IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI *THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N +WRIT PETITION NO: 19242/2023 %08.10.2025 Between: 1. SHERLY HEPSIBA DOKIBURRA, W/O MANGENA SREE VEERA VENKATA SATYA RAMA RAO, D/O D.EDWIN VIJAY KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O D.NO.2- 4D-45/10, MIG-10, SECTOR-6, MVP COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. HANIVTHA EVENGELINE, D/O SHERLEY HEPSIBA DOKIBURRA, D/O MANGENA SREE VEERA VENKATA SATYA. RAMA RAO, BABY GIRL AND MINOR REP. BY ITS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, I.E., 1ST PETITIONER HEREIN, R/O D.NO.2-4D-45/ 10, MIG-10, SECTOR-6, MVP COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUTNUR DISTRICT. 2. THE GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. CAUSE TITLE IS AMENDED AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DT.22.07.2025 IN I.A.NO. 02 OF 2023. 3. THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTH AND DEATH, GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (GVMC), VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. MANGINA SREE VEERA VENKATA SATYA RAMA RAO, ADVOCATE, S/O MANGENA SIVA RAMAKRISHNA, ASDVOCATE, HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI, AGED 45 YEARS, R/O. FLAT NO.210, VENKATA NOVUS ELITE APARTMENTS, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, RESIDING IN D .NO.1-61-4, PLOT NO.211, MVP COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V SURENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 2. M RADHAKRISHNA 3. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) <Gist: >Head Note: ? Cases referred: This Court made the following: WP.No.19242 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI *THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N +WRIT PETITION NO: 19242/2023 %08.10.2025 Between: 1. SHERLY HEPSIBA DOKIBURRA, W/O MANGENA SREE VEERA VENKATA SATYA RAMA RAO, D/O D.EDWIN VIJAY KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O D.NO.2- 4D-45/10, MIG-10, SECTOR-6, MVP COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. HANIVTHA EVENGELINE, D/O SHERLEY HEPSIBA DOKIBURRA, D/O MANGENA SREE VEERA VENKATA SATYA. RAMA RAO, BABY GIRL AND MINOR REP. BY ITS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, I.E., 1ST PETITIONER HEREIN, R/O D.NO.2-4D-45/ 10, MIG-10, SECTOR-6, MVP COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUTNUR DISTRICT. 2. THE GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. CAUSE TITLE IS AMENDED AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DT.22.07.2025 IN I.A.NO. 02 OF 2023. 3. THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTH AND DEATH, GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (GVMC), VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. MANGINA SREE VEERA VENKATA SATYA RAMA RAO, ADVOCATE, S/O MANGENA SIVA RAMAKRISHNA, ASDVOCATE, HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI, AGED 45 YEARS, R/O. FLAT NO.210, VENKATA NOVUS ELITE APARTMENTS, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, RESIDING IN D .NO.1-61-4, PLOT NO.211, MVP COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 08.10.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes/No 2. Whether the copies of order may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No 3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? Yes/No ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N WP.No.19242 of 2023 APHC010374572023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 19242/2023 Between: 1. SHERLY HEPSIBA DOKIBURRA, W/O MANGENA SREE VEERA VENKATA SATYA RAMA RAO, D/O D.EDWIN VIJAY KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O D.NO.2- 4D-45/10, MIG-10, SECTOR-6, MVP COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. HANIVTHA EVENGELINE, D/O SHERLEY HEPSIBA DOKIBURRA, D/O MANGENA SREE VEERA VENKATA SATYA. RAMA RAO, BABY GIRL AND MINOR REP. BY ITS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, I.E., 1ST PETITIONER HEREIN, R/O D.NO.2-4D-45/ 10, MIG-10, SECTOR-6, MVP COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUTNUR DISTRICT. 2. THE GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. CAUSE TITLE IS AMENDED AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DT.22.07.2025 IN I.A.NO. 02 OF 2023. 3. THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTH AND DEATH, GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (GVMC), VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. MANGINA SREE VEERA VENKATA SATYA RAMA RAO, WP.No.19242 of 2023 ADVOCATE, S/O MANGENA SIVA RAMAKRISHNA, ASDVOCATE, HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI, AGED 45 YEARS, R/O. FLAT NO.210, VENKATA NOVUS ELITE APARTMENTS, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, RESIDING IN D .NO.1-61-4, PLOT NO.211, MVP COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent herein.changing the name of the 2nd Petitioner Hanvitha Evangeline to Mangina Hanvitha Evangeline contrary to the Scheme of Sections 8, 9 and 15 of the Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and -also contrary to the Rule 11 of Andhra