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

2015 Supreme(Ker) 459

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
ABDUL LATHEEF MOULAVI KUNATHU VALAPPU - PETITIONER
Vs.
REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER ERANHIPALAM - RESPONDENT
W.P.(C) No. 14846 of 2015
Decided On : 29.5.2015

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
FOR THE APPELLANT : SRI. R. BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM), SRI. C. THEJUS PURUSHOTHAMAN
FOR THE RESPONDENT: SRI. N. NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL

The welfare of the child and the satisfaction of the Passport Rules, 1980, are paramount in deciding passport renewal in custody disputes.

Headnote:

Passport Renewal - Custody Dispute - Passport Rules, 1980 - Annexure 'G' - Juvairiya v. Regional Passport Officer - 2014 (1) KLT 990

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, grandfather of a minor child, sought renewal of the child's passport. The child's mother was divorced, and the father sought custody, which was denied by the Family Court. The Passport Issuing Authority refused renewal due to lack of consent from the father.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the father's right to custody was declined by the Family Court, and the child's welfare was with the mother. The court directed the renewal of the passport based on the satisfaction of the rules, requiring a separate affidavit explaining the circumstances.

Issues: Custody dispute affecting passport renewal, interpretation of Passport Rules, 1980, and the requirement of consent from both parents for renewal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the welfare of the child and the satisfaction of the Passport Rules, 1980, in allowing the passport renewal despite the custody dispute.

Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, and the petitioner was directed to file a separate affidavit for passport renewal within a week.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner is the grandfather of a minor child aged 10 years by name Jazim Abdulla. The minor child is the 2nd son of the daughter of the petitioner by name K.V. Sahla, who is working abroad. The daughter of the petitioner was married to one Manaf Parangot, in which wedlock they have three children - Naeem Abdulla, Jazim Abdulla and Ayisha Daniya. Admittedly, all the children had valid passports and they were residing with their mother at Abu Dhabi, where the mother is working. The petitioner's daughter - Sahla K.V. is said to be divorced from her husband Manaf Prangot, which is evidenced from Ext.P1 judgment of the Family Court, Kozhikode, in a case in which the father had sought for custody of minor children.

2. On requesting renewal of the passport issued to Jazim Abdulla, the same was not granted by the respondents for reason of there being no consent from the father and hence the petitioner is before this Court seeking consideration of Ext.P3 application. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents.

3. The respondents would specifically refer to the Passport Rules, 1980 and the three types of declaration Forms prescribed in the case of minors, being Annexure 'C', Annexure 'G' and Annexure 'H'. Annexure 'H' is the form to be submitted by both parents, Annexure 'C' by either parent when they are separated but not formally divorced and Annexure 'G' when consent cannot be obtained from one of the parents.

4. The petitioner, on behalf of his daughter, on the strength of a Power-of-Attorney, filed an application for renewal of the passport of the minor child Jazim Abdulla. The petitioner also swore an affidavit in Annexure 'G' and produced it along with the passport. However, admittedly, the reason stated was merely that the minor child's father has divorced his mother and that no order of custody of the child is produced before the Passport Issuing Authority.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, if at all, there is any defect in the affidavit, the same could be rectified by filing a fresh affidavit filed and seeks for a direction in the same lines as in Juvairiya v. Regional Passport Officer - 2014 (1) KLT 990.

6. Juvairiya v. Regional Passport Officer was a case in which the mother of a minor, a divorcee, had filed an application on the ground that consent could not be obtained from the father since his whereabouts were not traceable. Annexure 'G' was also filed along with the application. This Court found that whatever be the disability of the person making an application for a passport of the minor child, if an affidavit is filed in accordance with the Passport Rules, 1980, then, definitely the requirement in law is only the production of a sworn affidavit in the form prescribed in Annexure 'G', and in such circumstance, the Passport Issuing Authority would definitely have to consider the same and also grant renewal of passport in such cases.

7. The learned ASG would contend that the Passport Issuing Authority insists for a consent only to protect the interest of the father or mother who does not have the custody of the child and that in most cases they insist for a consent or at least a satisfaction that such consent could not be obtained from the other parent.

8. What is to be specifically noticed in the above case is that the fact that the petitioner's daughter is divorced, is evident from Ext.P1 order. Ext.P1 is the order of the Family Court, Kozhikode, in a petition in which the father of the minor children sought custody of the minor children. It is also evident that the petitioner and the respondent, being respectively the father and mother, are both employed abroad and the father had entered into a subsequent marriage also. The Family Court interacted with the children also before the order was passed and considering the response of the children, as also the circumstances




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
whatsapp-icon Back to top