Smt. Hima Bindu [Maguluri v. 1. Union of lndia

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, direction, order, or orders, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in insisting on a declaratory order from an lndian Court refusing to update the name of the petitioner's current spouse, Mr. Pradeep Singh Dhanda, in the petitioner's passport pursuant to her appticatibn dated 03.05.2024 despite the petitioner;s compliance with all statutory and procedural requirements, as itldgal, arbitrary, violative of the Passport Rules, 1980, the notification issued by the Ministry of i' -j External Affairs vide GSR No. 1171 (E), dated 26.12.2016 Apart from being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and to consequently, set aside the requirement imposed by the High Commissioner of lndia in Brisbane to obtain a declirratory order from an lndian Civil Court authenticating the petitioner's divorce unde,r lndian law and further direct the respondents to issue the petitioner's ut'dated passport by incorporating her SpOUSe'S name. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition underSection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fik:d in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to process the application of the petitioner dated 03.O5.2024 for updating the sirouse's name in the petitioner's passport afresh without insisting on a declaratory order from an lndian Court. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for thr-. Respondents: SRI ANGOTHU NEHRU (s.c. FoR CENTRAL GOVT) The Court made the following: ORDER \l THE HON'BLE SRI IIIRIT PETITION No.13669 OF 2O25 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to declare the action of the respondents in insisting on a declaratory order from an Indian Civil Court authenticating the petitioner's foreigrr Civorce decree for processing her application dated 03.05.2024 for updating the name of her present spouse, Mr. Pradeep Singh Dhanda, in her passport, as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the Passport Rules, 1980, the Notification GQR No. LlTl (E) dated 26.L2.2A16, and Articles L4 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

2. Heard Sri K. Sai Varun, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Angothu Nehru, learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government, for the respondents.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, a permanent rqsident of Australia, was earlier married to Sri Shashidhar Rao Suryaneni in the year 2OO9, and the said marriage was d.issolved. by mutual consent by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia at Parramatta uide order dated 14.02.2020. \ \- I 2 Thereafte'r, the petitioner remarried Mr. pradeep singh Dhanda on 13.03.20:23, and sought to update her passport uid.e apprication dated 03 05.2024 to reflect the nalne of her current spouse. The responde'ts, however, insisted on the production of a ceclaratory order fronr an Indian civil court authenticating the foreign divorce decree

4. Learned counser for the petitioner contended that such insistence is contrary to the passport Rures, 19g0 and the Notificatio, GSR No. rtrr (E) dated 26.12.2o16, which explicitly dispenses with the requirement of any additional proof or court order for change of name or spouse's narne in the passport following rr-arriage, r€In&rriage, or divorce. It is also submitted that the said re<luirement violates Articles 14 and 21 of the constitution of India.

5. on tlr.e other hand, learned standing counsel for the respondentsr contended that as per chapter g (3.4.21 of the Passport Manual, 2o2o, any foreign divorce decree must be validated th'ough a decraratory order from a competent civil court in India befcrre an.y passport service can be granted. He contended that the earlier notification relied on by the petitioner stands I 3 superseded and that the respondents are bound by the latest instructions contained in the said Manual. {

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner placeJ reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme court in Jaiveer singh and others v. state of uttarakhand and othersr and the judgment of the Kerala High court in Nibu Mathew Titus v. union of India2, wherein it has been held that when a divorce is granted by a competent foreign court with mutual consent and participation of both parties, such decree is valid and binding, ancl there is no necessit5r of obtaining a separate declaratory order from an Indian court for administrative purposes such as passport re-issuance. \

7. In view of the settled legal principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments, it is evident thet the res;.,ondents, insistence upon a declaratory order is unjustified when the foreign court had jurisdiction and both parties had voluntarily participated in the proceedings leading to dissolution of the marriage. I

8. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider and. process the petrtioner,s application dated 03.05.2024 for updating her spouse,s narrre in her.passport, ' z0z: ScC Onuine SC t 584 'w.n.1c; No.34864 of 2ol9 (G) ,/ T I i I I 4 without i.sisting on a declaratory order from an Indian civil court, in accord€ulce with law and applicable rules, within a period of four (4) weeks lrom the date of receipt of a copy of this orcrer. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if'any, pending in this writ petition, shall stancl closed. SD/. M. JAWAHAR REDDYA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (* SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY/ To

1. The Additional Chief Secretary Ministry of External Affairs' Union of lndia' SO (DB) 7t-8, South Block, New Delhi'

2. The cl^ief Passport officer PSP Division, Room No' 27, Patiala House Tilak 3. The Flegional Pass-port officer, D.No.8-2-215 to 21g Kummarguda' Marg, t'lew Delhi, 110001 SecunC eiabad-500003.

4. One CC to tr//s lndus Law Firm, Advocate [OPUC] 5. one cc to SriAngothu Nehru, S.C. for central Government [oPUC] 6. Two CD CoPies T J/IMP I f d HIGH COURT DATED:1t-911012025 ORDER WP.No.13669 of 2025 sTATS 0 [ rtB 2[2[ * I i /l' .:. DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOU-T COSTS KS \ l'1", '