Introduction:
In a progressive and compassionate judgment reinforcing the rights of single and divorced parents, the Gujarat High Court in Minor Khrisha Suresh Hemnani & Ors. v. Regional Passport Office Ahmedabad & Anr., R/SCA No. 14738 of 2025, ruled that a divorced mother can renew the passports of her minor children without the consent or No Objection Certificate (NOC) of the father. Justice L.S. Pirzada, presiding over the matter, observed that the Passport Authority’s refusal to renew the passports was unjustified since the parents were already divorced and a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between them had granted custody of the children to the mother. The Court referred to Section 4(3) of Schedule II of the Passport Rules, 1980, which explicitly allows a single parent—whether separated or divorced—to apply for or renew a passport for their minor child without requiring the consent of the other parent. The decision is particularly significant as it underscores the need for administrative sensitivity and a modern understanding of family structures in India, recognizing the autonomy of custodial single parents in decisions concerning their children.
Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioners (Mother and Minor Children):
Appearing for the petitioners, the counsel argued that the mother, having full legal custody of her minor children after divorce, should not be compelled to obtain the consent or NOC of the father for renewing the children’s passports. It was submitted that the marriage between the petitioner (mother) and respondent (father) was solemnized under Hindu rites but later dissolved by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The family court had granted a decree of divorce on 10 August 2022, recognizing a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed between the parents regarding the custody and welfare of their two minor children. As per this MoU, the mother was vested with exclusive custody of the minors, with the father relinquishing his custodial and daily decision-making rights.
The mother’s counsel contended that despite the legal custody being with her, the Regional Passport Office refused to renew the passports of her children solely on the ground that the father’s NOC was not attached to the application. This decision, communicated to her on 12 August 2025, was arbitrary, contrary to law, and caused undue hardship to the minors—particularly since one of them needed a renewed passport to appear for the SAT examination, a crucial step toward pursuing higher education abroad. The mother argued that the refusal not only violated the Passport Rules, 1980, but also infringed upon the fundamental rights of her children under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, depriving them of educational opportunities due to bureaucratic rigidity.
The petitioners’ counsel placed reliance on Section 4(3) of Schedule II of the Passport Rules, 1980, which provides that in cases where parents are separated or where one parent has exclusive custody of a minor child, such a parent can independently apply for a passport on behalf of the child. It was further argued that the rule explicitly extends to “single parents who are separated but not formally divorced,” meaning it must, by logical extension, include divorced parents as well. The petitioner emphasized that the authorities failed to apply this provision and continued to rely on an outdated interpretation requiring both parents’ consent, which is inconsistent with the spirit of the law and judicial precedents recognizing single-parent families.
It was further submitted that obtaining the father’s consent was practically impossible as there was no communication between the parties post-divorce. The mother also clarified that the divorce and MoU were entered into amicably, and the father had never contested her custody of the children. The insistence on his NOC therefore served no legal purpose and only created unnecessary hurdles. The petitioners’ counsel requested the Court to direct the Regional Passport Officer to treat the mother as a “single parent” and renew the passports without delay, as the delay was causing academic loss to the minor daughter.
Arguments on Behalf of the Respondents (Regional Passport Office and Father):
The counsel appearing for the Regional Passport Office defended the rejection of the passport renewal applications, stating that the authority acted in accordance with procedural requirements under the Passport Act, 1967, and the accompanying Rules. It was argued that as per existing administrative practice, the consent of both parents is generally required for the issuance or renewal of a minor’s passport to prevent potential custodial disputes or allegations of child abduction. The Regional Passport Office stated that the request for renewal was not denied permanently but was deferred pending submission of the father’s consent, as required by the checklist for minor applicants.
The counsel further submitted that such precautions are necessary to safeguard the interests of both parents and prevent misuse of passports in cases where custody disputes might arise later. The authority contended that its decision was in conformity with general procedural guidelines issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, which require both parents’ consent or a court order in the case of minors. It was argued that since the mother had not submitted a certified copy of a court order explicitly authorizing her to renew the passports unilaterally, the authority could not bypass the consent requirement.
The respondent father, though not contesting the custody arrangement, did not appear or object in court proceedings, indicating his non-participation. The Passport Office’s counsel thus urged the Court not to treat this as an admission of guilt or procedural failure, maintaining that its officers had acted “by way of abundant caution” to avoid any future complications. However, the Court found this approach overly rigid and insensitive to the realities of modern family dynamics.
Court’s Analysis and Judgment:
Justice L.S. Pirzada began by noting that there was no dispute about the fact that the mother and father were legally divorced and that the custody of both minor children was granted to the mother through a valid MoU incorporated in the divorce decree. The Court found that the rejection of the mother’s application by the Regional Passport Office on the ground of absence of the father’s NOC was both unnecessary and contrary to the intent of the law. The judge referred to Section 4(3) of Schedule II of the Passport Rules, 1980, which states that even a single parent who is separated—but not formally divorced—can apply for and obtain a passport for a minor child without requiring the consent of the other parent. The Court observed that this provision makes it clear that the intent of the law is to facilitate, not hinder, passport issuance in such cases.
Justice Pirzada emphasized that the authorities must interpret procedural rules in light of social realities and constitutional principles, not rigid technicalities. The judgment highlighted that insisting on an NOC from the father when the mother already holds lawful custody undermines the autonomy of single parents and disregards the welfare of the children, which must remain the paramount consideration in all matters involving minors. The Court observed that the petitioner had demonstrated genuine and pressing reasons for renewal—the need for the minor daughter to take her SAT examination—which made the urgency of the situation clear.
The Court also underscored that the Passport Rules, 1980, were framed to ensure administrative convenience, not to create procedural roadblocks in genuine cases. Justice Pirzada noted that “apparently by way of abundant caution, the authority has indicated that the passport could not be granted unless there is consent of any of the parents or a court order.” However, he clarified that in this case, both conditions were already satisfied since the parents were divorced and a valid MoU existed awarding custody to the mother. The Court remarked that when the legal custody of minors is conclusively settled, the administrative authorities must act accordingly and not demand redundant documents such as a non-existent consent from a parent who no longer has custodial rights.
In a clear and progressive interpretation, the Court held that the mother, being a divorced and custodial parent, falls squarely within the meaning of “single parent” under Section 4(3) of Schedule II of the Passport Rules, 1980. Consequently, she was entitled to apply for and obtain renewal of the minors’ passports independently. The Court rejected the argument that a divorced mother cannot be treated as a single parent for the purposes of passport issuance, stating that such a narrow reading would defeat the purpose of the law and discriminate against divorced women and their children.
Justice Pirzada’s ruling also reaffirmed the judiciary’s role in harmonizing administrative procedures with constitutional values. The Court held that “considering the same, the petitioner no.3 (mother) has applied for renewal of the passport and the same was rejected by the respondent no.1 on the ground that the father’s consent or No Objection for minors’ passports has not been produced along with the application form. Considering the above, this Court is inclined to allow the present petition and the same is hereby allowed.” The Regional Passport Officer was accordingly directed to process and renew the passports of both minor children “as a single parent” as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one week from the date of the order.
This decision marks an important precedent affirming that divorced mothers with custody rights do not need to depend on their ex-spouses for administrative approvals concerning their children. It also reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the welfare of children and the dignity of single parents. By reading the Passport Rules in a manner consistent with constitutional guarantees of equality and personal liberty, the Gujarat High Court has set a strong example for other High Courts to follow in similar cases.