Riddham Deora S/o Mukesh Deora vs Union Of India, Through Joint Secretary (PSP) And CPO, CPV Division

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Raj) 852

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
Riddham Deora S/o Mukesh Deora – Appellant
versus
The Union Of India, Through Joint Secretary (PSP) And CPO, CPV Division – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17014 of 2026
Decided on : 18-08-2026

Important Points

The right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21. For minors, passport authorities cannot insist on consent from both parents if the applying parent provides the required affidavit (Annexure-C) under Passport Rules 1980, especially when the other parent has no active claim to custody.

Subject

Civil Law - Passport/Constitutional Law

Act Referred

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.21, Art.21(a)
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT : S.13, S.9

Headnote

(A) Fundamental Rights - Right to Travel - Right to travel abroad is an integral facet of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and cannot be denied by an arbitrary or mechanical procedure. (Para 13, 14)

(B) Passport Issuance - Minor's Passport - Consent of Parents - Under the Passport Rules 1980, the passport issuing authority can issue a passport to a minor child without the consent of both parents if the applying parent submits a sworn affidavit in the form of Annexure-C. (Para 15)

(C) Guardianship - Custody and Consent - A minor's right to education and travel cannot be prejudiced by the withholding of consent by a non-custodial parent who has not sought legal custody or visitation rights. (Para 10, 12, 19)

Issues: Whether a minor's right to travel abroad for studies can be denied by passport authorities solely due to the absence of consent from one parent when the parents are divorced and the child is in the custody of the other parent.

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Rahul Soni
For the Respondent: Mr. Navneet Singh Birkh

Table of Content
1. dispute over minor's passport issuance due to lack of father's consent despite parental divorce. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. father's lack of legal custody claim precludes his right to block a minor's passport for education. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. right to travel is a fundamental right; annexure-c under passport rules 1980 bypasses dual consent. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
4. mechanical denial of passports by authorities harms a child's future and violates constitutional rights. (Para 16 , 17 , 19)
5. direction to issue passport forthwith to the minor petitioner. (Para 20 , 21)

Order :

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.

Children are not property of their parents; rather they are independent individuals under the law. Parents are guardians and not owners.

"Whether a minor's right to personal liberty, education and travelling abroad under Article 21 and 21A of the Constitution of India can be denied merely because one parent withholds passport consent?" It is in this background that the issue involved in the instant petition is required to be decided.

1. The minor petitioner, through his natural guardian-mother, has knocked the doors of this Court seeking issuance of appropriate directions to the respondent-passport authority for issuance of passport to him.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he submitted an application through his mother for issuance of passport in order to study abroad. However, the respondent-passport authorities have refused to issue passport to the petitioner on a technical count that consent of the petitioner's father is missing from the aforesaid application; and on this technical count alone, the respondent-passport authorities have refused to issue passport to the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that marriage of the parents of the petitioner was solemnized on 21.02.2002 and from their wedlock, the petitioner was born on 07.05.2009. Counsel submits that on account of matrimonial dispute, both parents of the petitioner started residing separately and thereafter, the petitioner's father submitted an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, the Act of 1955') seeking restitution of conjugal rights; whereas the mother of the petitioner submitted an application under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 for dissolution of marriage. Counsel submits that the learned Family Court, Pali, vide judgment dated 09.06.2022 rejected the application under Section 9 of the Act of 1955, submitted by the husband i.e. father of the petitioner, while the divorce petition submitted by the wife i.e. the petitioner's mother has been allowed and their marriage came to be dissolved. Counsel submits that till date no application has been submitted by the petitioner's father, i.e. divorced husband, seeking custody of the petitioner or visitation rights to meet the petitioner. Counsel submits that the petitioner has passed his secondary school examination in the year 2024 and now he wants to study abroad for a better future. Therefore, an application was submitted by the petitioner, through his mother, before the passport authority for issuance of passport in order to travel abroad for his studies. However, the respondent-passport authorities have refused to issue passport to the petitioner for want of consent of his father. Counsel submits that since marriage of the petitioner's parents has been dissolved and the father is not interested in the domestic affairs of the petitioner, therefore, under these circumstances, it is not possible for the petitioner to obtain consent/signatures of his father and submit the same along with his passport application. Hence, on this technical count alone, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the opportunity and right to go abroad for the purpose of studies. Therefore, interference of this Court is warranted.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the prayer and submitted that as per the