ORDER :

The petitioner is before this Court seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent/Regional Passport Officer, Bangalore, to renew/re-issue passport in terms of her application dated 02-07-2022.

2. Heard Sri M.S. Raghavendra Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Aditya Singh, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. Brief facts that leads the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-

The petitioner and one K.Shivakumar got married on 16.07.2009. From the wedlock a child is born and later, named as Sachin Anant, who was also issued a passport - a minor’s passport. It appears that after about 8 years, after the birth of the child, the relationship between the petitioner and her husband turned sore. The petitioner files a petition in M.C.No.174 of 2020, seeking a decree of divorce. It is submitted that the case is posted for its judgment on 25.11.2022. Earlier the petitioner had also filed a petition seeking custody of the minor son before the concerned Court in G & W.C. No.40 of 2019. The said case is pending consideration before the concerned Court.

4. The petitioner who claims to have the custody of the son, even as on date, seeks to visit Australia to celebrate Christmas along with her son and accordingly, applied for renewal/re-issuance of minor’s passport on the website of the 2nd respondent. A number was generated pursuant to the application, so submitted. Since the petitioner had separated from her husband, she has not submitted the specimen signature of her husband for re-issuance of the passport in favour of her son. Despite passage of two months, there was no communication from the hands of the 2nd respondent but was informed that the minor son’s passport would not be reissued as the minor son’s father -K.Shivakumar’s consent was mandatory for renewal/re-issuance of passport. The petitioner claims to have visited the office of the 2nd respondent several times, all of which went unheeded and, therefore, is knocking this Court seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent for re-issue of passport to the minor son, who is with the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that in the event there is dispute with regard to the marriage between the husband and the wife, the signature of one of the parents of the minor child, who is admittedly with the petitioner would be sufficient as the proceedings for custody is still pending consideration. The learned counsel would submit that the petitioner would undertake to come back after the holidays, attend Court proceedings and would not evade proceedings before the Court.

6. On the other hand, the learned Central Government Counsel representing the respondents would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that in pending divorce cases, the signature of other parent is mandatory as the other parent would become entitled to register proceedings against the 2nd respondent for having issued the passport without the consent of other parent. Therefore, no fault can be found with the denial of renewal/re-issuance of passport by the 2nd respondent.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record.

8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue in the case at hand is, ‘whether the 2nd respondent was right in denying issuance/re-issuance of passport to the minor’.

9. To consider the issue, it is germane to notice the statutory frame work with regard to issuance of passport to a minor. Section 24 of the Passports Act, 1967 (‘the Act’ for short) empowers the Central Government to make Rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. In terms of the said power, the Passports Rules, 1980 (‘the Rules’ for short) are made.