Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: ~1~ Judgment C. C. No. : 582/N/2018
Filed on : 25/04/2018.
Registered on : 25/04/2018.
Decided on : 04/12/2018.
Duration : 0 Y., 07 M., 09 D.
Exh. :
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
66TH COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
(Presided by R. M. Nerlikar)
Gufran Ahmed Minhajuddin Siddiqui.
Age : Adault. Occ. : Nil.
R/o. : Near Gausiya Masjid, Room
No. 2, Nawab Chawl, Jarimari, Kurla
Andheri Road, Kurla (W), Mumbai72.
.. Applicant.
V/s.
The SubRegistrar,
B.M.C., LWard, Mumbai.
.. Respondent.
Application for registration of birth
Ld. Advocate for applicant. : Sarika V. Prabhale.
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on 04/12/2018)
The applicant has made this application for
registration of birth date of his daughter viz. Aayera Gufran
Ahmed Siddiqui.
-- 1 of 5 --
~2~ Judgment C. C. No. : 582/N/2018
2. In short it is the case of the applicant, a female
child viz. Aayera Gufran Ahmed Siddiqui was born, on
17/08/2016, at home, i.e. Near Gausiya Masjid, Room No. 2,
Nawab Chawl, Jarimari, Kurla Andheri Road, Kurla (W),
Mumbai72 to his wife viz. Rukaiyabibi Gufran Ahmed
Siddiqui. Due to inadvertence, he could not register her date
of birth within 30 days, as contemplated U/Sec. 8 and Rule5
of the M.R.B.D. Rules 1969 and 1976. As per provision of
section 13 (2) of the R.B.D. Act an order of the Magistrate is
required to register the date of birth. Therefore, he prayed to
direct respondent to register the date of birth of his daughter
in it's record.
3. Notice to the respondent was issued, it was served
upon it. Respondent filed his say, at (Exh.6), which disclosed
applicant has produced satisfactory documentary evidence
regarding birth of his daughter, prayed for appropriate order.
4. Heard Ld. Counsel Sarika V. Prabhale, for the
applicant.
5. The points for determination along with my
findings thereon are, as under...
-- 2 of 5 --
~3~ Judgment C. C. No. : 582/N/2018
SR. NO. POINTS FINDINGS
1 Whether applicant proves, his
daughter viz. Aayera born, on
17/08/2016, at his home ?
No.
2 Whether applicant proves, her date of
birth was not recorded with B.M.C.
record?
No.
3 What order ? As per final
order.
R E A S O N S
AS TO POINT NOS.1 AND 2 :
6. These points are interlinks with each other,
therefore, I am discussing the same together.
7. In order to prove the case, applicant has not
examined any witness. The applicant has produced
documentary evidence in support of his claim, those are xerox
copy of his Ration Card, xerox copy of his Aadhar Card, xerox
copy of his PAN Card, xerox copy of his driving licence, xerox
copy of his election ID, xerox copy of his Passport, xerox copy
of immunization card of his daughter issued by BMC.
-- 3 of 5 --
~4~ Judgment C. C. No. : 582/N/2018
8. If read section 13 (3) of M. R. B. D. Act of 1969, it
cast responsibility upon the Magistrate to verify the claim of
the applicant. Apart affidavit of applicant and xerox copies of
his Ration Card, his Aadhar Card, his PAN Card, his driving
licence, his election ID, his Passport, immunization card of his
daughter issued by BMC, there is no documentary evidence on
record to show that, the daughter of applicant born on
17/08/2016. In the absence of it, xerox copies submitted by
applicant is of no use.
9. The Ld. counsel for applicant submitted that, he
has placed on record the documents those are xerox copy of
his Ration Card, xerox copy of his Aadhar Card, xerox copy of
his PAN Card, xerox copy of his driving licence, xerox copy of
his election ID, xerox copy of his Passport, xerox copy of
immunization card of his daughter issued by BMC. As above
said documents are xerox copies, same cannot be read in the
evidence. Further, they are not proved in accordance with
law, as no efforts were made on behalf of the applicant to
prove those documents.
10. If considered these aspects, it is difficult to hold the
daughter of applicant, born on 17/08/2016. Therefore, same
cannot be considered. Considering all these aspects, I answer
point No. 1 and 2 in negative.
-- 4 of 5 --
~5~ Judgment C. C. No. : 582/N/2018
AS TO POINT NO.3 :
11. In view of above discussion the applicant has failed
to proved his case. Therefore, he is not entitled for the relief,
as prayed for. The application is required to be rejected.
Accordingly, answer point No. 3 and I pass the following
order.
ORDER
1] The application is hereby rejected.
2] No order as to cost.
Date 04/12/2018.
SRD.
Sd/
(R. M. Nerlikar)
Metropolitan Magistrate,
66th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
Dictated on : 04/12/2018.
Transcribed on : 04/12/2018.
Signed on : 06/12/2018.
SRD.
-- 5 of 5 --