Disposed

Jaziya M v. the Regional Passport Officer

Kerala HC20 Mar 2017WP(C)/1079/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought removal of ex-husband's name from passport via writ after talaq. Court directed petitioner to file fresh application with Passport Officer to trigger mandatory notice to respondent spouse and final proceedings within specified deadlines.

What did the court decide?

Directing petitioner to file fresh passport application; directing 1st respondent to issue notice to 3rd respondent and finalize proceedings within one month.

Jaziya M Vs the Regional Passport Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/29TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 1079 of 2016 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

JAZIYA. M., AGED 26 YEARS,

¶8

D/O ARAKKAL ABDUL AZEEZ ABDUL MAJEED, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT H.NO. 2/534-F, CALVATHY (PO), FORTKOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 001.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.R.O.MUHAMED SHEMEEM, SMT.NASEEHA BEEGUM P.S., SRI.T.P.ABDUL HAMEED.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR (PO), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 036.

¶12

2. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI.

¶13

3. AFSAL THAHA, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O A. THAHAKUTTY, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT H.NO. 31/20-B2, AMBELY PADAM ROAD, VYTTILA KARA, POONITHURA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶14

R1 & R2 BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSIST. S.G. OF INDIA. R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.SHANES METHAR.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

rs.

¶17

WP(C).No. 1079 of 2016 (H)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶20

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONERS PASSPORT BEARING NO. M 7190386.

¶21

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DT. 26/12/2015 IN CONNECTION WITH DISSOLVING MARRIAGE BETWEEN PETITIONER AND HER FORMER HUSBAND.

¶22

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PASSPORT APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER FOR DELETING THE NAME OF HER HUSBAND'S NAME IN PASSPORT.

¶23

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶28

W.P.(C) No.1079 of 2016

¶29

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 20^th day of March, 2017

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Petitioner is the holder of Indian Passport bearing No. M7190386, in which the name of the husband is shown as 'Afzal Thaha'. According to the petitioner, consequent to the pronouncement of 'talaq' on 26.12.2015, petitioner has submitted Ext.P3 application seeking to remove the name of the spouse. In Ext.P3, it is endorsed by the respective authority that no divorce decree is produced. It is thus seeking appropriate direction to remove the spouse's name from the Passport, this writ petition is filed.

¶32

Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a detailed statement, in which it is stated that the petitioner has not produced any decree of a court, which is a necessary requirement to consider the application submitted by the petitioner. Other circumstances are pointed out by the respondents contending that unless and until the mandatory requirements as per the Passport Manual are complied with by

¶33

the petitioner, the authority is not in a position to consider the

¶34

¶35

W.P.(C) No.1079 of 2016

¶36

application of the petitioner.

¶37

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶38

learned ASGI and perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties.

¶39

Even though notice is served on the 3rd respondent, there is no appearance. Anyhow, the online application submitted by the petitioner is to be considered by the statutory authority in accordance with law. In order to have a quietus to the issue, I think it is only appropriate to issue directions in the matter. Since Ext.P3 application was filed by the petitioner one year back, I think it is only appropriate, petitioner is directed to make a fresh application before the 1st respondent in order to consider the issue. If the petitioner makes any application within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, 1st respondent shall issue notice to the 3rd respondent and hear the parties, and finalize the proceedings within a month from the date of receipt of notice by the 3rd respondent, in accordance with law.

¶40

¶41

W.P.(C) No.1079 of 2016

¶42

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶43

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶44

St/20.03.2017

Jaziya M v. the Regional Passport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaziya M v. the Regional Passport Officer

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. Geetha Kumari T.S Vs State of Kerala

Thwalha Hassan Vs the District Collector, Malappuram

John Zachariah Vs the State of Kerala

Syndicate Bank Vs Sub Registrar

George Mathew Vs Shynamol

Damayanthi Vs Smt.K.S.Geetha