Mohammed Tajuddin v. 1. The Union of lndia

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: SRI K.V.RAMA RAO, SC FOR CENTRAL GOVT. Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI p.SWAMy The Court made the following: ORDER f H' r"tJ a HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI(A ORDER: 1 Thecaseofpetitioner-aretiredAdditional Superintendent of Police is that the 3'd respondent married his daughter who died on 31 .lo.2o2o and subsequently, he married another woman without intimation and teft the minor children of the deceased who are under the care of petitioner grandfather. It is stated, petitioner filed GwoP No. 83 of 2023 in Family Court, Ranga Reddy District seeking custody/guardianship of the minor and the same is pending for adjudication. Meanwhile, petitioner and his wife having valid 1.1. passports, are planning to go abroad to spend with their children and since the minor children of the deceased daughter werenothavingpassports,theycouldnotgothere.Petitioner therefore, is stated to have approached Respondent No'2 and applied for passport to the minor grandsons namely Abdul RaafaySyedandAbdulWaaseyJavidSyeddatedo2.o2.2o24. petitioner also submitted the affidavits as directed by the 2"d respondent, duly mentioning the pendency of GWOP' Later' the 2rd respondent insisted for the consent of father of the a 2 minor sons for issuance of passport vide letter dated OL-O4.2024 quoting Chapter 9 Para 4 of Passport Manual, 2O2O; when asked, the 3.d respondent bluntly refused and demanded for consent of entire property of the mother of the minor's (who is deceased) as well as hand over the gold of the minor's mother.

1.2. Petitioner states that it is practically impossible to obtain consent from the 3'd respondent. It is pertinent to note that GWOP Petition was filed by petitioner seeking guardianship of minors as the 3'd respondent is not taking care of them, hence, his consent is not at all required for obtaining Passport to minor sons. In similar circumstances, this Court in Writ Petition No. 31096 of 2022 by order dated 13.10.2022, directed the Passport Ofhcer to consider the Application of petitioner therein and issue passport to the minor son of petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri Dunna Ambedkar submits that the High Court of Kerala in Juuairiga a. Regional Passport OfJicert considered issuance of passport on consent not being obtained from the other parent and held that if the affidavit as required under the Passport Rules, 198O is submitted, then necessarily, Passport Officer would have to issue passport in the name of the minor child. ln Rabeeha u. '1zora1 r (K) ALT l99o ..,.-.:;:.'... .. t.j$fu1i* .., J d Mini,stry oJ Elcternal Affairs, Regional Pa,ssport, ofJicer2 and Chcritangds.^t\Icrira.Unionoflndia(UIP(C)No'22555of 2}2tl, the said principle was reiterated- Therefore, learned counsel seeks a direction to the 2nd respondent to issue passporttotheminorgrandchitdrennamelyAbdurRaafaySyed and Abdul WaaseY Javid SYed'

3.The3.drespondent-fatherofminorchildrenfiled counter stating that he is the natural guardian of minor children and continue to remain so under law; petitioner, who is only the maternal grandfather, has no legal right to unilaterally applyforpassportsforhischildrenwithouthisconsent.Itis stated, petitioner has deliberately suppressed material facts and is misusing the pending GWOP No' 83 of 2023 to claim guardianshipoverhischildren,despitetherebeingnofinal order from the Family court appointing him as a legal guardian' According to the 3'd respondent' the Passport 3.1. Manual, 2O2O, Chapter 9, Para 4 (4'6) clearly mandates that where a GWoP is pending, the Passport tssuing Authority shall insist on consent from both the parents or a direction/order fromthecompetentCourt.Petitioneristryingtobypassthis mandatorylegalrequirementbyfilingthepresentWritPetition. '1zots; Lawsuit (K)722 // 4 It is stated, he has not given consent and is not willing to provide such consent without being assured of their safet5r, custody, and welfare. He is still pursuing custody rights before the competent Court. It is also stated, children are being kept away from him without any lawful authority or visitation access. He denied the claim that he is not interested in the welfare of his children. Petitioner has an effective alternative remedy before the Family Court in the pending GWOP proceedings and cannot use this Court to override that jurisdiction.

4. In the additional counter, it is stated, in the Writ Petition, Petitioner falsely claimed to have applied for passports for both minor children. However, in the list of documents filed along with the Writ Petition, only one Application was shown. This clearly reveals suppression of facts and procedural lapses in the Petitioner's case. It is stated, after the demise of the 3'd respondent's wife lJzma Tapinda Tazon on 3|.LO.2O2O, he has been continuously taking care of his minor children. At no point of time, did he abandon or neglect them. Contrary to what is alleged, Petitioner forcibly took away the children from his lawful custody by misusing police influence and without any tawful order. I j i ) ,?

