IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 5TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 25668 of 2011(G) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- P.M. SHANAVAS, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.MEERAKUTTY, PULLEKUDIYIL HOUSE, PALLARIMANGALAM P.O., VARAPPETTY VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686 671. BY ADV. SMT.S.KAMALA (EDAPPALLY) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-36. 2. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-1. 3. SHAIMOLE A.C., ARPALATHINGAL (H), KAVAKKAD P.O., AAYAVANA VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-685 534. PRESENTLY A RESIDENT AT SHAIMOLE A.C., ROOM NO.114, ORYX TOWERS, JUFFAIR, P.O. BOX NO.11405, KINGDOM OF BAHRAIN. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASG. OF INDIA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/09/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 25668 of 2011(G) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PASSPORT OF THE PETITIONER DATED 21/10/2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT FOR MARRIAGE DATED 20/09/2006 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE DATED 19/12/2010 OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED FROM THE MAHAL DATED 04/01/2011. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE BOOKLET IN THE PASSPORT APPLICATION. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22/09/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 25668 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of September, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner made an application for passport describing the 3rd respondent as his wife and on that basis her name was entered in the passport as petitioner's wife. Now the petitioner says that the 3rd respondent was described as his wife on the basis of Ext.P2, an agreement with her. It is stated that Ext.P2 does not disclose a valid marriage and it being a nullity, her name should be removed from the passport. The petitioner also says that making such a request he made Ext.P5 request to the first respondent and that the first respondent has not acted upon the same. In such circumstances this writ petition is filed. 2. Once the petitioner has recognized the 3rd respondent as his wife and on that basis the first respondent has acted upon, first respondent cannot pronounce upon the validity of the marriage and on that W.P.(C) No. 25668 OF 2011 :2 : basis remove the name of the 3rd respondent from the passport issued. Hence I am not inclined to issue any direction in this writ petition. Therefore this petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/-