Explainer: Why a married woman approached Delhi high court to get her maiden surname back?
A Delhi-based woman, in the midst of her divorce proceedings, is challenging a Union ministry notification which requires her to get an NOC from her husband to revert to her birth surname
A Delhi-based woman legally took her husband’s surname in September 2014 and the change was officially documented and published in The Gazette of India. In August last year, however, she filed a divorce petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before a Delhi court, and wanted to revert to her birth surname for all social, educational, economic and other purposes.
But, the 40-year-old woman, ostensibly hit a roadblock - a Union ministry notification.
What does the ministry notification say?
The Department of Publication, Union Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, has issued an undated notification specifically for “obtaining maiden surname”. This notification states that the person (the married woman) has to provide a copy of her divorce decree, or an NOC from the husband that he has no objection if she uses her maiden surname.
Her ID proof along with her mobile number too must be attached with the NOC.
Thirdly, the notification adds that the request for the change of the applicant’s name will not be processed till the final verdict is pronounced.
Woman approaches court
On February 27, the woman filed a petition in the Delhi high court challenging this Union government’s notification which lays out conditions for a woman to get her birth surname back.
The plea, has been filed in the midst of her divorce proceedings with her husband.
What her plea said?
The petitioner has told the court that “in view of the irretrievable breakdown of marriage”, she now wishes to change her name and adopt her maiden surname. However, owing to the “arbitrary nature” of the government notification, she is unable to do so.
Arguing the notification infringed upon her right to "autonomy and privacy" and reflected "gender bias," sArguing the notification infringed upon her right to "autonomy and privacy" and reflected "gender bias," she said it constitutes a form of impermissible discrimination by imposing additional and disproportionate requisites exclusively on women.
It subjects women to more burdensome conditions compared to men seeking a change in name, the notification unjustly discriminates against them, the petition alleges.
Furthermore, the notification “unreasonably curtails the freedom of expression and personal identity, particularly of women, by mandating to provide a no-objection certificate from the husband or a copy of a divorce decree”. She asserted that a person's choice of name was a vital aspect of their identity and self-expression.
This requirement intrudes upon the private sphere of a woman, compelling her to disclose sensitive personal information and impinges on her privacy and autonomy.
And has demanded a direction to quash it.
Calling the notification “patently discriminatory, arbitrary, unreasonable, the petitioner points out that it violates her fundamental rights under Articles 14 (equality before law), 19 (right to freedoms, including freedom of speech and expression), and 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution of India”.
What does the court say?
A bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet PS Arora have issued notice to the Centre asking them to respond to this petition challenging the notification for obtaining the surname. The central government has been asked to respond within 4 weeks. The case has been posted for hearing next on May 28.
What the petitioner’s lawyer says
"This notification is discriminatory to women, and an invasion of their privacy since it also requires they attach their mobile no along with the NOC from the husband. In today’s day and age where the country believes in equality of men and women, such notification is per se archaic. Additionally, it is a woman's right to change her name, why should she get an NOC from her husband, he is not an authority," says Ruby Singh Ahuja, senior partner at Karanjawala & Co, who has filed the petition on behalf of her client.