Pradesh Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999 dated 1.1.2020 and consequently strike of Mangina Hanvitha Evangeline and issue the birth certificate on the name of Hanvitha Evangeline and further direct the 2nd respondent herein to initiate action against the 3rd respondent herein for not following the rule book of Rule 11 of Andhra Pradesh Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999 dated 1.1.2020 and further direct the 2nd respondent to take departmental action against the 3rd respondent and and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the 3rd respondent herein to keep it in abeyance of the 2nd Petitioner birth certificate dated 03.11.2022 on the name of Mangina Hanvitha Evangeline pending disposal of the above said writ petition to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to permit the petitioners herein to amend the cause title of the 2nd respondent as "the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation is represented by its Commissioner, Visakhapatnam City, Visakhapatnam District", pending disposal of the above said writ petition and pass ; WP.No.19242 of 2023 IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant leave to file a counter affidavit in the main writ petition in W.P.NO. 19242 of 2023 on the file of the Hon hie Court and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V SURENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 2. M RADHAKRISHNA 3. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) The Court made the following: WP.No.19242 of 2023 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.19242 of 2023 ORDER : 1. The 1st petitioner is the mother of the 2nd petitioner, who is a minor, as such, the 1st petitioner is representing the 2nd petitioner. The 1st petitioner is seeking to declare the action of 3rd respondent in changing the name of 2nd petitioner from Hanvitha Evangeline to Mangina Hanvitha Evangeline. A further direction is sought for initiating action against the 3rd respondent. 2. The 1st petitioner and the 4th respondent were married on 19.10.2015 as per the Christian Traditions. The 2nd petitioner was born on 13.09.2020 at OMNI RK Giggles Hospital, Visakhapatnam. It is stated that there was a difference of opinion between the 1st petitioner and the 4th respondent on naming the girl child. The 1st petitioner proposed the name Evangeline to the 2nd petitioner. The 4th respondent proposed the name Hanvitha. As there was no consensus the girl child was not named for more than 15 months after her birth. On application submitted by the 1st petitioner, the 2nd petitioner’s birth certificate dated 17.11.2021 was issued by reflecting her name as ‘Hanvitha Evangeline’. 3. It is submitted that on account of marital differences between the 1st petitioner and the 4th respondent, the 1st petitioner filed WP.No.19242 of 2023 FCOP.No.320 of 2022 seeking dissolution of marriage. It is submitted that during the pendency of the proceedings, the 4th respondent got included his family name Mangina to the name of the 2nd petitioner and got issued a birth certificate dated 03.11.2022, whereby, the name of the 2nd petitioner is shown as Mangina Hanvitha Evangeline. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that Rule 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Registration of Births and Death Rules, 1999 categorically prescribed the procedure for correction or cancellation of entry in the register of Births and Deaths. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent could not have simply accepted the representation of the 4th respondent and carried out the correction of the name of the 2nd petitioner by adding the surname without following Section 8, 9 and 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. 5. It is submitted that any correction to the Birth Certificate could not have been affected without following the applicable Rules. It is also submitted that mere representation by a parent of the child would not entitle the Officers incharge to give a go-bye to the applicable rules and sections of law. In the present case, the 3rd respondent has grossly erred in issuing a revised birth certificate by duly incorporating the surname of the 4th WP.No.19242 of 2023 respondent in the birth certificate dated 03.11.2022 of the 2nd petitioner. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submits that the modification of the name of the 2nd petitioner does not qualify as a correction or cancellation of entry in the Register of Births and Deaths. It is also submitted that the 1st petitioner and the 4th respondent had consensus on naming their child as Mangina Hanvitha Evangeline, however, the 1st petitioner has willfully avoided the surname of the 4th respondent while making an application for issuance of birth certificate. It is submitted that the surname of the 4th respondent would be a symbol of the linage and symbolizes the identity of the child. It is submitted that by naming the family name/surname of the 4th respondent from the name of the 2nd petitioner is a deliberate act on part of the 1st petitioner to erase the father’s identity. 