Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given. "

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent authorities in refusing to issue passport in the name of the minor son solely on the ground of non-production of the father's consent is illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law, being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the insistence on such consent, despite the peculiar facts of the case, is mechanical and without application of mind. It is further submitted that the marriage between the petitioner and her husband already stands dissolved by a judgment and decree dated 23.06.2022 passed under Section 13- B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the minor child is residing with the petitioner. As per the said decree, the custody of the minor child has been granted to the petitioner (mother), while the father has only visitation rights, and it has been recorded that the father has no objection to the custody of the minor child remaining with the petitioner. Therefore, insistence on obtaining consent of the father is wholly unjustified. It is also submitted that there is no dispute regarding the custody of the minor child, and the petitioner, being the natural guardian having actual custody, is competent to apply for issuance of passport/visa. The petitioner is not aware of the present whereabouts of her former husband, making compliance of such requirement impossible and unreasonable.

5. Learned counsel further submits that the minor child had earlier been issued a passport valid for the period from 22.02.2017 to 21.02.2022, and therefore, denial of passport at this stage on technical grounds is arbitrary and discriminatory. It is submitted that the petitioner had applied online and was allotted an appointment dated 02.08.2023; however, her application was rejected solely on the ground of non-furnishing of father's consent. It is further contended that the assertion of the respondents that the petitioner voluntarily sought closure of her subsequent application dated 02.04.2025 is misconceived and misleading. The petitioner was compelled to seek closure only due to the persistent and unjustified insistence of the passport authority on furnishing the father's consent, despite the subsistence of a valid decree of divorce and undisputed custody. Such closure cannot be treated as voluntary abandonment but was merely a procedural compulsion. It is also submitted that the action of the respondents is contrary to the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967, particularly Section 6, which exhaustively enumerates the grounds for refusal of passport, and the insistence on obtaining consent of the father does not fall within any of the statutory grounds prescribed therein.

24.We thus find that such valuable constitutional right of the petitioner cannot be prejudiced much less be taken away, and merely on the ground as contained in the impugned communication dated 18 November, 2024 issued by respondent no. 2.

Further Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967 provides for Refusal of passports, travel documents etc. The ground on which the application of the petitioner is not being processed is in no manner whatsoever recognized Section 6 of the Passport Act. In the aforesaid circumstances, we find that there is no warrant in law for respondent no. 2 to deny the re-issuance of passport to the petitioner when the declaration in Annexure-C was submitted by the petitioner's mother."

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha HEAD-NOTE Where custody of the minor child is with the mother pursuant to a decree of divorce, passport authorities cannot insist mechanically upon consent of the father for issuance of passport. Refusal to process the application solely on account of non-submission of father's consent was held arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.