IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2009 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 37752 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MANJUSHA.V.R, D/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, SANTHIMADOM, SOUTH NALUVAZHI, N.PARUR ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.P.K.RADHIKA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE PASSPORT OFFICER, PASSPORT OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. Addl.2. SURESH KUMAR, S/O. SAKARAN, SANKARADY HOUSE, SOUTH NALUVAZHY,, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM Addl.R2 is impleaded as per order dated 15.1.2009 I.A. No.670/09. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.37752 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of April, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner was married to the additional respondent. The marriage ended in divorce. In the wedlock, petitioner gave birth to two minor children named Keerthi and Kiran. Ext.P2 is the order of the Family Court, disposing of the 3 original petitions filed before it. From Ext.P2 it is seen that, though the petitioner has been given custody of the minor children, the 2nd respondent has been given visitorial rights twice a month. 2. Petitioner states that she wants to take her minor children abroad on a visit during the holidays and for that purpose she made an application to the first respondent for issuing passports to the minor children. According to the petitioner along with the application she also filed a declaration as contemplated in Aanexure-G to schedule III WP(c).No.37752/08 2 of the Passports Act and Rules also. Without considering the application so made by her, the first respondent insisted on the production of an NOC from the Family Court, which rendered Ext.P2 judgment. Thereupon the petitioner filed Ext.P4 affidavit expressing the difficulty in obtaining NOC in respect of the proceedings which are closed by the Family Court. Despite that, the application has not been considered. Therefore this writ petition has been filed praying to quash Ext.P3, the communication issued by the first respondent calling upon the petitioner to produce the NOC and to direct the respondent to issue passport as sought for. 3. As already stated, the marriage of the petitioner with the 2nd respondent has ended in divorce. Though the 2nd respondent has been given visitorial rights, since the petitioner wants to take the children out of the country on holidays, to ascertain whether he had any objection, in that regard, he was impleaded in the writ petition and notice was issued, which has not returned after service. In these WP(c).No.37752/08 3 circumstances, it is only to be presumed that he has no objection to the prayer sought for. 4. If as stated by the petitioner she has filed an application fully in compliance with the provisions of the Passport Act and Rules, in my view, the circumstances of the case justifying a direction to the first respondent to consider the application made by the petitioner and pass orders thereon,. Accordingly, the writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the application made by the petitioner, along with the materials produced and if she is otherwise eligible for the issuance of the passport, passport shall be issued to the minor children of the petitioner. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.37752/08 4