4.1. In fact,,Petitioner's wife filed the GWOP and not Petitioner himself. This is a deliberate misrepresentation made to mislead this Court. tt is also stated, the names of children were mentioned without prefixing "Late" before their deceased mother's name. This again shows the intention of Petitioner to suppress material facts and mislead the Passport Authorities' It is also stated, in fact, Petitioner and his elder daughter had suggested his remarriage for better care of the new-born baby, but after marriage, they refused to hand over the minor child, and resorted to blackmail, threats, and even physical abuse against him. It is stated, Petitioner's wife had earlier filed 4.2. M.C.No.186 of 2022 which was dismissed for default on 18.07.2024. Thereafter, I.A.No.28l of 2024 was filed by wife of Petitioner seeking restoration on the ground she is an old woman and unable to look after the bhildren. This directly contradicts the claims made in the Writ Petition and proves that they are incapable of taking care of the minors. It is also stated, Respondent No.3 regularly paying maintenance to his minors, and any contrary assertion by Petitioner is false and motivated' It is the Petitioner who is harassing Respondent No.3 through multiple legal proceedings without lawful justification. Petitioner 6 also liled a separate petition under Section 29 for limitation of the properties of Respondent No.3, which further reveals his ulterior motive to deprive him of his parental rights and .properties rather than act in the welfare of the children. 5. Learned counsel for the 3'd respondent P. Swamy tries to distinguish the legal position relied on by learned counsel for petitioner in Chaitanga S. .{\Iails case, where both parents were alive and had legally dissolved their marriage through mutual consent. But in this case, mother died and the biological father is still alive and petitioner intends to take away from father the minor children without his consent applying passports. Hence, the petitioner's objections are legally untenable and the reliance placed by the petitioner on selective portions of the Passport Manual is misleading and against the settled position of law.

5.1. It is submitted that in na,beena's case (supraf, petitioner instituted a divorce petition, which is currently pending adjudication before the competent Family Court. She has been deputed by her employer to travel abroad for employment purposes, and the minor child is required to accompany her. In this context, she approached the Passport i i c ( : .1 7 Authority for issuance of the passport for the said minor child. But in the case on hand, it is not the situation. 6- Petitioner filed reply to the counter stating that the Family Court granted interim maintenance of Rs. I2,0OO/- for both minor children under Crl. MP No. 292 of 2022 in MC No. 182 of 2022 on 24.07.2023. The Court observed that despite having sufficient earnings, father neglected the minor children, who were residing with the maternal grandparents. In Criminal Petition No. 7858 of 2023, this Court reduced the interim maintenance from Rs. 12,OOOl- to Rs. 8,000/- per month, i.e., Rs. 4,OOO l- per child. Despite this reduction, father failed to comply with the court's order and have not made any payments since 05.05.2OO4. The petitioner claims that during the maintenance proceedings, the respondents never sought custody of the children, further indicating their disinterest in the children's welfare.

6.1. Additionally, it is noted that the 3'd respondent's mother initiated criminal proceedings against him for the offences under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging harassment and explicitly opposing the idea of granting custody of the children to him. However, due to the respondent's mother's demise on O3.O7.2024, the said ./ r n 8 proceedings were abated and the respondent was acquitted, but not on merits. The acquittal was solely due to the complainant's death. It is also stated, a recent office memorandum dated

16.05.2025, No. Vl l4O1Oll02l2025 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs (PSP Division), modifies Annexures C and D concerning issuance of passports to minors. This modilication specifically removed the term "legal guardian". 6-2. Petitioner also points out that in a series of judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had upheld the principle that the right to travel should be prioritized and that administrative procedures should not impede access to essential services such as passport issuance. He contends that requiring a parent's signature for the minor's passport is unreasonable, which is contrary to the provisions of the Passports Act, 1957. The Passport Act's Annexure G, which addresses special circumstances where one parent may be unwilling to consent, provides that the Passport Authority can issue the passport to the minor without the other parent's consent if specific circumstances apply. Finally, petitioner asserts that unless there is a specific court order prohibiting issuance of minor 9 a children's passports, the Passport Authority should not deny the minors' right to have a passport.

