2025:UHC:9492 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS 1456/2024 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Apoorv Nautiyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ganesh Datt Kandpal, Deputy AG, for the State. Mr. Pavan Kumar Nath, Advocate, for the respondent no. 3. (2) By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following relief: “i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 1 and 2 to register the name of Petitioner as the son of the Respondent No. 3 in the family register maintained by Municipal Board.” (3) According to petitioner, respondent no. 3 is his biological father, however, petitioner’s name is not being entered in the Family Register maintained by Nagar Palika Parishad, Joshimath, District Chamoli. As per the pleadings made in the writ petition, petitioner was born on 22.12.1977 out of the wedlock of his mother Smt. Prabha Devi with respondent no. 3. (4) Mr. Pavan Kumar Nath, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3, however, submits that learned Civil Judge, Dehradun had granted divorce decree in favour of respondent no. 3 in the year 1984. (5) Per contra, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that said divorce decree was obtained by respondent no. 3 ex parte; he further submits that petitioner 2025:UHC:9492 was born much earlier in 1977, therefore the divorce decree passed in 1984 will not have any effect on the claim of the petitioner. (6) Be that as it may, since petitioner has sought a mandamus to register his name as son of respondent no. 3 in the Family Register maintained by Nagar Palika Parishad, Joshimath, District Chamoli, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to move proper application before the competent authority in Nagar Palika Parishad, Joshimath, District Chamoli within three weeks from today. He shall enclose all documents, which support his claim for registration as son of respondent no. 3. If petitioner moves such application within stipulated time, the competent authority shall look into the matter and take appropriate decision, as per law, as early as possible, preferably within nine months from the date of receipt of the application. (7) It goes without saying that respondent no. 3 and also Smt. Prabha Devi, mother of petitioner, shall also be given opportunity of hearing before taking any decision on petitioner’s application. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 28.10.2025 Pr PRABODH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462 503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C 67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2025.10.30 10:28:33 +05'30' 2025:UHC:9492