Case at a Glance
A six-year-old girl’s passport application, made through her mother, was rejected by the Regional Passport Office, Raipur, because her father had not given his consent. The parents had divorced by mutual consent in 2025, the decree gave custody to the mother, and the mother said she did not know the father’s whereabouts. The Chhattisgarh High Court held that the law does not impose an inflexible requirement of both parents’ consent, that a single-parent declaration is provided for, and that a mechanical refusal violates Articles 14 and 21. It directed the passport to be issued without the father’s consent within four weeks.
The child’s parents married in 2014 and she was born in October 2020. On 9 May 2025 the Family Court granted a divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The decree gave custody of the child to the mother, allowed the father limited visitation, and recorded that he had no objection to the child living with her mother.
The mother applied for the child’s passport on 13 December 2025. On 18 September 2026 the Regional Passport Office, Raipur rejected it because the father had not given a no-objection or consent. The mother told the High Court that she did not know where the father was, making his consent impossible to obtain, and that a later application had been closed only because the authorities kept insisting on that consent. The Union argued that both parents’ consent is required under the rules to protect minors and prevent custody disputes. No one appeared for the father.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can the passport authority refuse a minor’s passport solely because the father has not consented, where a divorce decree gives custody to the mother and she has filed a single-parent declaration?
Consent Is a Safeguard, Not an End in Itself
Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad examined Section 5 of the Passports Act, 1967, which allows a parent or guardian to apply on behalf of a minor, and the Passport Manual and Passport Rules, 1980, which provide for an Annexure ‘C’ declaration by a single or separated parent. He held that “the law does not mandate an inflexible or absolute requirement of consent of both parents in every case.” The grounds for refusal are listed in Section 6, and the absence of one parent’s consent in a case of undisputed custody is not among them. The Court followed its own earlier ruling in Smt. Anshula Chaturvedi v. Union of India and similar decisions of other High Courts, including Juvairiya v. Regional Passport Officer, Malappuram, (2014) 02 KL CK 0148, Chaitanya S. Nair (Minor) v. Union of India, (2022) 03 KL CK 0055 and Miss Yushika v. Union of India.
The Court observed that “the requirement of consent is not an end in itself”; its purpose is to protect the child and prevent custody disputes, and neither concern arose where the decree had settled custody and the mother’s statement about the father’s whereabouts stood unrebutted. Applying a rule so rigidly that it defeats its own purpose, the Court said, means “the mechanical enforcement of the requirement defeats the purpose of the law.” Relying on Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 01 SC CK 0026, it held that the right to travel abroad is part of personal liberty under Article 21 and can be denied only on valid statutory grounds. The refusal was arbitrary, disproportionate, contrary to Article 14 and against the child’s welfare, which must remain paramount. The closure of the later application did not change this, as it was the result of the authorities’ own insistence.
What the Court Actually Held
- The Passports Act and the Passport Manual do not impose an inflexible requirement of both parents’ consent for a minor’s passport; a single-parent declaration is expressly provided for.
- Absence of one parent’s consent, where a decree has settled custody, is not a ground of refusal under Section 6 of the Passports Act.
- A mechanical refusal without considering the decree and the declaration is arbitrary, violates Articles 14 and 21, and ignores the child’s welfare.
- The writ petition was allowed and the authorities were directed to issue the passport without the father’s consent, subject to other legal formalities, within four weeks.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Many single and divorced parents face rejections at passport offices because the other parent will not, or cannot be found to, sign consent.
- The ruling confirms that the Annexure C declaration route exists precisely for such cases and must be considered.
- It ties a child’s passport to Article 21, making arbitrary refusals open to swift writ relief.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Single and Divorced Parents
- Attach the divorce or custody decree and an Annexure C declaration to the child’s passport application.
- If the other parent cannot be traced, say so in the declaration; an unrebutted statement carried weight here.
- A rejection only for want of the other parent’s consent can be challenged in a writ petition.
For Counsel
- Cite Section 5 and Section 6 of the Passports Act: consent is not a statutory ground of refusal.
- Rely on Smt. Anshula Chaturvedi v. Union of India, Juvairiya and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India.
- Show that the purpose of the consent rule, preventing custody disputes, is absent where a decree has settled custody.
Key Takeaways
- Both parents’ consent is not an absolute requirement for a minor’s passport.
- A custody decree plus a single-parent declaration should ordinarily suffice.
- The right to travel abroad is part of Article 21; refusals must rest on Section 6 grounds.
- The Court ordered the passport to be issued within four weeks without the father’s consent.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the father’s consent mandatory for a child’s passport after divorce?
Not in every case. The Chhattisgarh High Court held that the law does not impose an inflexible requirement of both parents’ consent, and the Passport Manual allows a single parent to file an Annexure C declaration.
What documents helped the mother in this case?
The mutual-consent divorce decree giving her custody, the father’s recorded lack of objection to the child living with her, and her declaration that his whereabouts were unknown.
Can a passport be refused because a parent is untraceable?
The Court held that the absence of one parent’s consent is not a ground of refusal under Section 6 of the Passports Act where custody is undisputed, and directed issuance of the passport.
Conclusion
The High Court treated the consent requirement as a safeguard for children, not a barrier against them. Where custody is settled by a decree and the other parent cannot be found, insisting on his signature serves no purpose and violates the child’s rights.
Practical takeaway: A custodial parent should apply with the custody decree and an Annexure C declaration; if refused only for want of the other parent’s consent, a writ petition citing Sections 5 and 6 of the Passports Act and Article 21 is the remedy.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com