WP(MD)/16157/2026 of A.M.Abdus Salam Vs The Commissioner on 27 October 2026

ORDER

Challenging the impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.No. Su.AA(B.E) GOC/9363/2025 dated 03.12.2025 passed by the 3rd respondent, and consequently direct the respondents to correct the mother's name in the birth certificate bearing Registration No. 282/2010/38 of the petitioner's son as Illaya Kanmani Nanmozhi M from A.Hasna Fathima and to issue corrected birth certificate, this writ petition is filed.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner married one M.Illaya Kanmani Nanmozhi on 19.04.2010 under the Special Marriage Act, and the marriage was duly registered bearing Certificate No. 5 of 2010 on the file of K.Sathanur, Tiruchirappalli District. The marriage certificate and other connected records clearly establish the identity of parties and the lawful relationship between the petitioner and his wife. Out of the said special marriage, the couple were blessed with two male children, namely A.Ahamed Raasim, born on 08.12.2010, and A.Mohamed Saadh, born on 23.08.2015. Both the children were born at Renuga Hospital, Sathanoor Road, Tiruchirappalli. And their births were duly registered.

3. In the birth certificate of the petitioner's son, A.Ahamed Raasim, the petitioner's wife's name has been entered as A.Hasna Fathima in the column of mother's name. The said entry was made understanding that the petitioner's wife had adopted such a name upon marriage. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the same is factually incorrect and the petitioner's wife did not change her name at any point of time and she continued to be M.Illaya Kanmani Nanmozhi which could be revealed from all the other documents including ration cards, passport and other necessary documents and other identity records and family records. The entry of the petitioner's wife's name in his children's birth certificate as Hasna Fathima is wholly inconsistent with the actual identity and existing official records. The said mistake was not willful and deliberate, but purely inadvertent.

4. Pursuant to which, the petitioner had made an application before the 1st respondent along with an affidavit seeking correction of the petitioner's wife's name in the birth certificate of their children. However, the same was rejected by the 3rd respondent by proceedings dated 03.12.2025 with the direction to make necessary arrangements to effect the necessary changes in his wife's name through gazette publication. Challenging the same, this writ petition is filed.

5. The learned counsel relying upon the order of this Court in the case of S.Gowthami Vs. The District Collector, Tiruppur District & another1 and the case of Minor.S.Jeganathan, Represented by his mother S.Sellammal Vs. The District Collector, Erode District & Another2, submitted that the instant case in hand is fully covered by the aforesaid order and sought the indulgence of this Court to set aside the impugned order and direct the respondent authorities to effect the necessary correction of the mother's name column following the mandates of Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969.

6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that under Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, the authorities could correct only if it is erroneous and had 1 W.P.No.9067 of 2021 dated 14.06.2024 2W.P.No.8959 of 2021 dated 14.06.2024

been registered fraudulently or improperly. As far as Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Registration of Births and Death Rules, 2000, the learned counsel pointed out that the correction or cancellation of entry in the register of births and deaths under Section 15 could be done only if the same is a clerical or a formal error. The case in hand do not reveal any such formal or clerical error, and it cannot be considered as an inadvertent error caused by the petitioner. The same has been deliberately made. The claim of the petitioner that the authorities themselves had given a name to his wife as Hasna Fathima is beyond imagination and the authorities are only for the purpose of registration of births and deaths and not for naming any private parties and sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

7. Heard the learned counsels on either sides and carefully perused the materials available on record .

8. It is very clear from the materials placed before this Court that the marriage between the petitioner and Mrs.M.Illaya Kanmani Nanmozhi @ A.Hasna Fathima is a special marriage and inter-religious marriage. A careful perusal of the records placed before me with respect to the identity of Mrs.M.Illaya Kanmani Nanmozhi @ A.Hasna Fathima would reveal that she had already converted to Islam. However, it is a claim of the petitioner that his wife continued to be a Hindu and her name is not at all changed and she continued to lead a life as a Hindu since his marriage itself is a special marriage, and her name has never ever been converted into a Hasna Fathima and it is only M.Illaya Kanmani Nanmozhi @ A.Hasna Fathima.

9. He pointed out that Rule 11 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Registration of Births and Death Rules, 2000, would make it clear that if any person asserts that any entry in the register of births and deaths is erroneous in substance, the Registrar may correct the entry in the manner prescribed under Section 15 upon production by that person a declaration setting forth the nature of the error and true facts of the case made by two credible persons having knowledge of the facts of the case. He also made it clear that the petitioner is willing to produce a declaration in this regard as mandated under Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Registration of Births and Death Rules, 2000, by two credible persons having knowledge of the facts of the case.

10. Since the facts clearly makes out a case of conversion from Hindu to Islam, and also the claim of the petitioner is that the marriage between the petitioner and his wife is a special marriage and he had not converted his wife to Islam, this Court is of the considered opinion that the orders relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of S.Gowthami Vs. The District Collector, Tiruppur District & another3 and the case of Minor.S.Jeganathan, Represented by his mother S.Sellammal Vs. The District Collector, Erode District & Another4, is partially applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. This Court makes it clear that the facts with respect to conversion of a parent from one religion to another religion was not dealt with in the above said case. In that way, this case can be distinguished from the facts and circumstances of the aforesaid cases. Admittedly, the petitioner's children, namely A.Ahamed Raasim and A.Mohamed Saadh, were born to the petitioner and his wife, namely M.Illaya Kanmani Nanmozhi @ A.Hasna Fathima and it is only the petitioner who had given information to the hospital authorities at Renuga Hospital, Sathanoor Road, Tiruchirappalli that the name of his wife is A.Hasna Fathima. However, it is seen that the petitioner's wife's name as per other documents continue to be M.Illaya Kanmani Nanmozhi.

11. In view of the above discussions, the 2nd respondent is directed to conduct an enquiry with the petitioner, his parents, and two office 3 W.P.No.9067 of 2021 dated 14.06.2024 4W.P.No.8959 of 2021 dated 14.06.2024

bearers of the Administrative Committee of the Jamath concerned to which the petitioner is a member, and an affidavit is directed to be received from the head of the two office bearers of the Administrative Committee of the Jamath to which the petitioner is concerned that the petitioner's wife continue to be M.Illaya Kanmani Nanmozhi and not Hasna Fathima. On receipt of such affidavit, the birth certificate bearing Registration No. 282/2010/38 could be accordingly corrected by making necessary corrections in the column mother's name and a fresh birth certificate could be issued within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of affidavit from the from two office bearers of the Administrative Committee of the Jamath concerned.

12. With the above directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed. 27-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No gbg

To

1. The Commissioner Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation Bharathidasan Road Cantonment Tiruchirappalli District

2. The Registrar of Births and Deaths Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation Bharathidasan Road Cantonment Tiruchirappalli District

3. The City Health Officer Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation Bharathidasan Road Cantonment Tiruchirappalli District

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J. gbg WP(MD) No. 16157 of 2026 27-10-2026