SMT. ANSHULA CHATURVEDI, vs UNION OF INDIA ,

1

AFR
Digitally
signed by
VISHAKHA
BEOHAR
VISHAKHA
BEOHAR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 2186 of 2024
1 - Smt. Anshula Chaturvedi, Wife Of Anjul Chaturvedi Aged About 33
Years D/o K.B. Chaturvedi, Resident Of Flat No. 106, Siddh Shikhar
Vistar, Shanti Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And Dist. Bilaspur, C.G.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Union Of India , Ministry Of External Affairs, Room No. 27, Patiala
House, Tilak Marg New Delhi- 110001
2 - The Passport Officer 1st Floor, Commercial Complex, Sector-4
Pandit Deen Dayal, Uppadhyay Nagar, Raipur, C.G. 492010
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioners :- Mr. Ujjawal Kumar Gouraha, Advocate
For Respondents :- Mr. Ramakant Mishra, DSG along with Ms.
Shweta Rai, Advocate
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order On Board
29.04.2026
1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India has been filed by the petitioner calling in question the action
of the respondent authorities in not issuing passport/visa in the
name of the petitioner’s minor son, namely Akshat Chaturvedi, on
the ground of non-submission of consent of the father. The
petitioner has further sought a direction to the respondents to

2
issue passport/visa in favour of the minor child without insisting
upon such consent.
2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner was
married to Anjul Chaturvedi on 21.02.2015 and out of the said
wedlock, a son namely Akshat Chaturvedi was born on
24.11.2015. It is submitted that the marriage between the
petitioner and her husband has been dissolved by a decree of
divorce dated 23.06.2022 and the custody of the minor child is
with the petitioner. The petitioner had earlier obtained
passport/visa for the child, which remained valid up to 21.02.2022.
Thereafter, upon expiry of the said passport/visa, the petitioner
applied for renewal/issuance of passport/visa for her minor son,
however, the respondent authorities insisted upon submission of
consent of the father. It is contended that since the petitioner is
divorced and is not aware of the whereabouts of her husband, she
is unable to produce such consent. Despite completion of all other
formalities, the passport/visa has not been issued, which
according to the petitioner is arbitrary and unsustainable.
3. Following reliefs have been prayed by way of this petition:-
“10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
call the records of case from the respondents.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
issue an appropriate writ, thereby directing the
respondent authorities to issue passport/visa in the

3
name of son of petitioner namely Akshat Chaturvedi,
without submitting consent letter of husband of
petitioner, forthwith.
10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit
and just in the facts and circumstances of the case
including award of the costs of the petition may be
given. ”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the
respondent authorities in refusing to issue passport in the name of
the minor son solely on the ground of non-production of the
father’s consent is illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law,
being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It
is contended that the insistence on such consent, despite the
peculiar facts of the case, is mechanical and without application of
mind. It is further submitted that the marriage between the
petitioner and her husband already stands dissolved by a
judgment and decree dated 23.06.2022 passed under Section 13-
B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the minor child is residing
with the petitioner. As per the said decree, the custody of the
minor child has been granted to the petitioner (mother), while the
father has only visitation rights, and it has been recorded that the
father has no objection to the custody of the minor child remaining
with the petitioner. Therefore, insistence on obtaining consent of
the father is wholly unjustified. It is also submitted that there is no
dispute regarding the custody of the minor child, and the
petitioner, being the natural guardian having actual custody, is

4
competent to apply for issuance of passport/visa. The petitioner is
not aware of the present whereabouts of her former husband,
making compliance of such requirement impossible and
unreasonable.
5. Learned counsel further submits that the minor child had earlier
been issued a passport valid for the period from 22.02.2017 to
21.02.2022, and therefore, denial of passport at this stage on
technical grounds is arbitrary and discriminatory. It is submitted
that the petitioner had applied online and was allotted an
appointment dated 02.08.2023; however, her application was
rejected solely on the ground of non-furnishing of father’s consent.
It is further contended that the assertion of the respondents that
the petitioner voluntarily sought closure of her subsequent
application dated 02.04.2025 is misconceived and misleading.
The petitioner was compelled to seek closure only due to the
persistent and unjustified insistence of the passport authority on
furnishing the father’s consent, despite the subsistence of a valid
decree of divorce and undisputed custody. Such closure cannot
be treated as voluntary abandonment but was merely a
procedural compulsion. It is also submitted that the action of the
respondents is contrary to the provisions of the Passport Act,
1967, particularly Section 6, which exhaustively enumerates the
grounds for refusal of passport, and the insistence on obtaining
consent of the father does not fall within any of the statutory
grounds prescribed therein.

