Asivad Anac said:
Thank you for correcting me. Always appreciate the opportunity to learn something new.
My response was motivated by a number of posts on this forum (most of them from SE Asia) where it is apparently very common for the wife to assume the husband's name for 'day to day' usage without making it official on any records. It is probably a legal offence but I imagine no one takes that seriously enough for one reason or the other. For CIC purposes, it is imperative that one produces a legal change of name document or a self declared affidavit at the least with sufficient documents to prove that it is the same person across multiple versions of the name.
My answer would've been very different if the question was in a European context (probably the question would never have originated from there because these things work differently when you're managing a few million people not grappling with a few billion!). Hope that satisfies you that I did have some idea of the background before attempting to answer this question. Do point out the other few answers of mine were it appears that I don't understand what I'm talking about so that I can learn something or clear the air, as the case may be.
point taken and I undestand where you are comming from.. perhaps it would be beneficial to then answer in the same context, as a lot of people seem to be reading questions and asnwer and that are lead to beleave that marriage ceritficate is not an official document that proves change of name.
I really don't know how things work in india., but from what you just said it seems to me that they dont change their last name at all, and procede to use it only in day to day interactions, othervise they would need to change their documents., so perhaps on their marriage certificate under new surname it states that the wife will continue to use her last name in legal transaction. just thinking along what you said..
from the top of my head, I remember you said ( for your case ) that you didnt see the point of having a statment notarized, as it was an original, and public notary is only used to certifiy when a copy of the document is in fact true to the original.
again, where I come from, notary public does indeed certifiy authenticity of the photocopied document, but they are primarily used to confirm that the signature on the document is indeed given by the person signing the document - hence the documents always need to be signed in the presence of public notary and backed up with the identity document or in same cases if the notary public knows the person privately and then in the statment he writes: the person xy is indeed the same person as xy, and in personaly familiar to me.
This is the reason why personal statments, should indeed be notarized and they have more authenticity if they are notarized.
I hope you will interpret my comments in a good way, and just as pointers, as I am definitely not trying to put you down in any way., you helped me with your advice many, many times before., but you did say you would like to learn something new