Child Raised Solely By Mother Need Not Carry Father’s Name In School Records: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court has held that a child raised exclusively by a single mother cannot be compelled to carry the father’s name or caste in school records merely because institutional formats once required it, ruling that official documentation must reflect the child’s lived identity, dignity and welfare rather than patriarchal defaults.

The Court further said that where the father has no role in the child’s life and the mother is the sole parent and natural guardian, substitution of the mother’s name and caste in educational records is legally permissible and constitutionally mandated.

A Division Bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Hiten S. Venegavkar quashed the communication dated 02.06.2025 by the education authorities rejecting the request for correction and directed the school to substitute the father’s name and surname with that of the mother in the general register and all consequential records upon verification of the Gazette notification.

"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", it was observed.

The Bench also ordered that the child’s caste be entered as “Scheduled Caste - Mahar” based on the mother’s caste, permitted the mother to apply for a caste certificate for the child on that basis, and directed the competent authority to decide the claim through a fact-sensitive approach without insisting on paternal records.

The case concerned a 12-year-old girl in the exclusive custody of her mother.

The biological father, who had committed rape resulting in the birth of the child had, under a recorded settlement, renounced all relationship, responsibility and role in her upbringing after which the mother became the sole parent raising the child.

Subsequently, the mother applied for correction of the child’s name and caste in the school record after having a Gazette notification to that effect, however, the same came to be rejected by the authorities on the ground that the Secondary School Code did not permit such changes.

Setting aside this approach, the Court held that administrative registers are meant to record and reflect the true and existing factual position and cannot be used to fossilise identity despite later developments.

"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", it was further observed.

It noted that the State’s own Government Resolution mandating inclusion of the mother’s name in official records reflects a policy rooted in equality and dignity and recognizes that paternal identifiers are not immutable where custody and welfare require otherwise.

The Bench ruled that compelling a child raised solely by her mother to carry the father’s name in public records violates the right to dignity under Article 21 and the guarantee of substantive equality under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.

It held that treating paternal identity as the default conduit for civic identity imposes a structural burden on women and their children and reproduces inequality through documentation.

Relying on the Full Bench decision in Janabai d/o Himmatrao Thakur v State of Maharashtra, the Court held that correction of name, surname or caste falls within the concept of “obvious mistake” and cannot be rejected through a blanket refusal.

On the issue of caste, the Court clarified that while schools are not caste-adjudicating bodies and safeguards against misuse must be preserved, a mechanical rule that caste must always follow the father is legally untenable.

"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", the Court held.

Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika v State of Gujarat, it reiterated that in inter-caste or atypical situations caste determination depends on upbringing and social environment rather than mere biological descent.

It also relied on precedents recognising that children raised by single mothers may legitimately claim the mother’s caste where the factual matrix so warrants.

The Court held that the original entry of the father’s caste, though correct at the time of admission, had become factually incongruent due to subsequent undisputed developments, including the father’s complete severance of ties and the child’s upbringing exclusively within the mother’s Scheduled Caste milieu.

In such circumstances, rectification of the record was necessary to align it with the true social and legal position and to protect the child’s welfare.

Allowing the petition, the Court directed correction of the name and surname in school records, entry of the mother’s caste in place of the father’s caste and expeditious processing of the child’s caste certificate application, while ensuring that the child is not subjected to stigma or unnecessary disclosure within the school.

Case Title: X.Y.Z. & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Bench: Justice Vibha Kankanwadi & Justice Hiten S. Venegavkar

Date: 02.02.2026