SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Bom) 1804

High Court of Judicature at Bombay
A.S. OKA & G.S. KULKARNI, JJ.
Jigna Mahesh Dedhia
Versus
Union of India Through Secretary, Department of Ministry & Another
Writ Petition No. 6755 of 2014
Decided On : 13-10-2014

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mamta Sadh a/w Sushil Purohit i/b Dinesh Prakash Guchiya, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1, R2, M.S. Bharadwaj, Advocate.

Headnote:Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, Sections 5, 6, 15 and 16 Issuance of passport to minor child. - Since minor son has no relationship with his biological father hence refusal to issue passport to minor child with name of his adoptive father, unjustified. Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 has created a presumption of a valid adoption on the basis of a registered document of adoption. The reason as recorded by the respondent No. 2 that the application of the petitioner ought to contain the name of the biological parents, in view of the divorce decree and the deed of adoption goes completely contrary to the clear provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. This insistence on the part of respondent No. 2 cannot be sustained for two reasons; firstly that the name of the biological father has lost its relevance on account of the valid deed of adoption, as for all purposes the legal status as created by virtue, of a valid deed of adoption can only be considered. This is the requirement of Sections 5 and 6 read with Sections 15 and 16 of the Act. A presumption other than that what is created by these provisions cannot be envisaged by the passport authority in considering a passport application involving such facts. The legal effect of a valid adoption deed just cannot be overlooked by the Passport Authorities.

       The communication dated 6.5.2014 does not take into consideration these requirements of law and hence cannot be applied when there is a valid adoption in question. In cases where there is a valid adoption as per the provisions of the Act, the passport authority cannot insist that the applicant furnish the name of the biological parents. ’Such insistence obliterates the status of a person as created by a valid adoption and nullifies the deed of adoption which has all the sanctity and validity in view of the said provisions of the Act.

Judgment :

G.S. Kulkarni, J.

1. By an order dated 19.8.2014 notice for final disposal of this writ petition was issued. We have therefore, taken up the matter for final hearing.

2. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :

(a) That the Respondent may be directed by this Hon'ble Court to accept the application of Petitioner's son in the name of Jash Mahesh Dedhia and issue passport;

(b) Grant of such other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.

3. It is the petitioner's case that the previous marriage of the petitioner with one Mr. Jayesh Gala was dissolved by a consent decree of divorce by mutual consent dated 28th January, 2005 passed by the Family Court, Mumbai. Master Jash is her son from the said marriage. Under the consent decree passed by the Family Court the custody of her minor son 'Master Jash Jayesh Gala' (as named at the relevant time) was permanently given to the petitioner.

4. On 29.5.2008 the petitioner got remarried with one Mr. Mahesh Dhanji Dedhia. The petitioner's son Master Jash was adopted by Mr. Mahesh Dhanji Dedhia vide a Deed of Adoption dated 23.4.2009 registered with the Registrar of Assurances. This Deed of Adoption is executed by Mr. Jayesh Gala in favour of Mr. Mahesh Dhanji Dedhia. A copy of the decree of divorce alongwith the copy of Marriage certificate of the 2nd marriage and registered Deed of Adoption is placed on the record of this petition. In pursuance of the deed of adoption the name of the minor son Master Jash was changed 'as Master Jash Mahesh Dedhia so as to insert the name of the adoptive father Mr. Mahesh Dedhia. This change in the name was notified in the Gazette of the Government of Maharashtra dated 27.5.2009. The school record also show the name of the minor son as Master Jash Mahesh Dedhia. An Adhar card and a PAN card was also issued in the same name.

5. The Petitioner on this background made an application to the passport authority for issuance of a passport for her minor son in the name of Master Jash Mahesh Dedhia. All aforesaid documents necessary for the issuance of a passport were submitted along with the said application. In response to the said application, the Passport Officer issued a letter dated 6.5.2014 informing the petitioner that the petitioner had mentioned the name of the 2nd spouse as his father. It was stated that the Passport officer had examined the application and on the basis of the standing instructions of the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi the petitioner was informed as under:

“In the event of remarriage after divorce the name of stepfather or mother cannot be written in the passport of children from the previous marriage. The relationship of the child to his biological parents subsists even after divorce by parents. It is also not possible to leave the column of father or mother blank in the passport in such cases. Therefore such applicant must write the names of their biological parents in the application form.

However, if the stepfather or stepmother is appointed by a Court as legal guardian, the name of such stepparent can be written as legal guardian.”

6. On behalf of the petitioner, it is submitted that this communication dated 6.5.2014 is arbitrary and without application of mind to the facts of the petitioner's case. It is submitted that this communication of the Passport Officer does not take into consideration that there was a consent decree of divorce between the petitioner and Mr. Jayesh Vallabhji Gala passed by the Family Court, Mumbai. That the decree of divorce categorically recorded that the permanent custody of the minor son Master Jash shall continue to remain with the petitioner and that Mr. Jayesh Vallabhji Gala had thus given up his claim for the permanent custody and/or access to Master Jash. It is submitted that the decree categorically recorded the undertaking of Mr. Jayesh Vallabhji Gala that he shall not make any claim i




























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top