Allowed

Shakeena Mansoor v. Passport Authority of India

Kerala HC15 Nov 2016WP(C)/20759/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a direction to the Regional Passport Officer to update her passport reflecting her new spouse's name following a divorce by Talaq and a subsequent registered marriage. The Court observed that pronounced Talaq is valid under Muslim personal law and directed the Authority to consider the application and finalize the update within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd Respondent to consider the petitioner's application to update her passport reflecting her new spouse's name and issue a final decision within three weeks.

Shakeena Mansoor Vs Passport Authority… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/24TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 20759 of 2016 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SHAKEENA MANSOOR, AGED 24, W/O.MANSOOR VARIYATHPARA MOHAMMAD, PALLATH HOUSE, PALLAM P.O., THRISSUR, KERALA-679531.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.THIYYANNOOR RAMAKRISHNAN

¶9

SRI.ARUN KUMAR.P

¶10

SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. PASSPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-110066.

¶13

2. REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-682036.

¶14

3. PASSPORT OFFICER, PASSPORT SEVA KENDRA 2ND FLOOR, ROWDHA TOWERS, (NEAR RAILWAY STATION), POOTHOLE ROAD, THRISSUR, KERALA-680004.

¶15

*ADDL. R4 IMPLEADED

¶16

4. MANSOOR, S/O.KARAKKULAM ABOOBACKER, KARAKKULAM HOUSE, CHELAKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶17

ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 18.7.2016 IN IA.11091/2016.

¶18

R1 TO R3 BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

mbr/

¶21

WP(C).No. 20759 of 2016 (T)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶24

P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PASSPORT SHOWING THE ADDRESS OF THE PETITIONER.

¶25

P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY PALLAM HAYATHUL ISLAM JAMA-ATH COMMITTEE BEARING REF.NO.110/2015 DT.4-11-2015 REGARDING DIVORCE OF THE PETITIONER.

¶26

P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY HAYATUL ISLAM JAMATH COMMITTEE, PALLAM.

¶27

P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF MARRIAGE AS PER KERALA REGISTRATION OF MARRIAGE (COMMON)RULES, 2008.

¶28

P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE ENDORSEMENTS MADE BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN THE ONLINE APPOINTMENT RECEIPT DECLINING TO ENTER THE NEW SPOUSE'S NAME.

¶29

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS & ANNEXURES:

¶30

ANNEXURE R1A : TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.20327/E2/06/LAW DATED 2.12.2006 FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF LAW, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. ANNEXURE R1B: TRUE COPY OF CLARIFICATION RECEIVED BY THE CPV DIVISION, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶35

W.P.(C)No.20759 of 2016

¶36

Dated this the 15^th day of November, 2016

¶37

J U D G M E N T

¶38

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the 2^nd respondent to reissue her passport changing the name of his spouse in the passport. According the petitioner, at the time of issuance of Ext.P1 passport, petitioner was married to one Mansoor, son of Karakkulam Abubacker. Later petitioner was divorced by pronouncing Talaq by the above said Mansoor on 25.01.2015 in accordance with the procedure prescribed for the same, evident from Ext.P2. Later, on, 6.3.2016 petitioner married another Mansoor V.M, S/o K.Y.Muhammed, West Pampady, P.O, Thiruvilwamala, Thrissur District as per Islamic religious rites and rituals, and the marriage was registered as per the Kerala Registration of Marriage (Common) Rules, 2008, evident from Ext.P4.

¶39

W.P.(C)No.20759 of 2016

¶40

¶41

Even though, petitioner approached the 2^nd

¶42

respondent to change the name of spouse and has produced all relevant documents, 3^rd respondent declined to change the name of the earlier spouse of the petitioner to that of the present spouse. According to the petitioner 2^nd respondent is insisting for a court order evidencing divorce, by the earlier spouse. It is in this background seeking appropriate direction, this writ petition is filed.

¶43

A statement is filed by respondents 1 to 3

¶44

traversing through the contentions raised in the writ petition. It is stated that as per clarification received from CPV Division, Ministry of External Affairs, that any marriage registered after implementation of the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008 can be dissolved only by a decree of the competent court, evident from Annexure R1(b). Therefore, it is the contention of the respondents that, there is no illegality or arbitrariness on the part of the respondents in not changing the name of the earlier spouse.

¶45

W.P.(C)No.20759 of 2016

¶46

¶47

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶48

learned Assistant Solicitor General of India and perused the documents on record and pleadings put forth by the petitioner.

¶49

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the writ petition. Notice was issued to the additional 4^th respondent namely, earlier spouse of the petitioner and the additional 4^th respondent has not cared to appear before this Court, in order to contest the proceedings. Therefore, it can only be presumed that 4^th respondent is not interested in the subject matter.

¶50

Taking note of the respective submissions, there will be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioner and attain a finality in the same, taking into account Exts.P2, P3 and P4, at the earliest and at any rate within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, since pronouncing Talaq is a valid and accepted practice as per Muslim personal law.

¶51

W.P.(C)No.20759 of 2016

¶52

¶53

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶54

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

¶55

rmm/16/11/2016

¶56

[ True copy]

¶57

P.A. to Judge

Shakeena Mansoor v. Passport Authority of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakeena Mansoor v. Passport Authority of India

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

Bigeesh Varghese Vs the Daimler Finance Ltd.

N.Viswambharan Vs the Deputy Tahsildar

Kunjannamma N. Vs State of Kerala

P. Sreedharan Vs State of Kerala

Mayaveeran Vs M/S Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.

Vijayakumar Vs Deputy Tahasildar