Surname of a Child: Supreme Court Upholds Mother’s Right in Guardianship Dispute (28 July 2022)

Date of the Judgment: 28 July 2022
Citation: Not Available
Judges: Dinesh Maheshwari, J. and Krishna Murari, J.
Can a mother, after the death of her child’s biological father, decide the surname of the child, especially if she remarries? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving a dispute between a mother and her deceased husband’s parents (the child’s grandparents). This case delves into the rights of a natural guardian, specifically the mother, in determining a child’s identity and family affiliation. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, has upheld the mother’s right to decide the surname of her child, especially after remarriage and even after giving the child up for adoption to her new husband. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Krishna Murari, with Justice Krishna Murari authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around a dispute between Mrs. Akella Lalitha (the appellant), the mother of a minor child, and her deceased husband’s parents, Sri Konda Hanumantha Rao and another (the respondents). Mrs. Akella Lalitha married Konda Balaji on 18th December 2003, and they had a child, Master Ahlad Achintya, on 27th March 2006. Tragically, Konda Balaji passed away on 14th June 2006, when the child was only two and a half months old. Subsequently, Mrs. Akella Lalitha remarried Sri Akella Ravi Narasimha Sarma on 26th August 2007, and they had another child together. The core dispute arose when the grandparents sought guardianship of Master Ahlad Achintya, which eventually led to a legal battle over the child’s surname.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The respondents (grandparents) initially filed a petition under Section 10 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, seeking to be appointed as guardians of Master Ahlad Achintya. The Trial Court dismissed this petition, stating that it was not appropriate to separate the child from his mother’s love and affection, and also considering the old age of the grandparents. However, the Trial Court granted visitation rights to the grandparents. Both parties appealed the Trial Court’s order to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. During the arguments, the High Court was made aware that the child’s surname had been changed from “Konda” to “Akella.” The High Court, in its judgment dated 24th January 2014, while acknowledging the mother as the natural guardian, directed her to restore the child’s original surname and include the stepfather’s name in official records, which was challenged by the appellant before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

✓ Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956: This section defines the natural guardians of a Hindu minor. It states that, for a boy or unmarried girl, the father is the natural guardian, and after him, the mother. However, the custody of a minor under five years of age is ordinarily with the mother. The provision states:

“The natural guardians of a Hindu, minor, in respect of the minor’s person as well as in respect of the minor’s property (excluding his or her undivided interest in joint family property), are – (a) in the case of a boy or an unmarried girl— the father, and after him, the mother: provided that the custody of a minor who has not completed the age of five years shall ordinarily be with the mother; (b) in the case of an illegitimate boy or an illegitimate unmarried girl – the mother, and after her, the father; (c) in the case of a married girl – the husband”.

✓ Section 9(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956: This section outlines the conditions under which a mother can give a child in adoption. It allows a mother to give her child in adoption if the father is deceased, has renounced the world, has ceased to be a Hindu, or has been declared of unsound mind by a court. The provision states:

“The mother may give the child in adoption if the father is dead or has completely and finally renounced the world or has ceased to be a Hindu or has been declared by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be of unsound mind. “

✓ Section 12 of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956: This section states that an adopted child is deemed to be the child of the adoptive parents for all purposes from the date of adoption, severing all ties with the birth family. The provision states:

“An adopted child shall be deemed to be the child of his or her adoptive father or mother for all purposes with effect from the date of the adoption and from such date all the ties of the child in the family of his or her birth shall be deemed to be severed and replaced by those created by the adoption in the adoptive family.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that as the natural guardian of the child after the death of the biological father, she has the right to decide the child’s surname.
• She contended that there was nothing wrong in including the child in her new family and giving him the surname of her second husband.
• She relied on Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, which recognizes the mother as the natural guardian after the father’s death.
• She also stated that the child was adopted by her second husband by way of a registered adoption deed on 12th July 2019.

Respondents’ Submissions:

• The respondents (grandparents) did not specifically argue for a change of the child’s surname in their initial petition.
• Their primary concern was the welfare of their grandchild and their visitation rights.
• They did not make any submissions on the aspect of surname.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for adjudication:

1. Whether the mother, who is the only natural/legal guardian of the child after the death of the biological father, can decide the surname of the child. Can she give him the surname of her second husband whom she remarries after the death of her first husband and can she give the child for adoption to her husband?
2. Whether the High Court has the power to direct the Appellant to change the surname of the child specially when such relief was never sought by the respondents in their petition before the trial Court?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

The Supreme Court also considered the following legal provisions:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ The Supreme Court relied on Githa Hariharan and Ors. vs. Reserve Bank of India and Ors. [MANU/SC/0117/1999]* to highlight the mother’s equal position as a natural guardian, bolstering her right to decide the child’s surname.