7. Heard Sri K.V.Rama Rao, learned Central Government Standing Counsel.

8. The legal framework governing the issuance of passports for minor children is primarily governed by the Passport Rules, 198O and the Passport Manual, 2O2O- According to Chapter 9, Para 4 (4.61of the Passport Manual, in cases where a Guardianship or Custody Order is pending, the Passport Issuing Authority may insist on obtaining consent from both the parents, unless there is a specific court order allowing the passport to be issued to the minor without such consent. However, the Court must also take into account the welfare of the child, which is paramount in all matters relating to minors. From a perusal of the material on record, it is clear that the minor children are with petitioner - grandfather. Petitioner also filed guardian O.P. and the same is pending adjudication. So also a maintenance case wherein maintenance of Rs.12,0OO/- was granted to the minors. At the instance of the father, in Crl.M.P. before this Court, the said maintenance was reduced Rs.12,0O0 l- to Rs.8,000/- per month. These all show that :.: g'.; llr|l. E$.'&,*., x 6 l0 minor children are with petitioner and the 3'd respondent is not taking care of them. '

9. It is to be seen, the Constitution of India, under Article 21, guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which extends to the right to travel abroad. This right includes issuance of a passport to minors in certain circumstances where the non-consenting parent is either untraceable, indifferent, or has shown no interest in the child's welfare. In the present case, petitioner demonstrated that he has been the primary caretaker for the minors since the death of his daughter. The 3'd respondent remarried and has shown no interest in assuming responsibility for the children, as evidenced by his refusal to pay maintenance and his neglect in fulfilling his parental duties.

10. It is important to distinguish the current case from typical cases where both parents are alive and in dispute over custody. In this case, father has not only abandoned his parental responsibilities but has also actively refused to provide consent for issuance of passports for his children, despite being aware of the fact that the children are under the sole care of the petitioner. l1 ,t Further, the Regional Passport Officer' Hyderabad 11. in the instructions submitted to this court, stated that as per theoflrcerecords,Applicationsweresubmittedbythematernal grandparentsofminorchildren(reasonsfurnished_Motherof thechildrenexpiredandfatherdidnotgiveconsent);asperthe extantrules,adetailedletterdated06'05'2024addressedtothe father was issued asking him to provide consent for issue of passports to the minor children, however' the same is returned undelivered; grandparents fulfilled all the documentary requirements; a clear report is received from the police authorities;grandparentsfiledapetitionunderGwoPActand the same is pending before the lower Court; Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad was requested for conducting a discrete enquiryoftheentireissue;CommissionerofPolice,Cyberabad confirmed that the entire issue of minor children staying in the care of the grandparents and pending petition under GWOP etc' and recommended suitable action by this office; since a decision onthependingGwoPisyetawaited,theApplicationsarekept on hold. It is noted further that this office can reconsider their Applications, if petitioner submits either an order appointing him as the guardian of the children or father's consent for issue of passPort to the minor children' k.. t.: i- . mi, : t2 h t2.Fromtheaboveinstructions,itisclearthat Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad also confirmed that minor children are staying with grandparents. Further, petitioner has annexed the Memorandum dated 1605.2025 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs (PSP ) Division regarding modification in Annexure c and D or issuance of passport to minors - regarding clearly mentioned that the term legalguardian was removed from Annexure C and D' In the light of the above, this court is of the opinion 13. that petitioner's Application for issuance of passport for the minor children should be allowed. Petitioner, as the primary caretaker, made a compelling case for children's right to travel abroad with their maternal grandparents. The refusal of the 3'd respondent's consent does not invalidate petitioner's Application, especially when the 3'd respondent has shown no interest in the children's welfare and has not fulfilled his parental duties. The writ Petition is therefore, allowed directing L4. official respondents to issue passport to petitioner's minor grand children Abdul Raafay Syed and Abdul waasey Javid Syed, in accordance with law. No costs. r ,i l3 I t I , I

15. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. , //TRUE COPY// SD/.C. DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chief Passport Officer, Ministry of External Affairs, Room No.20, 1st Floor Patyala House, NH, New Delhi, Union of lndia.

2. The Passport officer, The Regional Passport Office, Hyderabad, D.No.8-2-215 to 219, Near Prashant Theatre, Kummarguda, Secunderabad-500003.

3. One CC to SRI AIvIBEDKAR DUNNA, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI P.SWAMY, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI K.V.RAMA RAO, SC FOR CENTRAL GOW. [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies qy, BSR \ JJ 6;-... \Sti:a HIGH COURT DATED: 3111012025 ORDER WP.No.5451 of 2025 ,-; :-.i:,.,.j 121 1,, t. M (.( c) ./. LC /. rl ', ';.:., \'v 'i. +'\. ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS Xr(