IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 521 of 2008(K)
1. NISHA MAJEED, D/O. ABDUL MAJEED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SANTHAN V.NAIR
For Respondent :SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :24/01/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.( C)No. 521 OF 2008 - K
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 24 th day of January, 2008
J U D G M E N T
The prayer in this writ petition is to direct the respondents to
issue passport to Minnu Sadiq, the minor child of the petitioner on
the basis of Ext. P5 application. Petitioner submits that she was
married one Sadiq Shamsudeen Vettickal on 17.5.2000 and that in
that wedlock a female child was born on 2.3.2001, named as Minnu
Sadiq. It is stated that the petitioner was divorced from her
husband and Ext. P1 is stated to be a letter she has received
evidencing divorce by ‘talaq ‘. Though at that time she was residing
in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, she was sent back to Kerala and she
delivered the child in India and brought her up in her native place at
Alappuzha. Subsequently, there have been legal proceedings
between the parties and according to her all these have been settled
and Ext. P3 agreement is produced to show such settlement. It is
stated that the petitioner has Ext.P4 passport and she had given Ext.
W.P.(C) No. 521 OF 2008
– 2 –
P5 application to include the name of her child in the passport so
that she could take her child to Sharja. However, an objection was
raised by the Regional Passport Officer that for the issuance of a
passport to the petitioner’s child the signature of the father of the
child has to be obtained. Thereupon, the petitioner filed Ext. P6
affidavit saying that she had divorced her husband and that she was
looking after the child. Inspite of this, when passport has not been
issued by including the name of the child, this writ petition has been
filed by the petitioner.
2. The only objection that is raised when the writ petition was
taken up for hearing was that for including the name of the child in
the passport of the petitioner, the signature of the divorced
husband is necessary. This contention, is not shown to be
supported by any legal provision in the Passports Act or any
notification issued thereunder. Even otherwise, it is a condition
which is incapable of compliance at least in the facts of this case,
where the parents of the child are divorced. If such a contention is
imposed, the resultant position will be that it is impossible to
include the name of the child in the passport with the result the
W.P.(C) No. 521 OF 2008
– 3 –
petitioner, the mother, will not be in a position to take the child
along with her to the place of her employment.
3. I do not think that by taking such a technical approach a
mother should be deprived of her right to have her child with her.
In the result, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the
2nd respondent shall take up and consider Ext. P5 application made
by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon in the light of
the observations made herein above. This shall be done as
expeditiously as possible.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
jan/-