✓ The Supreme Court cited Messrs. Trojan & Co. Ltd. Vs. Rm.N.N. Nagappa Chettiar [AIR 1953 SC 235]* and Bharat Amratlal Kothari & Anr. Vs. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi & Ors. [AIR 2010 SC 475]* to emphasize that relief cannot be granted if it is not based on pleadings and no such relief was sought by the grandparents.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that the mother, as the natural guardian after the father’s demise, has the right to decide the child’s surname. The Court emphasized that a surname is not merely a lineage indicator but plays a crucial role in a child’s social identity and sense of belonging. The Court also considered the fact that the child was adopted by the appellant’s husband, making it logical for the child to take the adoptive family’s surname. Additionally, the Court noted that the High Court’s direction to change the surname was beyond the scope of the pleadings and would be detrimental to the child’s mental health and self-esteem.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

The Supreme Court emphasized that the mother, being the only natural guardian after the demise of the father, cannot be restrained from including the child in her new family and deciding the child’s surname. The Court noted that “A surname refers to the name a person shares with other members of that person’s family, distinguished from that person’s given name or names; a family name.” The Court also observed that “the direction of the High Court to include the name of the Appellant’s husband as step-father in documents is almost cruel and mindless of how it would impact the mental health and self-esteem of the child.” The Court further added that, “when such child takes on to be a kosher member of the adoptive family it is only logical that he takes the surname of the adoptive family and it is thus befuddling to see judicial intervention in such a matter.”

The Supreme Court also clarified that while the Court may have the power to intervene, it can only do so when a specific prayer is made, centered on the child’s interest outweighing all other considerations.

Key Takeaways

• The mother, as the natural guardian after the death of the biological father, has the right to decide the child’s surname.
• The mother can include the child in her new family and give the child the surname of her second husband.
• The mother has the right to give the child in adoption to her husband.
• Courts should not grant relief that is not specifically sought in the pleadings.
• The child’s mental health and self-esteem are paramount considerations in such matters.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the parties to bear their own costs and expenses incurred in these appeals.

Development of Law

The Supreme Court reiterated the position of law that the mother is the natural guardian of the child after the death of the biological father and has the right to decide the surname of the child. The judgment also clarifies that the mother has the right to give the child in adoption. This decision reinforces the rights of mothers as natural guardians and emphasizes the importance of a child’s social identity and sense of belonging.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case upholds the mother’s right to decide her child’s surname after the death of the biological father, especially when she remarries and the child is adopted by her new husband. The Court emphasized that a surname is crucial for a child’s identity and belonging. This decision reaffirms the mother’s role as a natural guardian and sets aside the High Court’s direction to change the child’s surname, as it was not based on any specific pleading. The judgment underscores that the child’s welfare is of paramount importance in such matters.

Category

Parent Category: Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956

Child Categories:

• Section 6, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956
• Natural Guardian
• Mother’s Rights
• Child’s Surname
• Adoption
• Family Law
• Guardianship

Parent Category: Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956

Child Categories:

• Section 9, Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956
• Section 12, Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956
• Adoption Rights

Parent Category: Guardian and Wards Act, 1890

Child Categories:

• Section 10, Guardian and Wards Act, 1890
• Guardianship Dispute
• Visitation Rights

FAQ

Q: Can a mother decide her child’s surname after the death of the child’s father?

A: Yes, the Supreme Court has held that a mother, as the natural guardian after the father’s death, has the right to decide her child’s surname.

Q: Can a mother give her child the surname of her second husband after remarriage?

A: Yes, the mother can include the child in her new family and give the child the surname of her second husband.

Q: Can a mother give her child up for adoption to her second husband?

A: Yes, the mother has the right to give the child in adoption to her husband.

Q: What is the significance of a surname for a child?

A: A surname is not just a lineage indicator but is important for a child’s social identity and sense of belonging.

Q: Can a court direct a change in a child’s surname if no such request is made?

A: No, the court cannot direct a change in a child’s surname if no such request is made in the pleadings.

Q: What should be the primary consideration in cases involving a child’s surname?

A: The child’s welfare, mental health, and self-esteem are of paramount importance in such cases.