IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16700 of 2009(F)
1. KANJIRATHINGAL ABDUL KHADER NISSAR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE PASSPORT OFFICER,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :19/06/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J.
----------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.16700 of 2009
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of June, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is the holder of an Indian
Passport, which is valid upto 11.10.2009. The
petitioner had earlier married a lady by name Safia
as per the religious rites and rituals applicable to the
Muslim Community. Dispute arose between the
spouses. Later, the petitioner divorced his wife by
saying ‘Talaq’ on 19.3.2009 as evidenced by Ext.P1.
The Jama ath Committee of the Juma Masjid,
Kunnatheri, Thayikkattukara issued a certificate on
31.5.2009 verifying this fact. Ext.P3 agreement was
also executed between the petitioner and his wife.
The petitioner has sought for deletion of the name of
his wife from the passport. He submitted Ext.P5
application in this regard. This writ petition has
been filed expressing an apprehension that the
respondents may insist on a formal decree of divorce
before dealing with the application correction as
W.P.(C).No.16700 of 2009
:: 2 ::
sought for by the petitioner. The issue whether a
decree of divorce is necessary in cases dealing with
an application for correction of passport submitted
by the persons belonging to Muslim Community has
been considered by me in detail in W.P.(C)
No.34730/08. It has been held as follows in
paragraph 5 of the said judgment:
“5. Authentication of divorce by
competent court is one of the methods of
proving a divorce or even the existence of a
re-marriage. But it is not the only method.
Divorce resultant upon a ‘talak’ pronounced
by her husband is a mode of divorce that is
accepted in the Muslim Community. An
affirmation of the state of affairs by a sworn
affidavit in the form ‘Annexure A’ would
suffice going by Clause 7 of Ext.R1(a). It is
affirmed that State Government does not
propose to make any addition to what is
already mentioned as due procedure under
Ext.R1(a).”
The facts of the present case are similar to those
considered in the aforementioned judgment.
W.P.(C).No.16700 of 2009
:: 3 ::
3. Heard learned counsel representing the
Assistant Solicitor General also.
In these circumstances, the writ petition is
disposed of directing the 1st respondent to deal with
Ext.P5 application, in the manner provided in the
Passport Information Booklet. The petitioner and his
former wife referred to in Ext.P3 shall file sworn
affidavit. Thereupon, the application shall be dealt
with on merits by the 1st respondent.
Sd/-
(V.GIRI)
JUDGE
sk/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge