Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 16871
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
DINESWARY KRISHNAN – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C)/29154/2021
The court upheld the principle that a minor's welfare and rights supersede parental consent when legal issues prevent responsible decision-making.
Headnote:
Passport - Minor Child - Indian Passport Act - Sections 3, 4 - The court mandated the passport authorities to process the application for reissuance of a minor's passport, emphasizing the need for the child's welfare and the impact of parental consent limitations due to legal issues.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought reissuance of a passport for a minor child, which was delayed due to the mother's foreign citizenship status and a criminal case against the father.
Issues: Whether the passport authorities are obliged to consider the application for reissuance of a minor's passport in light of the father's legal circumstances and the mother's citizenship status.
Ratio Decidendi: Parental consent is not required when one parent is legally impeded from influencing the welfare of the child, underscoring the child's best interests.
Final Decision: The court directed the passport authorities to consider the application for reissuance of the passport within one month.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 29154 OF 2021 PETITIONER:
DINESWARY KRISHNAN, AGED 32 YEARS, D/O. KRISHNAN, AMRUTHAM VILLAS, POOLAKKAL PARAMBU, KOTTAYAI P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL ANJALI G.KRISHNAN P.ABDUL NISHAD RAIHANATH T.H.
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI 110 001
2 THE PASSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 682 036
3 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 001
4 MR VARUGHESE VARGHESE, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. VARGHESE VARGHESE, NJARAKOTTU HOUSE, MALLAPALLY NORTH P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN 689 594 BY ADVS.
MANU S., ASG OF INDIA SRI JUSTIN JACOB, SR GP BASIL CHANDY VAVACHAN GEORGIE SIMON CHARUTHA BHAIJU BASIL SCARIA ABEY GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The grievance of the petitioner in this case is non consideration of the application for re-issuance of the passport of a minor child namely Isha Varghese, holder of Indian passport No. N9883713 dated 22.07.2016 valid upto 21.07.2021 issued by the Regional Passport Office, Thiruvananthapuram. The application dated 09.12.2021 Ext.P8 was submitted to Regional Passport Office, Seva Kendra, Thrissur for re-issuance of the passport but the respondents are not considering the application as petitioenr’s mother is a Malaysian citizen and an OCI card holder i.e., Overseas Citizen of India.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the controversy pertaining to the mother being the citizen of some other country and the child being a holder of Indian passport has already put to rest by the judgment of this Court dated 08.03.2022 rendered in Writ Petition (C) No.22555/2021 titled as Chaitanya S. Nair Vs. Union of Inia and Others wherein this Court while considering the judgment of Supreme Court and the contents of the application form pertaining to issuance of passport and annexure attached thereto, issued direction to the passport authority to assess the application filed by the guardian i.e., the mother for re- issuance of the passport in the name of the minor who is an Indian passport holder much less the petitioner being a holder of an OCI card.
3. It is also contented that father, respondent No.4 had already been interdicted by the order dated 17.11.2021 Ext.P6 in a crime case bearing No.346/2021 registered under Section 354(A)(1) (i) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 read with Section 7 and 10 read with 9(m)(n) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 75 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 while granting of the concession of an anticipatory bail. Clause (c) of the condition while granting the bail reads thus:
“(c) The petitioner shall not contact the survivor directly or indirectly and shall not threaten or influence the witnesses and shall not tamper with evidence in any manner”
4. Adv.Krishna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.Manu, ASGI for Regional Passport Office do not deny the ratio decidendi culled out in the judgment dated 08.03.2022 referred supra and submits that the application of the petitioner would be processed for reissuance of the passport.
5. An attempt has been made by respondent No.4 to oppose the aforementioned prayer. I am of the view that the conduct of the respondent No.4 reveals that he is bent upon to hinder the life and liberty of the minor child which would be in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. There is already a crime case registered against the petitioner where there is an interdiction order. The consent of the father for assessing the application in such circumstances would
