APHC010221872025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 561 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-41 [3552] Koya Tejaswi ...Appellant Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Appellant: Mr. A. Syam Sundar Reddy Advocates for Respondents: GP for Medical Health FW, Mr. S.V.S.S.Sivaram SC For VMC CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 18th November, 2025. P C: The present Writ Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.03.2025, passed in Writ Petition No.1660 of 2025. 2. The petitioner, it appears, had approached the Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths for changing the particulars of the surname of her son, which was recorded in the appropriate registers under the provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969(for short, “the RBD Act”). The said application was rejected by the Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths, by virtue of order, dated 05.11.2023. It was held that in terms of Section 15 of the RBD Act, 1969, read with Rule 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Registration of Birth and Death Rules, 1999, 2 HCJ & CGRJ WA_561_2025 (for short, “the Rules”) framed under the said Act, since there was no spelling mistake or fraudulent entries in regard to incorporating the name of the petitioner’s son, the prayer made by the petitioner was not therefore permissible. It was also held that it was not permissible to allow a change in the surname of the child’s biological mother or father unless and until there was a registered adoption deed in regard to such a child and further that it was a legal right of the child to preserve his or her identity including nationality, name and family relations. 3. The order passed by the Chief Registrar Births and Deaths was challenged by the appellant in W.P.No.1660 of 2025, which came to be dismissed by virtue of the judgment and order, dated 18.03.2025, which is impugned in the present Writ Appeal. 4. The learned Single Judge, having considered the matter, came to a conclusion that no error could be found in the order passed by the Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths, when tested on the touchstone of Section 15 of the Act. It was also held that, except under the circumstances expressly provided for under Section 15 of the Act, no alteration in the surname of the child was permissible. Reliance placed by counsel for the petitioner before the learned Single Judge in the case of Akella Lalitha vs. Konda Hanumantha Rao and another1, was also distinguished on facts. 1 Civil Appeal Nos.6325-6326 of 2015, dated 28.07.2022 3 HCJ & CGRJ WA_561_2025 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Although the learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged that the petitioner being the mother, had a right to change the surname of her son, in view of the fact that petitioner’s husband, who is the biological father of the son, had never discharged the obligation which a father was otherwise required to discharge towards his son and had also obtained a divorce from the petitioner, yet, in our opinion, the view expressed by the learned Single Judge requires no interference, inasmuch as the issue has to be considered from the point of view of the provisions of only the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, which envisages a change in the particulars only in the case of entry being fraudulent or suffering from a clerical error. Neither of these situations exists in the present case. 7. In our opinion, no fault can be found with either the decision of the statutory authority, much less can we come to a conclusion other than the one arrived at by the learned Single Judge. We find no merit in the present Writ Appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this case, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ. CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J. SSN