5
6. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had applied in
terms of Annexure ‘C’ of the Passport Manual, which specifically
governs cases where one parent is unable to obtain consent of
the other parent. A plain reading of Annexure ‘C’ makes it clear
that it is intended to relax the requirement of consent of both
parents in genuine cases. The rigid insistence by the respondent
authority defeats the very object and purpose of the said
provision. It is also argued that as per the Passport Rules, 1980
and the Passport Manual, 2020, in cases involving divorced
parents, applications for issuance of passport to minor children
are required to be processed with care and sensitivity, and the
child’s right to travel abroad cannot be defeated merely due to
absence of consent of the other parent, particularly when custody
is undisputed. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978) 1
SCC 248 to contend that the right to travel abroad is an integral
part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,
and therefore, denial of passport to the minor child on such
technical grounds is unconstitutional. Reliance has also been
placed upon the various judgments passed in the matter of
Yushika Vevek Gedam vs. Union of India and Ors. 2025 SCC
OnLine Bombay 46, Chaitanya S. Nair (Minor) vs. Union of
India in the High Court of Kerala in WPC No.22555/2021, Poem
Jaiswar vs. Union of India and Another in the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad in WPC No. 9771/2025 as also in

6
Juvairiya vs. Regional Passport Officer in the High Court of
Kerala in WPC No. 1870/2014. It is thus submitted that the
petitioner has fulfilled all necessary formalities, and the rejection
of the application solely on the ground of non-production of
father’s consent is arbitrary, illegal, and liable to be set aside.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
submits that the requirement of consent of both parents is in
accordance with the applicable rules/guidelines governing
issuance of passport to a minor. It is contended that such
requirement is to safeguard the interest of the minor child and to
avoid any dispute relating to custody or parental rights. It is further
submitted that unless the requisite documents or exemptions as
per rules are furnished, the respondents cannot process the
application.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and upon
perusal of the material available on record, this Court proceeds to
examine the controversy in its proper legal and factual
perspective. At the outset, certain foundational facts are not in
dispute: (i) the petitioner is the biological mother of the minor
child; (ii) the marriage between the petitioner and her husband
stands dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 23.06.2022 passed
under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; and (iii) the
custody of the minor child has been unequivocally granted to the
petitioner, with the father retaining only limited visitation rights.

7
The decree further records that the father has no objection to the
child residing with the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner’s status as
the custodial parent is not only factual but also legally crystallized.
The core issue that arises for consideration is whether, in the facts
of the present case, the respondent authorities were justified in
insisting upon the consent of the father for issuance of passport to
the minor child.
9. Upon a careful reading of the statutory scheme governing the
field, particularly the Passports Act, 1967 and the Passport Rules,
1980, it is evident that the law does not mandate an inflexible or
absolute requirement of consent of both parents in every case.
Section 5 of the Act permits an application for a passport to be
made by a parent or guardian in respect of a minor. Further, the
administrative framework, including the Passport Manual and
prescribed forms, specifically contemplates situations where one
parent may not be available or where consent cannot be obtained.
Annexure ‘C’, which has been placed on record, is a clear
reflection of such legislative and administrative intent, providing a
mechanism for declaration by a single parent in appropriate
cases.
10. In the present case, the petitioner has invoked the said
mechanism by furnishing the requisite declaration and has also
explained that she is not aware of the present whereabouts of her
former husband. This assertion has not been controverted by the

8
respondents through any cogent material. In addition, the divorce
decree itself records the mutual understanding between the
parties regarding custody, thereby eliminating any apprehension
of inter se dispute concerning the minor child.
11. In this context, reference may also be made to the decision
rendered by the High Court of Gujarat in Minor Khrisha Suresh
Hemnani & Ors. vs. Regional Passport Office Ahmedabad &
Anr. in R/Special Civil Applicaiton No. 14738 of 2025 , wherein
the Court observed that procedural requirements relating to
consent of parents cannot be enforced in a rigid manner so as to
defeat the welfare and legitimate rights of a minor child,
particularly when one parent has lawful custody and there exists
no subsisting dispute regarding guardianship. The said decision
reiterates that the Passport Authorities are required to adopt a
pragmatic and purposive approach while dealing with applications
concerning minors and cannot insist upon compliance with
conditions that are either impracticable or unnecessary in the facts
of a given case. The principle laid down therein fully supports the
case of the present petitioner. Relevant paras of the said order are
quoted hereinbelow:-
“5. As per Section Section 4(3) of the
Schedule-II of the Passport Rules, 1980
provides that a single parent who is separated,
but not formally divorced, is also eligible to
endorse consent to prefer an application and

