Final Order 1

Pdf Text: ~1~ Judgment C. C. No. : 1098/N/2018
Filed on : 13/08/2018.
Registered on : 13/08/2018.
Decided on : 15/03/2019.
Duration : 0 Y., 07 M., 02 D.
Exh. :
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
66TH COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
(Presided by R. M. Nerlikar)
Meena Jagat Singh.
Age : 60 Years. Occ. : Housewife.
R/o. : Ambedkar Nagar, S. V. P.
Nagar, MHADA, Andheri (W),
Mumbai400 053.
.. Applicant.
V/s.
The Ward Officer,
K/West Ward Office of B.M.C.,
Andheri (W), Mumbai.
.. Respondent.
Application for registration of birth.
Ld. Advocate for applicant. : Mr. Subhsh S. Gaikwad.
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on 15/03/2019)
The applicant viz. Meena Jagat Singh has made
this application for registration of birth of her male child viz.
-- 1 of 6 --
~2~ Judgment C. C. No. : 1098/N/2018
Jeevan, under the provision of section 13 (3) of M.R.B.D. Act,
1969.
2. In short it is the case of the applicant, Jagat Kalu
Singh, is her legally wedded husband and out of their wedlock
male child viz. Jeevan, was born, on 18/12/2001, at home, in
Mumbai. Due to inadvertence, she could not register his 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 birth. Therefore, she prayed to direct respondent
to register the birth of her son in it's record.
3. Notice to the respondent was issued, it was served
upon it. Respondent filed his say, at (Exh.5), which disclosed
applicant resided at present address, prayed for appropriate
order.
4. Heard Ld. Counsel Mr. Subhsh S. Gaikwad, for the
applicant.
5. The points for determination along with my
findings thereon are, as under...
-- 2 of 6 --
~3~ Judgment C. C. No. : 1098/N/2018
SR. NO. POINTS FINDINGS
1 Whether applicant proves, her son viz.
Jeevan born, on 18/12/2001, at her
home ?
No.
2 Whether applicant proves, birth of her
son 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 viz. Meena
Jagat Singh, has examined herself as (A.W.1), at (Exh.8),
Anni Pinto as (A.W.2), at (Exh.3) and Barula Luiza Sequeira
as (A.W.3), at (Exh.4A). She closed her evidence by filing
pursis, at (Exh.9).
-- 3 of 6 --
~4~ Judgment C. C. No. : 1098/N/2018
8. If minutely read evidence of applicant it reveals
that, she narrated same facts, which were narrated in the
application. The sum and substance of her evidence disclosed
her son viz. Jeevan, born on 18/12/2001, to her, at home i.e.
Ambedkar Nagar, S. V. P. Nagar, MHADA, Andheri (W),
Mumbai400 053 .
9. The applicant has produced her affidavit in support
of her application. It is at (Exh.4 ). She has also produced
documentary evidence in support of her claim, those are xerox
copy of medical papers issued by B.M.C., Copy of Ration Card,
Copy of her Aadhar Card, Copy of her son's Aadhar Card,
Copy of her son's School Leaving Certificate issued by Ismail
Abdulla English High School.
10. 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
medical papers issued by B.M.C., Ration Card, her Aadhar
Card, son's Aadhar Card, her son's School Leaving Certificate
issued by Ismail Abdulla English High School.
11. The Ld. counsel for applicant submitted that, he
has placed on record the documents those are medical papers
-- 4 of 6 --
~5~ Judgment C. C. No. : 1098/N/2018
issued by B.M.C., Copy of Ration Card, Copy of her Aadhar
Card, Copy of her son's Aadhar Card, Copy of her son's School
Leaving Certificate issued by Ismail Abdulla English High
School. As above said documents which are placed on record
alongwith main application are xerox copies, same cannot be
read in the evidence. Further, they are not proved in
accordance with law. Further, no efforts were made on behalf
of the applicant to prove those documents. Further, school
leaving certificate of son of applicant, even tough it is true
copy, no permission obtained by Ld. Counsel for applicant, for
reading the same as secondary evidence in accordance with
law, in absence of it, it cannot be considered, as it is not
proved in accordance with law.
12. If considered these aspects, it is difficult to hold the
son of applicant, born on 18/12/2001, at her home.
Therefore, same cannot be considered. Considering all these
aspects, I answer point No. 1 and 2 in negative.
AS TO POINT NO.3 :
13. In view of above discussion the applicant has failed
to proved her case. Therefore, she is not entitled for the relief,
as prayed for. The application is required to be rejected.
-- 5 of 6 --
~6~ Judgment C. C. No. : 1098/N/2018
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 15/03/2019.
SRD.
Sd/
(R. M. Nerlikar)
Metropolitan Magistrate,
66th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
Dictated on : 15/03/2019.
Transcribed on : 15/03/2019.
Signed on : 03/04/2019.
SRD.
-- 6 of 6 --