[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Ms. Parul Daware & Anr vs Regional Passport Officer & Anr on 7 April, 2026
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 17155/2025 and CM APPL. 70583/2025
Date of Decision: 07.04.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
MS. PARUL DAWARE & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Shaini Bhardwaj, Mr. Aditya
Sharma, Mr. Avichal Mishra, Mr.
Vedic thukral, Ms. Rukhsar,
Advocates.
versus
REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ashish K Dixit (CGSC), Mr.
Adhiraj Singh (GP), Mr. Umar
Hashmi adv, Ms. Iqra Sheik advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
JUDGEMENT
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
The petition is for directions to the respondents to reissue a passport
in the name of minor petitioner no. 2, without her father's name.
2. Petitioner no. 1 is the mother of petitioner no. 2. According to the
petitioners, on account of matrimonial discord, petitioner no. 1 and the
father of petitioner no. 2 entered into Conciliated Agreement dated
07.04.2021 and subsequently, granted divorce as per the terms thereof, vide
order dated 16.07.2022 passed by the concerned Family Court.
3. Thereafter, in the year, 2024, the petitioners applied for a passport in
Signed By:PRIYA Signed
Signing Date:08.04.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
20:00:49 KUMAR KAURAV
the name of minor-petitioner no. 2 and on 16.07.2024, a passport in which,
the name of minor-petitioner no.2's father was specified, despite specific
representation in this regard.
4. The petitioners have placed on record Conciliated Agreement dated
07.04.2021, whereby, it is clearly recorded that the father of petitioner no. 2
had agreed that their minor daughter would remain in permanent custody
and single guardianship with the wife i.e., petitioner no. 1. The second party
i.e. the husband and his family members, will never claim custody and rights
of visitation over the minor children /daughter.
5. The said arrangement has been approved by the Court and,
accordingly, a divorce decree has been passed. Paragraph no.4 of the said
Agreement is extracted as under:
"4. That the Second Party agrees in the interst and welfare of the minor
daughter of about four mc,mths old namely Inara that the permanent
custody and single guardianship will remain with the First P~. The Second
Party and his family members will never claim the custody and rights of
visitation over the minor child daughter."
6. It is thus be clear that for all practical purposes, the relationship of the
petitioners and the father of petitioner no. 2 has been terminated. If, upon
attaining majority, petitioner no. 2 has any rights, the same, however, shall
remain protected.
7. So long as petitioner no. 2 does not claim any right qua her father or
the latter exercises any right qua the former, there should not be any
impediment for the passport authority in reissuing the passport without the
name of petitioner no. 2's father.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner rightly placed reliance on
the decision in the case of Shalu Nigam and Anr. v. The Regional Passport
Signed By:PRIYA Signed
Signing Date:08.04.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
20:00:49 KUMAR KAURAV
Officer and Anr.1, and also in the case of Smita Maan and Anr. v. Regional
Passport Officer2, where in paragraphs 25 and 26, the court has held as
under:
"25. In this backdrop, the Court notes that the facts of the present case are
quite peculiar. As per the settlement which has been entered into by the
biological father and the mother/Petitioner No. 1, the father has given up
all rights, if any, towards the child. There is no visitation. The child has
also not been brought up by the father. Moreover, the fact that the minor
son is also using the surname of the mother and the maternal
grandparents, itself shows that the father does not wish to have any
concern or relationship with the child. No maintenance or alimony has
also been paid to the Petitioners in this case. In fact, this would be a case
where the father has completely deserted the child. Under such
circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that Clause 4.5.1. of Chapter 8
and Clause 4.1 of Chapter 9 would clearly be applicable.
26. In the unique and peculiar circumstances of this case, it is accordingly
directed that the name of the father of Petitioner No. 2 be deleted from the
passport and the passport be re-issued in favour of the minor child without
the name of the father. Needless to add that this order shall not be treated
as a precedent."
9. In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that the passport of the minor
petitioner no. 2 be issued without name of Mr. Gaurav Sethi.
10. Petition stands disposed of.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
APRIL 7, 2026/P
2016 SCC OnLine Del 3023
2023 SCC OnLine Del 2323
Signed By:PRIYA Signed
Signing Date:08.04.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
20:00:49 KUMAR KAURAV