9
get a passport and it apparently by way of
abundant caution that the authority has
indicated that the passport could not be
granted unless there is consent of any of the
parent or if there was a Court order.
6. So far as the present case on hand is
concerned, it is not in dispute that decree of
divorce has already been obtained by the
present petitioner no.3 and respondent no.2 -
husband and subsequently, they got divorce
and as per the Memorandum of Understanding
executed between them, the custody of the
minor daughter and son is to be kept with the
mother i.e. the petitioner no.3 and considering
the same, the petitioner no.3 has applied for
renewal of the passport and the same was
rejected by the respondent no.1 on the ground
that the father's consent or No Objection for
minors' passports has not been produced
along with the application form.
7. Considering the above, this Court is inclined
to allow the present petition and the same is
hereby allowed. The respondent no.1 authority
is directed to consider the application dated
11.07.2025 preferred by the petitioner no.3 as
a single parent and renew the passports of
both the minor petitioner nos.1 and 2 i.e.
Khrisha Suresh Hemnani and Kiaan Suresh
Hemnani as expeditiously as possible
preferably within a period of 1 week from the
date of passing of this order.”

10
12. Similarly, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the
matter of Miss Yushika (Supra) has held as under:-
“21……………..In these circumstances, in our
opinion, considering the well-settled position in
law, it cannot be that the petitioner's right to travel
abroad by issuance of a passport can in any
manner be scuttled and/or taken away by denying
her a passport to be issued/re-issued merely for
the reason that the father for the only reason that
he has disputes with the mother, is not supporting
the petitioner's application by consenting to it. Also
the petitioner's mother has submitted a declaration
in Annexure-C, which is now required to be
considered and processed by respondent no. 2.
22. It is well-settled that the expression "person
liberty" which occurs in Article 21 of the
Constitution includes right to travel abroad and no
person can be deprived of that right except
according to the procedure established in law. It is
held that the procedure prescribed by law has to
be fair, just and reasonable, not fanciful,
oppressive or arbitrary. The right to travel abroad
is a facet of fundamental right guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India (See.
Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978 1 SCC
248)). The petitioner iscertainly entitled to such
constitutional right guaranteed under Article 21.
25. We may also observe that in the contemporary
times traveling abroad cannot be considered to be
a fanciful affair but has became an essential
requirement of modern life. Such need to travel

11
which may be the requirement of a child, a student
or an employee, professional or a person from any
other strata of the society, has undergone a
monumental change. Thus, the right to travel is
required to be not only recognized but made more
meaningful. This can be achieved and supported
by the authoritics implementing the provisions of
the Passport Act by effectively recognizing such
contemporary needs in dealing with passport
applications. The present case is an example of a
student being given an opportunity to undertake a
study tour by visiting a foreign country. Any action
of the Passport Authority in denying the passport
would have severe consequence not only
adversely affecting the applicant in a given
situation, but it may cause irreparable harm to the
prospects of the applicant, for any venture she or
he intended to undertake. Thus, a mechanical
approach in this regard by the Passport Authority
cannot be countenanced.
24.We thus find that such valuable constitutional
right of the petitioner cannot be prejudiced much
less be taken away, and merely on the ground as
contained in the impugned communication dated
18 November, 2024 issued by respondent no. 2.
Further Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967
provides for Refusal of passports, travel
documents etc. The ground on which the
application of the petitioner is not being processed
is in no manner whatsoever recognized Section 6
of the Passport Act. In the aforesaid
circumstances, we find that there is no warrant in
law for respondent no. 2 to deny the re-issuance of

12
passport to the petitioner when the declaration in
Annexure-C was submitted by the petitioner's
mother.”
13. The High Court of Kerala in the matter of Chaitanya
(Supra) has held as under:-
“12…………….., the passport issuing authority
cannot insist on consent from both parents for
issuing a passport to a minor child. Though in
earlier times, there was ambiguity and confusion
regarding the procedure to be adopted when
consent of both parents could not be obtained
while issuing a passport to a minor, by virtue of
several precedents, which were subsequently
incorporated as guidelines in the Passport
Manual, it has been provided that, if an affidavit is
filed in the form of Annexure-C (earlier Annexure-
G) of Schedule III of the Passport Rules, 1980,
the passport issuing authority can issue a
passport to a mino child, without insisting upon
the consent of both parents. Therefore, even if
one of the parents of a minor child refused to give
consent, the passport issuing authority is entitled
to issue a passport to a minor, provided
Annexure-C is submitted. Juvairiya v. Regional
Passport Officer, Malappuram (2014 (2) KHC 53)
is an authority for the above proposition.”
14. Also, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the matter
of Poem Jaiswar (Supra) has held as under:-

