<p>If names are markers of individual identity, surnames can be signs of lack of freedom, social burden or even oppression. People do not have control over their first names, but if they want to have control over their surnames, they are often up against social norms, patriarchal notions and even government rules. </p><p>This is almost always the case with women who find themselves forced to change their surnames after their marriage and adopt their husband’s name or family name as their surname. They also find it difficult to drop their adopted surname. The matter is now being addressed by the Delhi High Court in a petition filed by a woman who wants to revert to her maiden name after her divorce comes through. It is not just a legal issue. It showcases social inequalities and the lack of an independent identity for women. </p>.<p>The petitioner, Divya Modi Tongya, has challenged a government notification that requires married women to submit a ‘no-objection certificate’ (NOC) from their husbands if they wish to legally change their surnames back to their maiden names. The court has told the government to file its response in the matter by May 28 when the next hearing is to take place. The requirement violates the fundamental right of a woman to decide her identity. The petitioner has said that it is against Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. She has rightly contended that it is “patently discriminatory” and displays “evident gender bias” by imposing additional and disproportionate requisites exclusively on women. The contention is right. When men and women are equal, there is no reason for women to be known by their husband’s surname. The question why a man does not take up the wife’s surname after marriage is pertinent and needs an answer. </p>.<p>Women are forced by rules, procedures and social norms to adopt their husband’s surname. They face many difficulties if they don’t do so when they apply for official documents like the ration card, Aadhaar, etc., or when they want to open a bank account or claim welfare benefits. Failure or refusal to comply with the requirement often creates problems. Apart from the official requirement, social pressure also works on a woman to accept the husband’s identity as her own. That is in line with the patriarchal idea that a woman’s identity and role in society are subservient to a man’s. Women should have the freedom to choose their own surname or to go without a surname. The government notification that insists on the husband’s consent for a surname change should be withdrawn by the government or struck down by the court. </p>
<p>If names are markers of individual identity, surnames can be signs of lack of freedom, social burden or even oppression. People do not have control over their first names, but if they want to have control over their surnames, they are often up against social norms, patriarchal notions and even government rules. </p><p>This is almost always the case with women who find themselves forced to change their surnames after their marriage and adopt their husband’s name or family name as their surname. They also find it difficult to drop their adopted surname. The matter is now being addressed by the Delhi High Court in a petition filed by a woman who wants to revert to her maiden name after her divorce comes through. It is not just a legal issue. It showcases social inequalities and the lack of an independent identity for women. </p>.<p>The petitioner, Divya Modi Tongya, has challenged a government notification that requires married women to submit a ‘no-objection certificate’ (NOC) from their husbands if they wish to legally change their surnames back to their maiden names. The court has told the government to file its response in the matter by May 28 when the next hearing is to take place. The requirement violates the fundamental right of a woman to decide her identity. The petitioner has said that it is against Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. She has rightly contended that it is “patently discriminatory” and displays “evident gender bias” by imposing additional and disproportionate requisites exclusively on women. The contention is right. When men and women are equal, there is no reason for women to be known by their husband’s surname. The question why a man does not take up the wife’s surname after marriage is pertinent and needs an answer. </p>.<p>Women are forced by rules, procedures and social norms to adopt their husband’s surname. They face many difficulties if they don’t do so when they apply for official documents like the ration card, Aadhaar, etc., or when they want to open a bank account or claim welfare benefits. Failure or refusal to comply with the requirement often creates problems. Apart from the official requirement, social pressure also works on a woman to accept the husband’s identity as her own. That is in line with the patriarchal idea that a woman’s identity and role in society are subservient to a man’s. Women should have the freedom to choose their own surname or to go without a surname. The government notification that insists on the husband’s consent for a surname change should be withdrawn by the government or struck down by the court. </p>
