Rajasthan HC Orders Passport for Minor Student Whose Divorced Father Withheld Consent, Citing Article 21

A 17-year-old's right to study abroad cannot be blocked because his divorced, absent father will not sign the passport application, the Rajasthan High Court held.

The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur directed the passport authority to issue a passport forthwith to a 17-year-old minor student, Riddham Deora, whose application had been sitting in limbo because the passport office insisted on his divorced father's written consent. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, sitting singly, held that withholding a passport on this ground alone violated the minor's right to personal liberty and the right to travel abroad guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court further found that the Passport Rules, 1980 themselves permit a single parent to substitute consent with a sworn affidavit in the form of Annexure-C — making the refusal not just constitutionally unsound but contrary to the applicable rules.

The Minor's Application and the Passport Office's Refusal

Riddham Deora was born on 7 May 2009 to Mukesh Deora and Anita Deora. The parents' marriage, solemnised on 21 February 2002, broke down. The father filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights; the mother countered with a petition under Section 13 of the same Act seeking divorce. Both matters were clubbed before the Family Court, Pali, which decided them by a common judgment on 9 June 2022. The Section 9 application by the father was rejected and the Section 13 divorce petition by the mother was allowed, dissolving the marriage.

Since that decree, Riddham has remained in his mother's custody. His father filed no application for custody under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and sought no visitation rights either. After passing his Class 10 examination in 2024 with what the court described as “flying colours,” Riddham secured an opportunity to study abroad. His mother applied to the passport authority on his behalf. The passport office refused, pointing to the absence of the father's consent as a mandatory requirement under Annexure-C of Schedule III of the Passport Rules, 1980.

The mother then moved S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17014/2026 before the Rajasthan High Court.

The Competing Positions Before the Court

Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rahul Soni, argued that demanding the father's signature was practically impossible: the marriage was dissolved, the father had no contact with the child, and there was no outstanding custody or visitation proceeding. Requiring the mother to chase down an estranged, disinterested parent for a signature would render the child's constitutional right hollow.

Counsel for the respondents, Mr. Navneet Singh Birkh, defended the refusal on the ground that the Family Court's judgment of 9 June 2022 did not contain a clear and specific order on the custody of the minor. Because custody was not expressly adjudicated, the passport office argued it could not identify which parent had lawful charge of Riddham, and therefore required consent from both.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Dhand opened with a pointed framing of the issue: “Whether a minor's right to personal liberty, education and travelling abroad under Article 21 and 21A of the Constitution of India can be denied merely because one parent withholds passport consent?” He then answered it decisively in the negative.

The court identified two independent reasons why the refusal could not stand — one factual and one legal.

On the facts, Justice Dhand found it undisputed that Riddham was in his mother's custody as a matter of fact. The father had never moved any court for custody or visitation since the divorce decree. The court reasoned that expecting the Family Court, Pali to have passed a specific custody order in proceedings confined to Sections 9 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was unrealistic, particularly when the father himself had not sought one. Holding the child's passport hostage to a court order that nobody had occasion or obligation to obtain would, the court said, amount to an arbitrary deprivation of a fundamental right.

On the law, Justice Dhand turned to Schedule III of the Passport Rules, 1980. He held that where a parent applying for a minor's passport cannot obtain the other parent's consent, that parent may sign the application and submit a sworn affidavit in the form of Annexure-C. Once such an affidavit is filed, the passport authority has no basis to insist on the other parent's signature. The court noted that earlier ambiguity on this procedure had been resolved through judicial precedents that were subsequently absorbed into the Passport Manual as guidelines.

To support this reading, Justice Dhand relied on the Telangana High Court's decision in L. Deepika v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine TS 2481. In that case, a mother had submitted the Annexure-C undertaking but the passport authority still refused a minor's passport because the estranged husband had not consented. The Telangana High Court set aside the refusal and directed issuance of the passport, observing that the Rules require only the Annexure-C affidavit and impose no obligation to obtain a court order merely because one spouse withholds consent. Justice Dhand applied the same reasoning to the facts before him.

The court also spoke to the constitutional dimension squarely. It reiterated that the right to personal liberty under Article 21 includes the right to travel abroad, and that any procedure curtailing that right must be just, fair and reasonable — not fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary. Refusing a bright student a passport because his divorced, uninvolved father will not sign a form was, in the court's view, precisely the kind of mechanical and arbitrary action that Article 21 prohibits.

Justice Dhand observed that travel abroad — particularly for education — has become an essential need rather than a luxury, and that a mechanical approach by passport authorities that ignores contemporary realities causes irreparable harm to applicants. He also noted, with some directness, that “children are not property of their parents; rather they are independent individuals under the law. Parents are guardians and not owners.”

Outcome

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand allowed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17014/2026 and directed the respondent passport authorities to issue a passport to Riddham Deora forthwith without any further delay. All pending applications were disposed of. The order is dated 18 August 2026 and is marked reportable.