7. It is submitted that there is no violation of any rule or provision of law by the respondent authorities which deserves interference by this Court. It is also submitted that the 1st petitioner has filed a memo not pressing FCOP.No.320 of 2022. 8. The 1st petitioner has filed a reply to the counter and it is submitted that the 4th respondent had submitted the following documents seeking change of name of the 2nd petitioner ; WP.No.19242 of 2023 (i) Birth Certificate of the 2nd petitioner updated on 17.11.2021. (ii) Declaration for Corrections of Births and Death Entries dated 06.10.2022. (iii) Notarised Affidavit for name change dated 19.10.2022. (iv) Notarised Affidavit for name change dated 29.09.2022. (v) Christian Marriage Certificate dated 19.10.2015 as proof of marriage between 1st petitioner and the 4th respondent. (vi) Copy of Aadhar card of 1st petitioner. (vii) Voter ID card of the 4th respondent (viii) Copy of Aadhar Card of 4th respondent 9. By submitting the above documents, the 4th respondent has specifically sought change of name by suppressing the fact that the 1st petitioner and the 4th respondent were living separately since November, 2020 and a divorce case was pending from February, 2022. It is not the case that the 1st petitioner consented for change of name as proposed by the 4th respondent. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the 1st petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent learned standing counsel for the respondents 2 and 3. Perused the material on record. 11. This Court considering the nature of dispute attempted to refer the matter for mediation on two occasions. The parties were reluctant to attend the mediation. The 1st petitioner has filed a WP.No.19242 of 2023 memo dated 15.07.2025 expressing her unwillingness for mediation. 12. The change of name of the 2nd petitioner from Hanvitha Evangeline to Mangina Hanvitha Evangeline was at the instance of the 4th respondent. The counter filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 would categorically clear the ambiguity. The annexures filed along with the counter of respondent Nos.2 and 3 would indicate that the change of name of the 2nd petitioner was proposed by the 4th respondent. The declaration for correction of Birth and Death entries form submitted by the 4th respondent would indicate that the 4th respondent has stated in the declaration that his wife had wrongly informed the name of the 2nd petitioner and as such the necessary correction was sought. 13. The documents submitted by the 4th respondent seeking change of name of the 2nd petitioner would have to be considered as an application under Rule 11 of Andhra Pradesh Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999. Sub Rule 7 of the said Rules mandates intimation to be sent to the permanent address to the person who has given information under Sub Section 8 or 9 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. 14. Para 10 of the counter of the respondents 2 and 3 makes it amply clear that the subject correction was carried out on the WP.No.19242 of 2023 representation of the 4th respondent who is none other than the father of the 2nd petitioner. It is also stated that it was not possible for conducting an enquiry regarding disputes if any between the parents of the child. It is also stated that if the authorities intend to carry out any correction suomoto the intimation would be sent in accordance with Rule 10(7) of Rules. 15. The acts of respondents 2 and 3 cannot be found fault with as the correction in the name of the 2nd petitioner was done at the instance of the 4th respondent in good faith. However, for affecting any correction in the date of birth certificate, the authorities would have to follow the applicable laws. 16. In the present set of facts and circumstances, the alteration of name of the 2nd petitioner in the Birth Certificate by adding the family name/surname of her father would have to be considered as a correction in terms of Rule 11 of Andhra Pradesh Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999. Such a correction could not have been carried out on the representation of one parent without the concurrence or attestation of the other parent. The documents submitted by the 4th respondent seeking such a correction also do not bear the signature of the mother of the child. In such circumstances, the change of name in the birth certificate dated 03.11.2022 of the 2nd petitioner deserves to be WP.No.19242 of 2023 held as illegal and accordingly the birth certificate dated 03.11.2022 is hereby set aside restoring the birth certificate of the 2nd petitioner dated 17.11.2021 to be referred to for all purposes in future subject to the parties reconciling and resolving their disputes and submitting any fresh joint application seeking any further change which may be considered by the respondent authorities as per Rules and Law. 17. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed without costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 08.10.2025 LR Copy to be marked B/o.KGM WP.No.19242 of 2023 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.19242 of 2023 Date: 08.10.2025 LR Copy KGM