Factually Correct Joint Parental Declarations With Divorce/Custody Decrees Required For Minor’s Passport Applications; Karnataka High Court
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj held that when one parent applies for a minor child’s passport, the declaration in the application must state the facts accurately, and any assertion of a divorce decree with custody must be supported by enclosing the decree and custody order. The Court made this observation while allowing writ petitions filed on behalf of two minor children through their mother, seeking issuance of a fresh passport and renewal of an existing passport, after the authorities had declined to act on the applications for want of an undertaking from both parents. The Court directed the passport authorities to process the applications and pass orders within a specified period, subject to a joint declaration being filed by the mother and father.
The petitions were filed by the mother, representing her two minor children—one seeking re-issuance/renewal of a passport and the other seeking issuance of a passport for the first time. The Regional Passport Office did not process the applications because Annexure-C and Annexure-D were not enclosed, the latter requiring a joint declaration by both parents. The record indicated an ongoing matrimonial dispute between the parents, with related proceedings pending before the Family Court. Since the father was not initially impleaded, the Court directed that he be added as a respondent to ensure that any order passed did not affect him without hearing.
After appearance, the father stated that he had no objection to re-issuance of the daughter’s passport and issuance of a fresh passport for the son, subject to the mother complying with visitation directions in G&WC No. 26/2023. The mother had already filed an undertaking to comply with those visitation conditions.
The respondents submitted that the petitioner had incorrectly declared in the application form that a decree of divorce and custody order existed, though no such decree or order had been issued. The Court examined these submissions in light of the statutory requirements under the Passport Act, 1967 and the declarations required for processing passport applications for minors.
The Court recorded that the applications were not considered because “the applicants were minors, the applications were not accompanied by Annexure-C and Annexure-D, inasmuch as Annexure-D requires an undertaking by both parents.” It noted that there existed “a dispute between the husband and wife as regards which the children have been dragged into.” Since several matrimonial proceedings were pending, the Court stated that “unless an opportunity is given to the other spouse to make their submission, this Court would not have the complete information to pass necessary orders.”
After the father was impleaded, the Court recorded that he “would not have any objections for reissuance of the passport insofar as minor daughter is concerned and issuance of the fresh passport insofar as minor son is concerned, so long as the mother/wife complied with the directions issued in G&WC No.26/2023.” The petitioner-mother had filed an affidavit on 10.11.2025 undertaking to comply with those visitation directions.
On the issue of incorrect declarations in the passport form, the Court noted the respondents’ submission that the petitioner had declared that a divorce decree and custody order existed, though none existed. The Court stated that the explanation that the petitioner had “wrongly ticked the checkbox” due to lack of education “cannot be accepted in toto.” It, however, recorded that “taking into consideration that there is a matrimonial dispute which is pending and considering that the husband is not insisting on any action to be taken, this Court refrains from taking any action against the petitioner.”
The Court further observed that when an application is made by one parent, “the declaration which has been made should be factually correct,” and that if a divorce decree or custody order is claimed, the relevant documents must be enclosed. Since the father had now given his no-objection, the Court stated that the passport could be issued “subject to the respondent No.3-father filing necessary declaration in terms of Annexure-D.”
The Court ordered that “The writ petition in WP No.23851 of 2025 is allowed. Respondents are directed to process the application for re-issuance of the passport of the petitioner and pass necessary orders thereon, within 10 days of the Petitioner mother and respondent No.3-father filing declaration in terms of Annexure-D signed by both the mother and father.”
“The writ petition in WP No.23848 of 2025 is allowed.” It directed that “Respondents are directed to process the application for issuance of the passport of the petitioner and pass necessary orders thereon, within 10 days of the Petitioner Mother and respondent No.3-father filing declaration in terms of Annexure-D signed by both the mother and father.”
“In the event of any violation or non-compliance with the undertaking in Annexure-D, as contended in Annexure-D respondent No.2 could exercise its rights and powers and cancel/impound/revoke the passport so issued, on the basis of declaration/undertaking as also initiate such criminal proceedings as are permissible under the provision of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the Passport Act, 1967.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri. Nagaraj R., Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri. Aditya Singh, CGC / Sri. H. Shanthi Bhushah, DSGI, Sri. Amit Mandagi, Advocate for Smt. Swathi Mandagi, Advocate
Case Title: XYZ & Another v. Union of India & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: KHC:49560
Case Number: WP No. 23848 of 2025 c/w WP No. 23851 of 2025
Bench: Justice Suraj Govindaraj