13
“22. On the issue of passport issuance to the
minor where parents had dispute, Bombay High
Court observed that a minor's right to travel
abroad cannot be prejudiced merely because the
father, involved in ongoing matrimonial
proceedings, refuses to give his consent or no
objection certificate. The absence of consent
from one parent in such circumstances cannot
nullify the constitutional rights of a minor, and a
mechanical refusal to process the application
cannot be countenanced.”
25. It appears that the Passport Rules, 1980,
have specifically foreseen the situation where the
consent of one parent of a minor may not be
obtainable due to unavoidable circumstances. In
such cases, the Rule provide a complete
procedural mechanism to ensure that the minor's
right to a passport is not defeated. The
prescribed Annexure C is required to be
submitted along with the passport application by
the applying parent. This annexure is a
recognized declaration that takes care of
necessary procedural requirements, enabling the
passport authorities to process and issue the
passport, even in the absence of consent from
one parent………..”
15. Similarly, the High Court of Kerala in the matter of Juvairiya
(Supra) has held as under:-
“7. It is evident from the guidelines quoted
above, that in the normal course, the
signature/consent of both parents is required for

14
issuance of a passport to a minor. It is however
stipulated that if in case the applicant parent is
not in a position to get the consent of the other
parent "for whatever reason" the parent applying
for a passport for the minor child may sign the
form and submit a sworn affidavit as per
Annexure "G" stating the facts and
circumstances of the case along with the
application. It is also stipulated that the affidavit
should also state that in the event of a court
case, he/she would be responsible and not the
Passport Officer. The guidelines also stipulate
that in such cases where only one parent is
applying, physical appearance of the minor child
may be requested to ensure the applicant parent
has actual custody of the minor child.
11…………. As stated in section III of schedule
III, if the applicant parent is not in a position to
get the consent of the other parent whatever be
the reason for such inability, all that is required
to be produced along with the application, apart
from other documents, is an affidavit in
Annexure "G". It is not necessary for such an
applicant to produce the consent of the other
parent or an order by the court granting custody
of the child to him/her.”
16. In such a scenario, the insistence on production of consent
of the father appears to be not only misplaced but also contrary to
the very object of the relaxation provided under the rules. The
authorities have failed to appreciate that the requirement of
consent is not an end in itself, but a safeguard intended to protect

15
the interests of the minor and to avoid disputes relating to custody
or unauthorized removal of the child. Where such concerns are
demonstrably absent as in the present case the mechanical
enforcement of the requirement defeats the purpose of the law.
17. This Court is also of the considered view that the approach
adopted by the respondent authorities suffers from non-
application of mind. The rejection of the petitioner’s application
appears to be based on a rigid and formulaic interpretation of
procedural requirements, without due regard to the peculiar facts
and the legal position governing the case. Administrative
discretion, particularly in matters affecting fundamental rights,
must be exercised in a fair, reasonable and context-sensitive
manner. The failure to do so renders the action vulnerable to
judicial interference.
18. Further, the right to travel abroad, as recognized by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, forms an integral part of personal liberty
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. While such right is not
absolute and may be subject to reasonable restrictions, any denial
thereof must be supported by valid statutory grounds. Section 6 of
the Passports Act exhaustively enumerates the grounds on which
issuance of a passport may be refused. Notably, absence of
consent of one parent especially in circumstances where custody
is undisputed is not one of the grounds contemplated under the

16
statute. Therefore, the impugned action cannot be sustained even
on statutory touchstone.
19. Equally important is the welfare of the minor child, which
must remain the paramount consideration in all such matters.
Denial of passport to a minor, who is under the lawful custody of
one parent, on account of an impracticable procedural
requirement, would operate to the detriment of the child’s interests
and opportunities. The law cannot compel compliance with a
condition that is either impossible to fulfill or has become
redundant in the given factual matrix. The contention of the
respondents that the petitioner ought to have obtained consent of
the father or complied strictly with procedural requirements does
not impress this Court, particularly when the statutory framework
itself provides for exceptions. Similarly, the argument that the
petitioner voluntarily closed her subsequent application does not
alter the legal position, as such closure appears to have been
occasioned by the persistent insistence of the authorities on an
untenable requirement.
20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is satisfied
that the refusal of the respondent authorities to process the
application of the petitioner solely on the ground of non-
submission of consent of the father is arbitrary, unreasonable, and
not in consonance with the statutory provisions. The action also
fails the test of proportionality and fairness, which are essential

17
components of Article 14 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the
stand taken by the respondents cannot be sustained in law.
21. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed . The respondent
authorities are directed to issue passport in favour of the minor
son of the petitioner, namely Akshat Chaturvedi, without insisting
upon consent of the father, subject to fulfillment of other
formalities as required under law.
22. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of
four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
23. No order as to costs.
sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Vishakha

18
HEAD-NOTE
Where custody of the minor child is with the
mother pursuant to a decree of divorce, passport
authorities cannot insist mechanically upon
consent of the father for issuance of passport.
Refusal to process the application solely on
account of non-submission of father’s consent
was held arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution.