Foreign Mutual Consent Divorce Decree Validates Passport Records Without Separate Indian Court Declaration

The petitioner and respondent no. 3 (ex-wife) were married in India in 2017 and later relocated to Canada

Due to irreconcilable differences, they executed a Separation Agreement in 2023 and jointly sought a divorce by mutual consent before the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada

The Foreign Court passed a Final Order dissolving the marriage on April 4, 2024

The petitioner subsequently remarried and applied to the Indian Passport Authorities to delete his ex-wife's name from his passport records

The authorities refused, citing Para 3.4.2 of the Passport Manual, which requires a declaratory decree from an Indian court even for foreign mutual consent divorces

The petitioner filed a civil suit in Delhi, which was dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction as neither party resided in India at the time of the foreign decree

Consequently, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking a mandate against the Passport Authorities

1. Whether a decree of divorce by mutual consent passed by a Foreign Court can be acted upon by Passport Authorities for altering passport records without a separate declaratory decree from an Indian Court

2. Whether the insistence on a declaratory decree under Para 3.4.2 of the Passport Manual overrides the principles of conclusiveness under Section 13 of the CPC

Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, which establishes that a foreign judgment is conclusive unless it falls under specific exceptions

Section 14 CPC, which creates a rebuttable presumption in favor of the jurisdiction of the foreign court

The Supreme Court precedent in Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi, which allows recognition of foreign matrimonial judgments if the respondent voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction or consents to the relief

Hague Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents, 1961, noting that apostilled documents must be treated as legalized without further consular attestation

The Court observed that the foreign decree satisfied the requirements of Section 13 CPC because both parties were habitually resident in Canada and had voluntarily submitted to the Foreign Court's jurisdiction through a joint application

It found that mutual consent is a ground recognized under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, thus aligning the foreign order with Indian matrimonial law

The Court criticized the Passport Authorities' reliance on Clause 3.4.2 of the Passport Manual, terming it an ex lege requirement not supported by the CPC or the Y. Narasimha Rao judgment

The Court reasoned that since the document was duly apostilled in accordance with the Hague Convention, it carried a presumption of authenticity that the State could not ignore

It held that demanding a separate Indian declaratory decree in cases of undisputed mutual consent would be pedantic, mechanical, and legally untenable

The Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the Passport Authorities to process the petitioner's request for altering his marital status in his records without insisting on a separate declaratory decree from an Indian court

The process is to be completed within eight weeks