Though the counter is duly filed on behalf of the first respondent/the Regional Passport Officer, there is no representation on behalf of the second respondent.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The averments raised in the writ petition and in the counter filed by the first respondent are perused.

3. The guardian of the minor petitioner has come forward with this writ petition for issuing appropriate direction to the first respondent to issue Passport to the petitioner by duly considering the petitioner’s application, dated 5.4.2010, without insisting for the consent of the second respondent, Ms. Nithya/mother of the minor petitioner.

4. The brief facts relevant for consideration herein are as follows:

(i) The second respondent and Mr. Rangarajan, who filed this writ petition on behalf of the minor, got married on 18.4.1990 and the second respondent gave birth to two children out of the wedlock and they lived together till 1998 and misunderstanding arose between the parties during 1999, resulting in petition for divorce, on mutual consent, in F.C.O.P. No. 1896 of 1999 and the same was disposed of on 19.7.2000, by granting divorce on mutual consent and the p