Telangana High Court
Smt Keerthi vs The Union Of India on 11 February, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT PETITION No.28101 of 2024
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
" ... to issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly
one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of
the Respondent.2 in not issuing the pass port to the petitioner
no.2 minor despite of submitting the divorce proceeding and
the respondent no.2 demanding the consent of the other
partner or court order by way of letter dated 29.04.2024 is
arbitrary and unconstitutional, ultravires and violate of
articles 14 and 19 of the constitutional of India against the
principles of natural justice thereby consequentially to direct
the respondent no.2 to issue pass port to the petitioner no.2 in
pursuance to the passport application no.HY2076375958924
for participating in any international sports events of archery
which are going to be held in future."
2. Heard Sri P.Ramachandran, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Sri G.Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor
General of India, for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and
Sri P.Kiranodaya Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for
respondent No.3.
3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the
writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission.
4. Petitioner No.1 is the wife of 3rd respondent. They are
blessed with a son namely, Master G. Karthik as petitioner
No.2. Thereafter, matrimonial disputes arose between them.
5. Petitioner No.1 has filed a petition against respondent
No.3 seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty,
vide O.P.No.858 of 2019, the said O.P. is pending. Petitioner
No.1 has also filed DVC No.40 of 2016 against respondent No.3
and the said case was allowed in part on 16.12.2016, by
directing respondent No.3 to pay monthly maintenance of
Rs.20,000/- under section 20 of Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 to petitioner No.2 (minor son).
Against the said order the petitioner No.1 filed appeal and the
same is pending.
6. According to the petitioner No.1, she is housewife and she
had a valid Passport, but her minor son is not having Passport.
She applied Passport of her minor son on 19.03.2024. She has
already submitted all her documents as sought by 2nd
respondent.
7. Vide letter dated 29.04.2024, 2nd respondent had informed
the petitioner No.1, that they cannot process the Passport
application submitted by the petitioner No.1 without the
consent of the other parent, since there is divorce application is
pending. The 2nd respondent has also advised the petitioner
No.1 alternatively to furnish permission from the Court to apply
for Passport of her minor child without consent of other parent
of the child. The 2nd respondent had also referred to the
Passport Manual 2020. Challenging the said proceedings, the
petitioners herein filed present writ petition.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, it
is practically impossible to obtain consent from deserted
husband. The 3rd respondent had not filed any petition seeking
custody of the minor. The 3rd respondent is not bothered to
maintain the minor son. Even then the 2nd respondent is
insisting the petitioner No.1 to submit the consent of 3rd
respondent. According to her, the action of respondent No.2 in
insisting to submit consent of 3rd respondent or obtain
permission from the Court is illegal, contrary to the Passport
Manual 2020 and also the procedure laid down under the
Passports Act and Rules made there under. Learned counsel for
the petitioners has also placed reliance on the judgments of
High Court of Kerala and Madras High Courts.
9. Whereas, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1
and 2 would submit that, in view of the pendency of the
aforesaid divorce petition and as per the Passport manual, the
petitioner No.1 has to either submit consent of 3rd respondent or
obtain permission from the Court where the said O.P. is
pending. The same was informed to the petitioner No.1 vide
letter dated 29.04.2022. There is no error in it.
10. Paragraph No. 4 (4.6), Chapter-9 of Passport Manual
2020, says that "Divorce Pending Cases: "In case of divorce is
still pending before the Court, the PIA shall insist on consent of
both the parents. Alternatively, the applicant's parent should
furnish or obtain permission from the Court to apply for a
Passport for the child without the consent of the other parent of
the child. In pending divorce cases, where the single parent with
child is already working/ staying abroad, the child requires a
Passport for its continued stay in abroad. In such a situation,
the Mission/Post may issue a two year short validity Passport to
the child, at a time, pending court permission for issue of a
regular Passport or direction for custody of the child".
11. The aforesaid facts would reveal that, there are
matrimonial disputes between the petitioner No.1 and 3rd
respondent. She is having valid Passport. Petitioner No.1 has
applied for issuance of Passport for her minor son on
19.03.2024, to participate in international event known as
Singapore Indoor Archery Open 2024. Admittedly there are no
criminal cases pending against the petitioners herein. Petitioner
No.1 had filed the aforesaid O.P.No.858 of 2019 against
respondent No.3 seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground
of cruelty and the same is pending before concerned Court. The
3rd respondent has not filed any petition, seeking custody of
minor and the 3rd respondent has also not filed any petition
seeking guardianship. The only proceeding that is pending is
the aforesaid O.P.No.858 of 2019.
12. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner No.1 has
already submitted all the documents including Annexure-C
specified declaration of applicant's parent or guardian for issue
Passport to minor when one parent has not given consent.
13. In Juvairiya v. Regional Passport Officer 1 High Court of
Kerela considered the issuance of Passport on consent not being
obtained from the other parent and held that if the affidavit as
required under the Passport Rules, 1980 is submitted, then
necessarily Passport officer would have to issue Passport in the
name of the minor child.
14. Relying on the said principle High court of Kerela in
Rabeeha v. Ministry of External affairs, Regional Passport
Officer 2 reiterated the said principle.
15. In another judgment in Chaitnya S.Nair v. Union of
India 3, High Court of Kerela reiterated the said principle.
16. As stated supra, the petitioner herein had submitted the
aforesaid undertaking in Annexure-C, disclosing about pending
of the aforesaid case and she is also taking responsibility with
regard to the aforesaid court cases.
17. It is relevant to note that in Schedule III of Passport Rules
1980, it is stipulated, where the applicant parent is not in a
1 . (2014) 1 (K) ALT 1990
2. (2015) lawsuit (K) 722
3. WP(C)No.22555 of 2021, dated 08.03.2022
position to get consent of the other parent, for whatever reason,
the parent applying for Passport of the minor may sign the form
(application form) and submit a sworn affidavit as per
Annexure-C.
18. In the Rules and also in the aforesaid Annexures, there is
no mention that the petitioner has to obtain permission from
the court on the ground that the other spouse is not giving
consent. What is required is that the petitioner No.1 shall
submit undertaking in Annexure-C which the petitioner No.1
had already submitted. As stated above there are matrimonial
disputes between the petitioner No.1 and 3rd respondent. She
had filed the aforesaid O.P.No.858 of 2019 seeking dissolution
of marriage on the ground of cruelty. Therefore, it is practically
impossible for the petitioner No.1 to get the consent of the 3rd
respondent, due to the aforesaid strained relations between
them. However, she had submitted the aforesaid undertaking in
Annexure-C. She has specifically stated that she will take
responsibility with regard to the aforesaid case. Admittedly there
is no crime pending against the petitioner and 3rd respondent
has also not filed any custody petition or guardianship petition.
19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned
proceedings dated 29.04.2022 are illegal and also contrary to
the Passport Rules and the principle laid down by High Court of
Kerala in the aforesaid judgments. Therefore, the same are set
aside. The 2nd respondent is directed to consider the application
submitted by the petitioner No.1 dated 19.03.2024 and issue
Passport to the minor son of the petitioner No.1.
20. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the
writ petition shall stand closed.
_______________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date: 11.02.2025
Note: Issue CC in two days
b/o
vsl
