Minor in mother’s exclusive custody can renew passport without father’s name, Rajasthan High Court rules

The petitioner, a minor born during his parents’ marriage, was placed in his mother’s exclusive custody when their marriage was dissolved by mutual consent in 2017.

In 2019, the respondents issued him a passport bearing only his mother’s name.

When his mother applied for renewal in 2024, the Regional Passport Office required an undertaking mentioning his father’s name.

The petitioner challenged that requirement and sought renewal without the father’s name

Whether the respondents could require the father’s name to be included, or an undertaking mentioning it, when processing renewal of the petitioner’s passport, notwithstanding the earlier passport issued without that name

Whether the petitioner’s mother, as the parent with exclusive custody, had satisfied the requirements for renewal by providing the court decree and the prescribed declaration

The Court considered Clauses 4.1, 4.3 and 4.5 of Chapter 4 of the Passport Manual, 2020: Clause 4.1 permits a passport application to give the name of only one parent or legal guardian; Clause 4.3 addresses applications for minors born to married parents, including where the parents are divorced; and Clause 4.5 provides for passport applications by the parent awarded custody, including the use of Annexure ‘C’ in specified circumstances.

It also relied on the Ministry of External Affairs’ 25 July 2018 notification, which permits the application form to provide only one parent’s name, and considered the Ministry’s clarification dated 28 February 2023 concerning exclusion of a parent’s name.

The Court relied on Shalu Nigam v. Regional Passport Officer and Smita Maan v. Regional Passport Officer for a fact-specific approach to excluding a parent’s name, and on Devyani Nitish Bhardwaj v. Union of India concerning the relevance of a custodial parent’s Annexure ‘C’ declaration.

The petitioner’s mother had been granted exclusive custody by the 2017 decree and had provided the decree and Annexure ‘C’ with the renewal application.

The Court considered these materials, the petitioner’s 2019 passport issued without his father’s name, and the applicable Manual provisions and clarification.

It concluded that the respondents had adopted an unduly rigid approach by requiring a further undertaking or the father’s name, without properly accounting for the custody decree and the declaration already furnished.

In the Court’s view, the circumstances warranted renewal without endorsement of the father’s name

It directed the respondents to process the renewal without requiring an undertaking as to the father’s name and to issue the renewed passport without that endorsement, subject to completion of requisite formalities, within one month after receipt of a certified copy of the order