Mother Can change the Surname of son after the death of his biological father

 Legal Brief : Mother can change son’s surname after the death of his biological father.

Prepared By: Adv. Saksham Mathur

 

Case Name : Akella Lalitha v. Konda Hanumantha Rao

Court : Hon’ble Supreme Court Of India

Citation : 2022 SCC Online 928

Facts of the Case:

  • Akella Lalitha (Appellant) married Konda Balaji (son of Respondents) on December 18, 2003.
  • A son, Ahlad Achintya, was born to the couple on March 27, 2006.
  • Konda Balaji died shortly after the child’s birth, on June 14, 2006.
  • Appellant remarried to Sri Akella Ravi Narasimha Sarma, a Wing Commander in the Indian Air Force, in 2007 and had another child.
  • In 2008, Respondents (child’s grandparents) filed a petition under Section 10 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, seeking guardianship of Achintya and visitation rights.
  • The Trial Court dismissed the guardianship petition, finding it inappropriate to separate the child from his mother’s care, but granted visitation rights to the Respondents.
  • Both parties appealed the Trial Court’s decision.
  • During the appeal, it came to light that the Appellant changed her son’s surname from Konda to Akella.
  • The High Court upheld the Appellant’s guardianship but ordered her to restore the child’s surname to Konda, include the biological father’s name in records where permissible, and list Ravi Narasimha Sarma as the step-father in relevant documents.
  • The Appellant challenged this decision in the present appeal before the Supreme Court of India. During the pendency of the appeal, a formal adoption of Achintya by Ravi Narasimha Sarma took place on July 12, 2019.

 

Issues:

  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?

 

  1. 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?

Arguments Advanced:

  • By Appellant:
    • As the sole surviving natural guardian, the mother possesses the right to decide the child’s surname, including aligning it with her new family. This right is supported by Section 6 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, which designates the mother as the natural guardian following the father’s death, and Section 9(3), which grants the mother the right to give the child in adoption under these circumstances.
    • The High Court’s directive to list the stepfather formally in documents is detrimental to the child’s well-being and sense of belonging within the family unit, serving as a constant reminder of adoption and potentially exposing him to unnecessary scrutiny.
    • The formal adoption of the child in 2019 by the Appellant’s current husband further strengthens the case for the surname change, as adoption severs ties with the biological family and creates new ties with the adoptive family, making the surname change logical and consistent with established legal and societal understanding of adoption.
    • The High Court overstepped its authority by issuing a directive for a surname change that wasn’t part of the initial pleadings or requests for relief. This overreach violates established legal principles that prohibit courts from granting relief not sought in the initial petition and risk a miscarriage of justice by denying the affected party an opportunity to respond.

 

  • By Respondent:
    • No specific arguments were presented regarding the surname change, as this relief wasn’t initially sought.

Conclusion:

  • The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Appellant, setting aside the High Court’s directives concerning the child’s surname. The court affirmed the mother’s right as the sole surviving natural guardian to decide the surname of her child, particularly in light of her remarriage and the subsequent adoption of the child by her current husband.

Opinion:

  • The Supreme Court’s judgment reaffirms the paramount importance of the child’s best interests while recognizing the mother’s autonomy as the sole natural guardian. The court prioritizes the child’s seamless integration into a loving and supportive family unit over lineage-based surname conventions.
  • By upholding the mother’s right to determine her child’s surname and by recognizing the significance of the formal adoption, the Court takes a progressive stance that reflects evolving societal norms and promotes the child’s overall well-being.
  • The judgment establishes a clear precedent: while courts retain the power to intervene in matters of a child’s surname, this intervention requires a specific request based on the demonstrably paramount importance of the child’s best interests above all else.