Madras High Court Directs Passport for Minor on Mother’s Affidavit Where Father Had Not Exercised Visitation

The petitioner-mother sought a direction to process her minor son’s passport application after the Regional Passport Officer sought the biological father’s consent. A Family Court decree had granted custody to the mother and visitation rights to the father, who, according to the mother, had not visited the child and whose whereabouts were unknown. Considering the child’s scheduled participation in an Abacus Competition in Malaysia, the High Court directed the authorities to process the application on the mother’s affidavit confirming the father’s non-exercise of visitation rights and to issue the passport within one week. (Paras 2–8)

Key Proposition: Where a Family Court had placed a minor in the mother’s custody and the father had not exercised his visitation rights, the passport authorities were directed to process the child’s application on the mother’s affidavit and issue the passport within one week.

• Constitution of India – Article 226 – Passport for minor – Custodial parent – Whether the application could proceed without the father’s consent in the circumstances? Held, yes, upon the mother’s affidavit. (Para 7)
• Family Court custody order – Visitation rights – Whether the father’s non-exercise of visitation could be addressed by an affidavit for passport processing? Held, yes, for the purpose of this application. (Paras 2, 7)

Background / Synopsis :

• The petitioner was the mother of a minor child. Her marriage with the child’s father, S. Ranjith, was dissolved by mutual consent by the Family Court, Chengalpattu, in F.C.O.P. No. 284 of 2023 by decree dated 5 April 2024. The decree placed the child in the mother’s custody and granted visitation rights to the father.
• The mother stated that after the decree the father had not contacted or visited the child and that his whereabouts were unknown to her.
• The child had received an opportunity to travel to Malaysia to participate in an Abacus Competition scheduled for 22 November 2026. The mother applied for a passport for the child on 29 October 2026 as a single parent and enclosed the divorce decree.
• On 30 October 2026, the Regional Passport Officer sought clarification regarding the absence of the biological father’s consent and the omission of his name from the application, leaving the application pending. The mother approached the High Court under Article 226 seeking a direction to process the application under the Annexure C declaration.

Issues For Consideration :

• Whether the passport authorities could be directed to process the minor child’s passport application without the biological father’s consent where custody had been granted to the mother and the father had not exercised visitation rights.
• Whether an affidavit by the mother regarding the father’s non-exercise of visitation rights was sufficient for the limited purpose of directing passport issuance.

Submissions Of Parties :

Petitioner: The mother submitted that the father had not exercised visitation rights after the divorce decree and that his whereabouts were unknown. She did not object to the father’s name being included in the passport; her difficulty was obtaining his consent. Delay would deprive the child of the opportunity to participate in the scheduled educational competition.

Respondents: The judgment records the appearance of the Central Government Standing Counsel for the Regional Passport Officer and the Government Advocate for the State, but does not separately set out substantive counter-submissions by either respondent.

Court's Observations & Analysis :

• Custody and visitation arrangement: The Family Court’s decree dated 5 April 2024 had entrusted custody to the mother while preserving visitation rights for the father.
• Father’s non-exercise of visitation: The Court considered the mother’s statement that the father had not visited the child after the decree and that she did not know his whereabouts.
• Limited affidavit-based safeguard: Rather than requiring the mother to secure consent that she could not obtain, the Court directed the authorities to process the application upon her filing an affidavit stating that the father had not exercised the visitation rights granted by the Family Court.
• Time-bound processing: The Court directed issuance of the child’s passport within one week from receipt of the affidavit. The order did not decide or modify the underlying custody or visitation arrangement.

Decision & Directions :

• The writ petition was disposed of with directions to the respondents to process the child’s passport application upon the mother submitting an affidavit that the father had not exercised the visitation rights granted by the Family Court, Chengalpattu.
• Upon receipt of the affidavit, the respondents were directed to issue the passport within one week.
• No costs were awarded.

Legal Provisions Discussed :

• Constitution of India – Article 226: High Court’s writ jurisdiction, invoked for a mandamus directing processing of the passport application.
• Passport application – Annexure C Declaration: The application was stated to have been made under this declaration; the judgment did not set out a detailed interpretation of the governing passport rules.
• Family Court decree – F.C.O.P. No. 284 of 2023, dated 5 April 2024: Granted custody to the mother and visitation rights to the father.
• Principle: In the specific circumstances recorded, the passport process could proceed on the custodial parent’s affidavit concerning the father’s non-exercise of visitation; the Court did not lay down a general rule dispensing with parental consent in all cases.

Case Details :

• Case / Party Name: Priyanka Sarangan v. Regional Passport Officer, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India & Another
• Case Number(s): Writ Petition No. 45863 of 2026; CNR: HCMA012691952026; passport application file No. MA3067614066826
• Coram / Judges: P. T. Asha, J. – Single Judge
• Judgment Authored By: P. T. Asha, J. – Order
• Date of Decision: 12 November 2026
• Nature of Proceedings: Writ petition under Article 226 seeking mandamus for processing of a minor child’s passport application
• Letters Patent / Appeals: None
• Counsel Appearances: Mr. L. Santhosh Kumar for the petitioner; Mr. K. Thirukkumaran, Central Government Standing Counsel, for respondent 1; Mr. S. Arun Pani, Government Advocate (Criminal Side), for respondent 2

Disclaimer: This summary is an editorial aid and does not form part of the judgment. Refer to the original judgment before citing.