The Madras High Court recently intervened in a custody dispute to ensure the renewal of a 15-year-old girl’s passport, prioritizing her education and welfare over procedural formalities. Justice S Sounthar directed the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and the Indian Consulate in Houston, USA, to process the renewal without requiring the mother’s consent, highlighting that strained parental relationships should not jeopardize a child’s future.
Background
The petitioner, the girl’s father, approached the court after the Consulate General of India in Houston rejected the passport renewal application due to the absence of the mother’s consent. The parents, married in 2008, relocated to the USA in 2013 for the father’s employment. Marital discord led to their separation in 2021, with the mother returning to India while the daughter remained in the father’s custody in Texas.
Read Also:- Kerala HC Contempt Case Filed Against ASHA Workers’ Protest for Blocking Roads and Footpaths in Trivandrum
The child’s passport was set to expire on January 28, 2025, risking her legal status and education in the USA. The Consulate insisted on a divorce decree, custody order, or attested photographs from both parents for renewal. The mother, however, conditioned her consent on the father facilitating her return to the USA—a demand the court deemed unrelated to the passport renewal process.
Justice Sounthar underscored the constitutional right to education and life under Articles 21 and 21-A, stating:
“The strained relationship between the parents shall not be allowed to affect the welfare of the minor child… A person cannot live a dignified life without proper education.”
The court noted that denying renewal could label the child an “illegal migrant,” disrupting her 10th-grade studies. It clarified that while custody disputes must be resolved separately, technicalities like parental consent should not hinder a child’s access to education.
The Consulate cited passport manual guidelines requiring both parents’ consent. However, it acknowledged exceptions where an affidavit from the custodial parent suffices if the other parent wilfully withholds consent. The mother, through her counsel, argued she was stranded in India after the father failed to repatriate her. She also filed a criminal complaint (Section 498A IPC) against him, pending investigation.
The court dismissed her conditional consent, observing:
“Legal remedies are open to the mother to address her grievances… Imposing unrelated conditions for passport renewal undermines the child’s interests.”
The court directed the MEA and Consulate to renew the passport by January 27, 2025, provided the father fulfills other formalities. It clarified that the order does not prejudice ongoing custody or criminal proceedings but serves the child’s immediate educational needs.
Justice Sounthar emphasized:
“Legal guardianship rests with the father in the absence of a custody order. Authorities cannot prioritize procedural hurdles over a child’s right to education.”
