IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2009 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 7035 of 2009(Y) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: -------------------- THALIKKAL MAMMUKUNJU UMAIBA, AGED 41 YEARS, D/O. KADARKUNJU MAMMUKUNJU, TALIKKAL HOUSE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH RESPONDENTS : ----------------------- 1. PASSPORT OFFICER, PASSPORT OFFICE, KOCHI. 2. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 7035 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner wants to change the name of her spouse in Passport. 2. According to the petitioner, she submitted an application and her application was returned by the 1st respondent with an endorsement to produce her divorce order and that led the petitioner to file this writ petition. 3. Petitioner states that she was living with a person by name Mr. Chandrabose Bobbish and although, there was no marriage, two children were born in that relationship. During their period of cohabitation, his name happened to be entered in the passport of the petitioner. However, later he deserted the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner got married to one Aboobecker Muneer. Exhibit P2 is the certificate of marriage issued by the Secretary of the Methala Grama Panchayath. Following her marriage, she made Exhibit P3 application to the first respondent for incorporating her husband's name as her spouse. Thereupon the first respondent returned the application with an endorsement to produce divorce order. W.P.(C) No. 7035 /2009 2 4. In the statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that it may have been on the basis of some documents that her spouse’s name was entered in the Passport. It is stated that once the name has been so entered, for changing the same, divorce order is necessary. 5. As stated above, the case of the petitioner is that as there was no marriage, and if so there cannot be a divorce also. If that be so, endorsement in Exhibit P3 requiring the petitioner to produce divorce order is incapable of compliance. Now that the petitioner admittedly got married and Exhibit P2 certifies the same, her request for incorporating spouse’s name in the Passport by changing existing one, is justified. 6. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing that it will be open to the petitioner to submit Exhibit P3 along with a copy of Exhibit P2, in which case, the first respondent shall accept the same and consider the request in the light of what is stated above and pass necessary orders. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the first respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm