Final Order 1

Pdf Text: ~1~ Judgment C. C. No. : 1566/N/2018
Filed on : 16/11/2018.
Registered on : 16/11/2018.
Decided on : 29/03/2019.
Duration : 0 Y., 04 M., 13 D.
Exh. :
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
66TH COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
(Presided by R. M. Nerlikar)
Shamarendra Kumar Jagdish Singh.
Age : Adult. Occ. : Nil.
R/o. : Sapat Tara Housing Society,
Room No. 1, Shiv Shakti Nagar, Near
L & T Gate No. 6, Saki Vihar Road,
Powai, Mumbai400 072.
.. Applicant.
V/s.
The Ward Officer,
Health Department,
'L' Ward, B.M.C.,
Kurla (W), Mumbai.
.. Respondent.
Application for registration of birth.
Ld. Advocate for applicant. : Mr. R. R. Dube.
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on 29/03/2019)
The applicant viz. Shamarendra Kumar Jagdish
Singh has made this application for registration of birth of his
-- 1 of 7 --
~2~ Judgment C. C. No. : 1566/N/2018
male child viz. Krishna, under the provision of section 13 (3)
of M.R.B.D. Act, 1969.
2. In short it is the case of the applicant, Mrs. Arti S.
Singh is his legally wedded wife and and out of their wedlock
male child viz. Krishna, was born on 18/07/2015, at home, in
Mumbai. Due to inadvertence, he 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, he prayed to direct respondent
to register the birth of his son in it's record.
3. Notice to the respondent was issued, it was served
upon it. Respondent filed his say, at (Exh.3), which disclosed
after verifying claimed of applicant appropriate order be
passed.
4. Heard Ld. Counsel Mr. R. R. Dube, for the
applicant.
5. The points for determination along with my
findings thereon are, as under...
-- 2 of 7 --
~3~ Judgment C. C. No. : 1566/N/2018
SR. NO. POINTS FINDINGS
1 Whether applicant proves, his son viz.
Krishna born, on 18/07/2015, at his
home ?
No.
2 Whether applicant proves, birth of his
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.
Sharmarendra Kumar Jagdish Singh has examined Seema
Amit Tiwari as (A.W.1), at (Exh.4) and Savita Rameshwar
Singh as (A.W.2), at (Exh.5). He closed his evidence by
filing pursis, at (Exh.6).
-- 3 of 7 --
~4~ Judgment C. C. No. : 1566/N/2018
8. If minutely read evidence of Seema (A.W.1) and
Savita (A.W.2), it disclosed they are neighbours of the
applicant and they were aware delivery of her son viz.
Krishna, which took place on 18/07/2015 at the residence i.e.
Sapat Tara Housing Society, Room No. 1, Shiv Shakti Nagar,
Near L & T Gate No. 6, Saki Vihar Road, Powai, Mumbai400
072. Name of the mother of the child is Arti S. Singh. At that
time these witnesses are present.
9. The applicant apart from above said witnesses has
not adduced furthermore evidence in his side. He closed his
evidence by filing pursis at (Exh.6).
10. The applicant has produced his affidavit in support
of her application. It is at (Exh.7 ). He has also produced
documentary evidence in support of his claim, those are xerox
copy of Ration Card, xerox copy of his driving licence, xerox
copy of his Aadhar Card, xerox copy of medical bill, xerox
copy of certificate issued by Manisha Clinic in respect of home
delivery, xerox copy of medical prescription given by Dr.
Anushka T. Khatu, xerox copy of immunization card.
11. If minutely read evidence of above two witnesses,
it appears that, they are neighbours of the applicant and
wherein they were present at the time of delivery of
-- 4 of 7 --
~5~ Judgment C. C. No. : 1566/N/2018
applicant's wife, who delivered male child. It is pertaining to
note that, applicant alleged that, he is father of born child
from the wedlock with Mrs. Arti S. Singh, who is his legally
wedded wife. Applicant has not adduced his evidence,
furthermore, his wife also has not adduced any evidence.
Applicant preferred to examine neighbour, who testified in
their presence, the applicant's wife delivered male child.
There is no documentary evidence on record to show that,
applicant's wife delivered male child on alleged date.
12. In short it is to say that, in the absence of evidence
of applicant and his wife, in the absence of documentary
evidence on record, it is difficult to believe theory putforth by
the applicant. Therefore, evidence adduced by applicant by
way of his neighbours cannot be considered.
13. 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
Ration Card, his driving licence, his Aadhar Card, medical bill,
certificate issued by Manisha Clinic in respect of home
delivery, medical prescription given by Dr. Anushka T. Khatu,
immunization card.
-- 5 of 7 --
~6~ Judgment C. C. No. : 1566/N/2018
14. The Ld. counsel for applicant submitted that, he
has placed on record the documents those are medical papers
issued by Manisha Clinic and Dr. Anushka T. Khatu, Copy of
Ration Card, Copy of his Aadhar Card, Copy of his driving
lincece. 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, as no efforts were made on behalf of the
applicant to prove those documents. Hence, in absence of it,
it cannot be considered, as it is not proved in accordance with
law.
15. If considered these aspects, it is difficult to hold the
son of applicant, born on 18/07/2015, at his home.
Therefore, same cannot be considered. Considering all these
aspects, I answer point No. 1 and 2 in negative.
AS TO POINT NO.3 :
14. In view of above discussion the applicant has failed
to proved his case. Therefore, she 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.
-- 6 of 7 --
~7~ Judgment C. C. No. : 1566/N/2018
ORDER
1] The application is hereby rejected.
2] No order as to cost.
Date. 29/03/2019.
SRD.
Sd/
(R. M. Nerlikar)
Metropolitan Magistrate,
66th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
Dictated on : 29/03/2019.
Transcribed on : 29/03/2019.
Signed on : 03/04/2019.
SRD.
-- 7 of 7 --