identification. If other identification proofs, as required in law, are there for an individual in conformity with the name mentioned in the Birth Certificate, it is sufficient for complete identification of an individual. The change of surname may be a custom under certain situation, as for example, for some people by virtue of marriage but that is not mandatory. The rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India to the daughter are, available along with all other statutory rights whether her surname is
A. Roy,J.
changed or not and the same cannot be questioned, so long her identification is not disputed.
6. In view of the foregoing reasons and discussions, this Court is of the view that, the prayers in the writ petition are not tenable in law and has no legal limb to stand.
7. In the matter of: ABC (Supra), the child was born outside of wedlock and the mother claimed guardianship under Section 7 of the Guardians and Ward Act. Hence, the ratio decided in the said judgment is of no relevance in the facts of this case.
8. With the above observations and directions this writ petition being WPA 1113 of 2026 stands dismissed, without any order as to costs.
9. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished expeditiously.
(Aniruddha Roy, J.)