Allowed

Thalikkal Mammukunju Umaiba v. the Passport Officer, Kochi and Another

Kerala HC24 Mar 2009WP(C)/7035/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition filed by a petitioner seeking to change her spouse's name in her passport. The officer had demanded a divorce order, which was impossible as the petitioner was never married to the previous man. The Court directed the officer to accept the petitioner's new marriage certificate for updating the passport.

What did the court decide?

The first respondent is directed to accept the petitioner's marriage certificate (Exhibit P2) along with the application (Exhibit P3) and pass necessary orders to incorporate the new spouse's name in

Thalikkal Mammukunju Umaiba Vs the Passport Officer… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2009 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 7035 of 2009(Y)

PETITIONER:

THALIKKAL MAMMUKUNJU UMAIBA, AGED 41 YEARS, D/O. KADARKUNJU MAMMUKUNJU, TALIKKAL HOUSE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH

¶11

RESPONDENTS :

¶12

----------------------1. PASSPORT OFFICER, PASSPORT OFFICE, KOCHI.

¶13

THE UNION OF INDIA, REP BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS,

¶14

NEW DELHI.

¶15

ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶18

W.P.(C) No. 7035 of 2009

¶19

Dated this the 24^th day of March, 2009

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Petitioner wants to change the name of her spouse in

¶22

Passport.

¶23

According to the petitioner, she submitted an application and her application was returned by the 1^st respondent with an endorsement to produce her divorce order and that led the petitioner to file this writ petition.

¶24

Petitioner states that she was living with a person by name Mr. Chandrabose Bobbish and although, there was no marriage, two children were born in that relationship. During their period of cohabitation, his name happened to be entered in the passport of the petitioner. However, later he deserted the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner got married to one Aboobecker Muneer. Exhibit P2 is the certificate of marriage issued by the Secretary of the Methala Grama Panchayath. Following her marriage, she made Exhibit P3 application to the first respondent for incorporating her husband's name as her spouse. Thereupon the first respondent returned the application with an endorsement to produce divorce order.

¶25

W.P.(C) No. 7035 /2009

¶26

¶27

In the statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it

¶28

is stated that it may have been on the basis of some documents that her spouse’s name was entered in the Passport. It is stated that once the name has been so entered, for changing the same, divorce order is necessary.

¶29

As stated above, the case of the petitioner is that as there was no marriage, and if so there cannot be a divorce also. If that be so, endorsement in Exhibit P3 requiring the petitioner to produce divorce order is incapable of compliance. Now that the petitioner admittedly got married and Exhibit P2 certifies the same, her request for incorporating spouse’s name in the Passport by changing existing one, is justified.

¶30

Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing that it will be open to the petitioner to submit Exhibit P3 along with a copy of Exhibit P2, in which case, the first respondent shall accept the same and consider the request in the light of what is stated above and pass necessary orders.

¶31

Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the first respondent for compliance.

¶32

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶33

scm

Thalikkal Mammukunju Umaiba v. the Passport Officer, Kochi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thalikkal Mammukunju Umaiba v. the Passport Officer, Kochi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Johnson.R. Vs K.a.Hashim

A.T.Idicula Vs T.P.Senkumar

M.J.Betty Vs P.T.Thomas and Another

K.a.Jelton Vs the Superintending Engineer

Neena.P. Vs the Registrar

M.S.Mohan Kumar Vs Biju John and Another